Matt Taibbi on Paul Landis

[Benjamin Cole]

Independent news giant Matt Taibbi notes Paul Landis: 

 

I happen to believe the Landis account, but I am not sure it changes the JFKA media landscape much, as is suggested by Taibbi. For example, there is still zero coverage of the JFK Records Act. 

BTW, Taibbi was recently was recently threatened with imprisonment by House Democrats, during his testimony on the Twitter files. 

How long until all independent voices are shut down, on the JFKA or any other topic? 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Yeah wow Matt! There goes the magic bullet theory!

Ben, Are you pushing to induct Taibbi into the  "JFKA Conspiracy Superstars Hall of Fame"?  Or maybe "new JFKA Conspiracy Superstar News Giant?"

That certainly was the only thing holding Taibbi back from "conspiracy supercoolness." He just couldn't conceive that anything could happen before him.

And maybe a good comeback after Musk fired him from the "twitter files".

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Yeah wow Matt! There goes the magic bullet theory!

Ben, Are you pushing to induct Taibbi into the  "JFKA Conspiracy Superstars Hall of Fame"?  Or maybe "new JFKA Conspiracy Superstar News Giant?"

That certainly was the only thing holding Taibbi back from "conspiracy supercoolness." He just couldn't conceive that anything could happen before him.

And maybe a good comeback after Musk fired him from the "twitter files".

 

 

In fact, Taibbi has not shown much interest in the JFKA. That makes his comment on the death of the SBT, due to the Landis revelation, seem out of place. 

But better a major independent journalist, Taibbi, say the SBT is dead, rather than that Landis is another untrustworthy kook. 

I admire the Taibbis, the Greenwalds, the Carlsons, the Breaking Points, the Hill reporters for at least trying to not be corporatist-government mouthpieces. I do not always agree with all they say, and I disagree on some issues. 

But alternative print media has all but died in the US. We are left with this small sliver of independent journalists on a few Youtube or Rumble outlets. 

When they are run out of business, and that could happen...then what? 

And what then for earnest, deep JFKA coverage? 

 

[Anthony Thorne]

Taibbi is really good, though really slow on a couple of the traditional conspiracy / deep politics issues. But I can live with that as the areas he covers in detail are usually top notch.

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Taibbi is really good, though really slow on a couple of the traditional conspiracy / deep politics issues. But I can live with that as the areas he covers in detail are usually top notch.

Agree. 

I would like to see more independent journalists, whether leaning left or right or just standing there, willing to take on establishment narratives, corruption, hypocrisy, censorship.  

The twitter files story is alarming. What you read on social media is being controlled, manipulated. 

If establishment powers want to bury the JFKA story, and the JFK Records Act stories...they can. 

 

 

 

 

[S.T. Patrick]

I'm not sure what I think of Landis' story. Ask me again in five years. However, I think what Taibbi wrote is valid and it's illuminating. What I think it shows is that the JFKA community hasn't always been great at the "elevator pitch." We expect people to read a stack documents, multiple websites, and six books if they just have a passing interest in the case. The problem is, I think a vast majority of people only have a passing interest in the case. We are the outliers, the extreme outliers. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill are basic names to everyone here. They are deep, DEEP facts to most Americans who will go to their graves having no idea who they are. We lose sight of this a lot as a community. We are so dismissive of those who don't "care enough." I've actually heard researchers in the self-appointed hierarchy say things like "I'm not going to educate people who know nothing with basic facts." Really? Why not? Were we all not "people who knew nothing" at one point early in our search? There is one researcher/author who gets pissy with people for asking her simple questions about one of these cases: "Read my book!," she demands. But at that point, and with that attitude, she's already lost them and they may even have a sour taste in their mouth about "these Kennedy people." Why couldn't she just answer a simple question for someone casually interested? It would have taken her the same amount of time it took her to write the "Read my book!" response. Ever met a researcher at a conference who looked past you, trying to find someone else more important to talk to? The reality: the hotel staff (average people) has no idea who ANY of them are. They're only stars in their own very small bubbles. Could you pick out Ridley Scott if he walked past you in a mall? Many couldn't. I couldn't. Most people couldn't pick out Oliver Stone, either. Obviously, that's not the case with Stone and this very specialized audience. And he's the most recognizable person in this field to the mainstream.

The point here is that Taibbi and others are almost forced to deal with their passive interest by reading small stories that break on an NBC News website, tweets, segments on 60 Minutes, and maybe a 45-minute History Channel doc, if they have the time. So when we exercise this bad habit of pointing them to books to make a point ("Really, Matt? You should read [this author] and [that author]..."), we're wasting time. It's a passing interest. But for most Americans, it's a passing interest. But passing interests are important. The majority forms lifelong opinions about things with passing interests. Whatever someone thinks about Rasputin or Anne Boleyn or William McKinley or John Wilkes Booth has been formed because they saw something short or heard something brief. It's the media's equivalent of an elevator pitch. We've always been bad at the elevator pitch, demanding people go deeper to be more serious about it - always a failure. There are important subjects in life that WE don't go deeper into because there is only a limited amount of time and resources that we all have. Does that make them unimportant?

So, if Taibbi's mind has been even slightly changed by a story I'm still unconvinced is 100% true, then GREAT! That's something. Landis' elevator pitch moment has been successful, despite those who always reflexively scream "limited hangout!" about every single thing. And, yes, while I realize that most people here would have rather had James Douglass's book turned into a film, the Levinson film may create new groups of those interested in the case - and that's not bad (I'm sure that's a minority opinion, and I'm fine with that). As a community, we've had decades to create content and pass this all down in simpler forms to high school and college students. Some have done this well. As a large group, we failed. Some of our best researchers failed because they continue to care more about impressing their perceived peers in the community than passing it all down to newbies. So, in 25 years when many have passed on, this community becomes the Pearl Harbor community: many are casually interested, some books are sold, but eh, it is what it is. Shrug.

It's good that Taibbi was slightly moved on the case by seeing some elevator pitch version of the Landis story. That's fantastic! Maybe we should all be better with people who are casually interested. Maybe?    

Edited October 30, 2023 by S.T. Patrick

[Vince Palamara]

5 hours ago, S.T. Patrick said:

I'm not sure what I think of Landis' story. Ask me again in five years. However, I think what Taibbi wrote is valid and it's illuminating. What I think it shows is that the JFKA community hasn't always been great at the "elevator pitch." We expect people to read a stack documents, multiple websites, and six books if they just have a passing interest in the case. The problem is, I think a vast majority of people only have a passing interest in the case. We are the outliers, the extreme outliers. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill are basic names to everyone here. They are deep, DEEP facts to most Americans who will go to their graves having no idea who they are. We lose sight of this a lot as a community. We are so dismissive of those who don't "care enough." I've actually heard researchers in the self-appointed hierarchy say things like "I'm not going to educate people who know nothing with basic facts." Really? Why not? Were we all not "people who knew nothing" at one point early in our search? There is one researcher/author who gets pissy with people for asking her simple questions about one of these cases: "Read my book!," she demands. But at that point, and with that attitude, she's already lost them and they may even have a sour taste in their mouth about "these Kennedy people." Why couldn't she just answer a simple question for someone casually interested? It would have taken her the same amount of time it took her to write the "Read my book!" response. Ever met a researcher at a conference who looked past you, trying to find someone else more important to talk to? The reality: the hotel staff (average people) has no idea who ANY of them are. They're only stars in their own very small bubbles. Could you pick out Ridley Scott if he walked past you in a mall? Many couldn't. I couldn't. Most people couldn't pick out Oliver Stone, either. Obviously, that's not the case with Stone and this very specialized audience. And he's the most recognizable person in this field to the mainstream.

The point here is that Taibbi and others are almost forced to deal with their passive interest by reading small stories that break on an NBC News website, tweets, segments on 60 Minutes, and maybe a 45-minute History Channel doc, if they have the time. So when we exercise this bad habit of pointing them to books to make a point ("Really, Matt? You should read [this author] and [that author]..."), we're wasting time. It's a passing interest. But for most Americans, it's a passing interest. But passing interests are important. The majority forms lifelong opinions about things with passing interests. Whatever someone thinks about Rasputin or Anne Boleyn or William McKinley or John Wilkes Booth has been formed because they saw something short or heard something brief. It's the media's equivalent of an elevator pitch. We've always been bad at the elevator pitch, demanding people go deeper to be more serious about it - always a failure. There are important subjects in life that WE don't go deeper into because there is only a limited amount of time and resources that we all have. Does that make them unimportant?

So, if Taibbi's mind has been even slightly changed by a story I'm still unconvinced is 100% true, then GREAT! That's something. Landis' elevator pitch moment has been successful, despite those who always reflexively scream "limited hangout!" about every single thing. And, yes, while I realize that most people here would have rather had James Douglass's book turned into a film, the Levinson film may create new groups of those interested in the case - and that's not bad (I'm sure that's a minority opinion, and I'm fine with that). As a community, we've had decades to create content and pass this all down in simpler forms to high school and college students. Some have done this well. As a large group, we failed. Some of our best researchers failed because they continue to care more about impressing their perceived peers in the community than passing it all down to newbies. So, in 25 years when many have passed on, this community becomes the Pearl Harbor community: many are casually interested, some books are sold, but eh, it is what it is. Shrug.

It's good that Taibbi was slightly moved on the case by seeing some elevator pitch version of the Landis story. That's fantastic! Maybe we should all be better with people who are casually interested. Maybe?    

This is an excellent comment. Very true, too. The average person "cares" but only so much and for so long- they have bills, families, jobs, kids, etc. to worry about. Facts.

That said, inroads can be made if we keep it (very) simple. In this soundbite age of Tik Toks [my channel does very well, indeed; shockingly so with zero promotion], short You Tube videos, etc., the average person doesn't have the time or doesn't (want to) MAKE the time, so short, sweet and simple works. I always say this is why the silly theory "the driver did it" is so 'sexy' and appealing to people: it "solves" it for them- the dude in the front seat in that there Zapruber [sic] film did it, so we have a name and a film to "prove" it. Going into long esoteric details about files and documents loses them big time.

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, S.T. Patrick said:

I'm not sure what I think of Landis' story. Ask me again in five years. However, I think what Taibbi wrote is valid and it's illuminating. What I think it shows is that the JFKA community hasn't always been great at the "elevator pitch." We expect people to read a stack documents, multiple websites, and six books if they just have a passing interest in the case. The problem is, I think a vast majority of people only have a passing interest in the case. We are the outliers, the extreme outliers. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill are basic names to everyone here. They are deep, DEEP facts to most Americans who will go to their graves having no idea who they are. We lose sight of this a lot as a community. We are so dismissive of those who don't "care enough." I've actually heard researchers in the self-appointed hierarchy say things like "I'm not going to educate people who know nothing with basic facts." Really? Why not? Were we all not "people who knew nothing" at one point early in our search? There is one researcher/author who gets pissy with people for asking her simple questions about one of these cases: "Read my book!," she demands. But at that point, and with that attitude, she's already lost them and they may even have a sour taste in their mouth about "these Kennedy people." Why couldn't she just answer a simple question for someone casually interested? It would have taken her the same amount of time it took her to write the "Read my book!" response. Ever met a researcher at a conference who looked past you, trying to find someone else more important to talk to? The reality: the hotel staff (average people) has no idea who ANY of them are. They're only stars in their own very small bubbles. Could you pick out Ridley Scott if he walked past you in a mall? Many couldn't. I couldn't. Most people couldn't pick out Oliver Stone, either. Obviously, that's not the case with Stone and this very specialized audience. And he's the most recognizable person in this field to the mainstream.

The point here is that Taibbi and others are almost forced to deal with their passive interest by reading small stories that break on an NBC News website, tweets, segments on 60 Minutes, and maybe a 45-minute History Channel doc, if they have the time. So when we exercise this bad habit of pointing them to books to make a point ("Really, Matt? You should read [this author] and [that author]..."), we're wasting time. It's a passing interest. But for most Americans, it's a passing interest. But passing interests are important. The majority forms lifelong opinions about things with passing interests. Whatever someone thinks about Rasputin or Anne Boleyn or William McKinley or John Wilkes Booth has been formed because they saw something short or heard something brief. It's the media's equivalent of an elevator pitch. We've always been bad at the elevator pitch, demanding people go deeper to be more serious about it - always a failure. There are important subjects in life that WE don't go deeper into because there is only a limited amount of time and resources that we all have. Does that make them unimportant?

So, if Taibbi's mind has been even slightly changed by a story I'm still unconvinced is 100% true, then GREAT! That's something. Landis' elevator pitch moment has been successful, despite those who always reflexively scream "limited hangout!" about every single thing. And, yes, while I realize that most people here would have rather had James Douglass's book turned into a film, the Levinson film may create new groups of those interested in the case - and that's not bad (I'm sure that's a minority opinion, and I'm fine with that). As a community, we've had decades to create content and pass this all down in simpler forms to high school and college students. Some have done this well. As a large group, we failed. Some of our best researchers failed because they continue to care more about impressing their perceived peers in the community than passing it all down to newbies. So, in 25 years when many have passed on, this community becomes the Pearl Harbor community: many are casually interested, some books are sold, but eh, it is what it is. Shrug.

It's good that Taibbi was slightly moved on the case by seeing some elevator pitch version of the Landis story. That's fantastic! Maybe we should all be better with people who are casually interested. Maybe?    

I agree with everything you say.

But...in the JFKA research community, we cannot agree on a "short story."

For me, it is that Gov Connally was struck at ~Z-295, and JFK at Z-313, and at 18 frames a second...well, do the math. This also lines up with the "bang....bang-bang" so many witnesses heard. Not possible for lone gunsel armed with a single-shot bolt action rifle. 

Others say that JBC was struck earlier than Z295, and JBC even made a 180-degree turn in his seat to check on JFK even after being shot through the chest. This directly contradicts JBC's testimony, is probably physically impossible...but even CT'ers say this. 

Then, we have Salandria wing, who say the JFKA mechanics do not matter, it was obviously a Deep State op, and let's roll from that foregone conclusion. 

Some even start the JFKA story with globalist Allen Dulles, and conclude he masterminded to JFKA. That's their elevator pitch. 

Still, I agree with you we should welcome people into the JFKA research community, regardless of their partisan or political stances, and welcome a mention by a Matt Taibbi or Tucker Carlson. 

But...I think the JFKA research community will forever be lost in the deep weeds....

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[S.T. Patrick]

On 10/30/2023 at 9:08 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

But...in the JFKA research community, we cannot agree on a "short story."

....

Still, I agree with you we should welcome people into the JFKA research community, regardless of their partisan or political stances, and welcome a mention by a Matt Taibbi or Tucker Carlson. 

But...I think the JFKA research community will forever be lost in the deep weeds....

 

 

 

I don't think we need to agree. Unity in academic communities that are hopelessly dis-unified is an unrealistic dream. I don't need a unified theory of 11/22/63 when I have five minutes with someone at a gathering. I need my own five minutes. Having a unified theory only means that it's been rubber stamped by the self-appointed hierarchies, and I have very little to no regard for academic hierarchies who believe they control or have approval over a narrative. Meeting a farmer with interest at a conference is just as important to me as meeting Peter Dale Scott, and I mean that (and I do have PDS books). I just have zero "star struck" in me, a great lack of respect for hierarchy in any circle, and I always have an eye-roll for those to whom it matters.

We will forever "be lost in the deep weeds," but many in the community prefer it that way. They'll always be interested in where David Morales did his grocery shopping in 1957 and whether he was third cousin once removed by three marriages, a family pet, and smoke rings to Fred Crisman. This is what they're interested in. Did Oswald do it? No! And we knew that before 1970. The case is resolved. The rest is hobbyism. It's fun hobbyism - in a way that only a murder mystery can be. It's fine hobbyism - I don't disparage anyone for spending a life in it. And I find it fascinating in so many ways, myself. I absolutely have a high interest in it. But the truth is that the case was resolved before 1970: it wasn't Oswald as a lone nut acting because he was a rabid Communist. I'm fine with that. 

And with that, my five-minute elevator pitch for those who ask (and people do actually ask because they know what "I'm into") won't be demands that they read this book and that book. It'll be five or six main factors and I'll explain that there is so much more. If they want, I can point them to books, but if not, I think your five minutes should be convincing. I'm not sure Z-Film frame numbers and audiology and chain of custody mistakes are going to do it. As Vince said, people with a casual interest want something sort of simple. Landis' story is pretty simple. But for many, it's "here are five facts that exonerate Oswald: A, B, C, D, E." Done. Not "Well, you NEED to read Sylvia Meager and Jim Douglass if you're EVER going to understand!!!" God, that's so.... ugh. That's when they tune us out. AND SHOULD.

With those who are casually interested, KISS (keep it simple, stupid) is probably best.    

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by S.T. Patrick

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, S.T. Patrick said:

I don't think we need to agree. Unity in academic communities that are hopelessly dis-unified is an unrealistic dream. I don't need a unified theory of 11/22/63 when I have five minutes with someone at a gathering. I need my own five minutes. Having a unified theory only means that it's been rubber stamped by the self-appointed hierarchies, and I have very little to no regard for academic hierarchies who believe they control or have approval over a narrative. Meeting a farmer with interest at a conference is just as important to me as meeting Peter Dale Scott, and I mean that (and I do have PDS books). I just have zero "star struck" in me, a great lack of respect for hierarchy in any circle, and I always have an eye-roll for those to whom it matters.

We will forever be lost in the deep weeds," but many in the community prefer it that way. They'll always be interested in where David Morales did his grocery shopping in 1957 and whether he was third cousin once removed by three marriages, a family pet, and smoke rings to Fred Crisman. This is what they're interested in. Did Oswald do it? No! And we knew that before 1970. The case is resolved. the rest is hobbyism. It's fun hobbyism - in a way that only a murder mystery can be. it's fine hobbyism - I don't disparage anyone for spending a life in it. And I find it fascinating in so many ways, myself. I absolutely have a high interest in it. But the truth is that the case was resolved before 1970: it wasn't Oswald as a lone nut acting because he was a rabid Communist. I'm fine with that. 

And with that, my five-minute elevator pitch for those who ask (and people do actually ask because they know what "I'm into") won't be demands that they read this book and that book. It'll be five or six main factors and I'll explain that there is so much more. if they want, I can point them to books, but if not, I think your five minutes should be convincing. I'm not sure Z-Film frame numbers and audiology and chain of custody mistakes are going to do it. As Vince said, people with a casual interest want something sort of simple. Landis' story is pretty simple. But for many, it's "here are five facts that exonerate Oswald: A, B, C, D, E." Done. Not "Well, you NEED to read Sylvia Meager and Jim Douglass if you're EVER going to understand!!!" God, that's so.... ugh. That's when they tune us out. AND SHOULD.

With those who are casually interested, KISS (keep it simple, stupid) is probably best.    

 

All good.

I will state for the record I have never convinced anyone of anything on any aspect of the JFKA. 

 

[Denny Zartman]

On 10/30/2023 at 2:34 PM, S.T. Patrick said:

I'm not sure what I think of Landis' story. Ask me again in five years. However, I think what Taibbi wrote is valid and it's illuminating. What I think it shows is that the JFKA community hasn't always been great at the "elevator pitch." We expect people to read a stack documents, multiple websites, and six books if they just have a passing interest in the case. The problem is, I think a vast majority of people only have a passing interest in the case. We are the outliers, the extreme outliers. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill are basic names to everyone here. They are deep, DEEP facts to most Americans who will go to their graves having no idea who they are. We lose sight of this a lot as a community. We are so dismissive of those who don't "care enough." I've actually heard researchers in the self-appointed hierarchy say things like "I'm not going to educate people who know nothing with basic facts." Really? Why not? Were we all not "people who knew nothing" at one point early in our search? There is one researcher/author who gets pissy with people for asking her simple questions about one of these cases: "Read my book!," she demands. But at that point, and with that attitude, she's already lost them and they may even have a sour taste in their mouth about "these Kennedy people." Why couldn't she just answer a simple question for someone casually interested? It would have taken her the same amount of time it took her to write the "Read my book!" response. Ever met a researcher at a conference who looked past you, trying to find someone else more important to talk to? The reality: the hotel staff (average people) has no idea who ANY of them are. They're only stars in their own very small bubbles. Could you pick out Ridley Scott if he walked past you in a mall? Many couldn't. I couldn't. Most people couldn't pick out Oliver Stone, either. Obviously, that's not the case with Stone and this very specialized audience. And he's the most recognizable person in this field to the mainstream.

The point here is that Taibbi and others are almost forced to deal with their passive interest by reading small stories that break on an NBC News website, tweets, segments on 60 Minutes, and maybe a 45-minute History Channel doc, if they have the time. So when we exercise this bad habit of pointing them to books to make a point ("Really, Matt? You should read [this author] and [that author]..."), we're wasting time. It's a passing interest. But for most Americans, it's a passing interest. But passing interests are important. The majority forms lifelong opinions about things with passing interests. Whatever someone thinks about Rasputin or Anne Boleyn or William McKinley or John Wilkes Booth has been formed because they saw something short or heard something brief. It's the media's equivalent of an elevator pitch. We've always been bad at the elevator pitch, demanding people go deeper to be more serious about it - always a failure. There are important subjects in life that WE don't go deeper into because there is only a limited amount of time and resources that we all have. Does that make them unimportant?

So, if Taibbi's mind has been even slightly changed by a story I'm still unconvinced is 100% true, then GREAT! That's something. Landis' elevator pitch moment has been successful, despite those who always reflexively scream "limited hangout!" about every single thing. And, yes, while I realize that most people here would have rather had James Douglass's book turned into a film, the Levinson film may create new groups of those interested in the case - and that's not bad (I'm sure that's a minority opinion, and I'm fine with that). As a community, we've had decades to create content and pass this all down in simpler forms to high school and college students. Some have done this well. As a large group, we failed. Some of our best researchers failed because they continue to care more about impressing their perceived peers in the community than passing it all down to newbies. So, in 25 years when many have passed on, this community becomes the Pearl Harbor community: many are casually interested, some books are sold, but eh, it is what it is. Shrug.

It's good that Taibbi was slightly moved on the case by seeing some elevator pitch version of the Landis story. That's fantastic! Maybe we should all be better with people who are casually interested. Maybe?    

Good post.