Jump to content
The Education Forum

Would We Know The Truth If We Saw It?


Mark Knight
 Share

Recommended Posts

With all the investigative techniques employed over the past 42 years, a lot of widely differing theories and ideas have come out in regards to the JFK assassination. But if someone finally came forward and had a story that was true, and that named names and gave all the intimate details...would we know the truth when we saw it, or would we "pull a Posner" and pull out all the stops to try to refute it if it didn't follow our own "pet" theories?

How would we know the truth when we saw it? I'd like to see the responses from other forum members on this. I've given it a lot of thought, and while it troubles me, I have no answers of my own. So what answers do YOU have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good and thoughtful question, Mark. (I'll reply substantively later.) But I think it is important, if possible, to have the case "resolved" in some manner that the resolution becomes the verdict of history. The best way for that to occur, of course, would be if someone was convicted in a court of law.

Perhaps some DA can bring a charge against Victor Navasky and Katrina vanden Heuvel. (JHey, just kidding, of course!)

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
With all the investigative techniques employed over the past 42 years, a lot of widely differing theories and ideas have come out in regards to the JFK assassination.  But if someone finally came forward and had a story that was true, and that named names and gave all the intimate details...would we know the truth when we saw it, or would we "pull a Posner" and pull out all the stops to try to refute it if it didn't follow our own "pet" theories?

How would we know the truth when we saw it?  I'd like to see the responses from other forum members on this.  I've given it a lot of thought, and while it troubles me, I have no answers of my own.  So what answers do YOU have?

Good question indeed, I would like to think that the answer, in my case would be yes, if the evidence were strong enough then I would except it as the truth, whoever the finger pointed at. BUT,if the finger pointed at Oswald, Castro, who knows, I am as dogmatic as the next man..Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all the investigative techniques employed over the past 42 years, a lot of widely differing theories and ideas have come out in regards to the JFK assassination.  But if someone finally came forward and had a story that was true, and that named names and gave all the intimate details...would we know the truth when we saw it, or would we "pull a Posner" and pull out all the stops to try to refute it if it didn't follow our own "pet" theories?

How would we know the truth when we saw it?  I'd like to see the responses from other forum members on this.  I've given it a lot of thought, and while it troubles me, I have no answers of my own.  So what answers do YOU have?

1. As regards the actual assassination, rely ONLY on the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts.

This alone will set the course for where/whom/what to look for next.

So long as one is chasing the "smoke" of multiple assassins; body kidnappers and wound alteration specialists; and giant conspiracies which encompass almost half of the known world, then one is somewhat "lost at sea".

Once one recognizes the facts that a lone assassin was responsible, then one can begin to follow the course of the "who" was behind this lone assassin.

And the answer is still: NO!

For the same reason that persons such as Charles Manson; Jim Jones; Ervil LeBaron; The Wacko from Waco; etc; etc; etc; can still find followers, there will always be those who subscribe to and even pay for the rantings of the misguided.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark

Great question!

You used the phrase "pet" theories in a correct manner. Within the mind of this simpleton I have entertained several "pet" theories over the years. The most recent being a Civil Rights Theory that was not a theory at all but rather a collection of thoughts that fit well with some facts that I have gathered.

I have stated before that I did not start out believing that there had been a conspiracy. I spent a majority of my years of research without finding what I was willing to accept as legitimate proof of a conspiracy. Needless to say within the last three years I have "crossed over" into the relm of us "conspiracy" nuts. Yet I do not have enough proof to convince myself that I understand all the information that I have collected. I learn more evey week.

When will we know?

I will know when I feel that I have the proof necessary to convince a doubting professional that the truth is before them.

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all the investigative techniques employed over the past 42 years, a lot of widely differing theories and ideas have come out in regards to the JFK assassination.  But if someone finally came forward and had a story that was true, and that named names and gave all the intimate details...would we know the truth when we saw it, or would we "pull a Posner" and pull out all the stops to try to refute it if it didn't follow our own "pet" theories?

How would we know the truth when we saw it?  I'd like to see the responses from other forum members on this.  I've given it a lot of thought, and while it troubles me, I have no answers of my own.  So what answers do YOU have?

1. As regards the actual assassination, rely ONLY on the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts.

This alone will set the course for where/whom/what to look for next.

So long as one is chasing the "smoke" of multiple assassins; body kidnappers and wound alteration specialists; and giant conspiracies which encompass almost half of the known world, then one is somewhat "lost at sea".

Once one recognizes the facts that a lone assassin was responsible, then one can begin to follow the course of the "who" was behind this lone assassin.

And the answer is still: NO!

For the same reason that persons such as Charles Manson; Jim Jones; Ervil LeBaron; The Wacko from Waco; etc; etc; etc; can still find followers, there will always be those who subscribe to and even pay for the rantings of the misguided.

Tom

To quote someone who being a part of our government once said that the "fingerprints of intelligence were all over Oswald," the fact that in the annals of recorded history no "lone nut assassin" has ever participated in the bowels of intelligence related matters ranging from contacts with a Japanese Communist while stationed at Atsugi, (was) involved in monitoring U-2 flights over Russia, whose financial records (some of which are still classified) don't cover the costs of "going to Russia" ostensibly used the undeniably worst weapon on the face of the earth to "kill the President" and whose sojourn to Mexico City in Sept. 1963 has 42 years later still has not been adequately investigated, whose parafin test indicated that he did not fire a rifle that fateful day, whose dead hands were covered in ink courtesy of the FBI the day before his funeral (Now wev'e found his fingerprint on the rifle) and then pulled off the "crime of the century," to draw the conclusion that "Oswald did it" to be in the realm of Alice in Wonderland. I do not even have a problem with accepting Oswald as a participant on some level (If the facts ever proved conclusively that this was so.) I, and many others I suspect on this forum can actually "handle the truth." I have often heard the naysayers lament "We will never know in our lifetime what really happened." I find that attitude while to a great degree understandable, also VERY defeatist and not conducive to possessing the attitude required to achieve the goal that ostensibly we are all working towards. I even believe that there is a reward, if it can be called that, for those who spend a great deal of time researching the JFK assassination and the reward is that our perception of REALITY is more attuned to fact than fantasy and not the sugar coated perception of America as the "city shining on a hill" that is a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. The greatest injustice in the world is when good men stand idle in the face of evil. I do not idolize JFK but I believe that the legacy he wanted to leave our country would be heaven compared to the "vision" of the future that the neo-con followers of Leo Strauss in Washington have in mind, we have had five years of it so far and it sickens me more than anything I have seen since the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK in the 1960's. And to set the record straight, I love this country dearly, and my most cherished hope is that one day a grass roots effort by true Americans of every race, creed and color will rid this country of this most pernicious practice of corporate democracy and the Bush doctrine and restore "Of the people, By the people and For the people."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would we know the truth if we saw it?

I do tend to assume that other peoples minds function in similar ways to mine. Often of course that is only an approximation. Objectivity is a desirable state, and for me, an ideal to strive for, a recognition that it's not always there. I would hope that as a community there is a recognition that we have a responsibility to truth that dominates any personal differences.

Complicating things is the fact of consciousness existing on multiple layers reacting to input in ways predetermined by prior experience. Where these prior experiences are loaded with strong emotional content it becomes harder to see past them and remain equanimous.

As herd animals we tend to ally ourself to concepts and hence judge truth according to already existing criteria. Where these criteria are subtly false one may be less likely to divest oneself of the criteria than to reject some truth as the 'fear' of being outside of the tyrrany of conformism may override objectivity.

I suspect that some 'groupings' rely on such standover tactics to control the directions of investigations. If one chooses to cast ones lot in with such 'groupings' truth may suffer.

So, the I in the 'we' has many filters through which truth needs to travel. I doubt that all are always comfortable with the consequences of such truth should it actually reach full consciousness.

However, as a whole, I think it is possible.

It probably will be interesting to look back on all these isues and how various 'mentalities' choose to deal with them. Perhaps an essay in Early Global History 101 : the 21'st century: 'Looking at the various primitive electronic media forums that sprung up during the latter part of the 20'th century to deal with what then was an issue : "who killed the Kennedy's" (see early north american deiities) how did...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a person high up were to state facts. Bring them out and you know what would be his next expression? If you say this no one will believe you. That is how much to the truth that people would go towards. Yes, this is an interesting question and also an interesting situation.

Say a very well known person were to come onto this forum state facts and walk off and we read we scuffle at and we say that is impossible. Can't happen. Most might ponder and then say no no.

If a combination of people that were even involved were to say we know the facts the first thing most would say is go away.

Now take the news media. They announce something more most don't even pay any attention to it. That too just gets sort of scuffled under foot.

Actaully you have seen the truth from some just to a certain point and they don't believe it either and why should they?

Take the pictures, TAMPERED WITH and ONLY what is thought to make it more a puzzle compared to other photo's.

You don't have the gospel to it? Facts that are true from Warren Commission. Even some other groups that tried but failed.

This in itself say a great deal. We can't solve the puzzle until a full team of people admit to the truth. Has to take more than who is high it has to take a power to bring down a power to win the answer. The only way that you will reconize this puzzle is by just what I said. POWER TO BRING DOWN POWER

GOOD LUCK and CAN'T WAIT UNTIL IT JUST HAPPENS ONE DAY.

What do we all do when it does now that is the next question? So many are so in tuned to this they are dazzled by it all.

Edited by Nancy Eldreth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee, in one short sentence you have succinctly summed up the point I was attempting to make. What if the whole truth IS out there, for all to see, but we're so busy analyzing EVERYTHING that we give false leads and the truth equal weight...and the truth gets overwhelmed by the sheer volume of false leads? In separating the wheat from the chaff, the bulls**t from the bedding straw, sometimes I'm afraid we toss out some of the good with the bad...and, I'm afraid, we often fail to recognize what we've done. Then later, when there's a missing piece to the puzzle, we question what we have instead of what's missing...or vise-versa.

The human mind is amazing. It discovered that E=mc2, but then it gets fooled by simple optical illusions...not to mention the intentional deceptions through sleight of hand that occur. And so it is with the evidence in the JFK case. We know, and yet we know not; we believe, and yet we doubt. We see, and we fail to see. It's as if we've entered a carnival house of mirrors, where what we see is not necessarily what is. And sometimes our filtering mechanism to determine fact from fiction is faulty. Like a blind mouse with a faulty sense of smell, wandering through a maze...when we find the cheese, will we know it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee, in one short sentence you have succinctly summed up the point I was attempting to make.  What if the whole truth IS out there, for all to see, but we're so busy analyzing EVERYTHING that we give false leads and the truth equal weight...and the truth gets overwhelmed by the sheer volume of false leads?  In separating the wheat from the chaff, the bulls**t from the bedding straw, sometimes I'm afraid we toss out some of the good with the bad...and, I'm afraid, we often fail to recognize what we've done.  Then later, when there's a missing piece to the puzzle, we question what we have instead of what's missing...or vise-versa.

The human mind is amazing.  It discovered that E=mc2, but then it gets fooled by simple optical illusions...not to mention the intentional deceptions through sleight of hand that occur.  And so it is with the evidence in the JFK case.  We know, and yet we know not; we believe, and yet we doubt.  We see, and we fail to see.  It's as if we've entered a carnival house of mirrors, where what we see is not necessarily what is.  And sometimes our filtering mechanism to determine fact from fiction is faulty.  Like a blind mouse with a faulty sense of smell, wandering through a maze...when we find the cheese, will we know it?

Exactly why this was put away many years ago.

Too much garbage for one to have to sort through in order to be able to sort out the simple facts.

And, with the internet, it has grown proportionally.

Tom

KISS

Keep

It

Simple

Stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bet

Taylor and McCloy....while I have ideas and I have had other ideas, I do not yet understand why they would have done the deed. Not only were they placed to pull off the assassination but they were also properly placed to control the Warren Commission findings.

McCloy closely associated with Taylor begining in the days of civil control of Italy then later while governing a defeated Germany. Taylor's close relationship to Edwin Walker that has been totally purged from assassination history. Walker, Taylor and McCloys association to John B. Hurt. I find it to be to much of a coincidence that this former employee of the NSA just happened to be out of the country when Oswald attempted to contact a John Hurt but failed. Was it coincidence that this attempted phone call was withheld from the historical record of 1964. Was it a coincidence that Frank Rowlett, a 30+ year friend of John B. Hurt, did the NSA investigation of sensitive names that were associated with Oswald. Is it coincidence that Rowlett admitted that he withheld information from that report.

Kennedys route was controlled from Washington. Taylor had his man Chester Clifton in the White House who could influence the route.

Oswald attempted to assassinate Walker. Walker was traveling in Europe at the same time as Oswald, but the record of Oswalds movement from London to Helsinki is incomplete in the Warren Report. McCloy just happens to write a letter to Walker two months after the attempt on Walkers life and five months before the assassination of Kennedy. Walker worked with Bernard Bernstein while in Germany near the end of WWII. Bernsteins movements in Europe were being monitored and restricted by McCloy.

When Oswald first requests to return to the USA, Walker, within a week begins his Pro Blue Program that leads to his resignation. The 7:00 am phone call to Walker at the Captain Shreve Hotel the morning after the assassination and the subsequent newspaper article that names Oswald as the man who attempted to assassinate Walker. How did that German newpaper know where Walker was staying in Louisianna?

Walkers association with Thomas Karamessines and George Joannides that were monitoring the movements of Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination of Kennedy.

The lack of records in the Kennedy Library dealing with the relationship between McCloy and Kennedy. McCloys backround in intelligence and the creation of the CIA and NSA. McCloy being appointed to the Warren Commission and missing a meeting to go to Geneva for disarmament talks from where Nosenko "defects."

The shot down of the U-2 and Oswalds relationship to the U-2 program and his defection to the Soviet Union. Tiros I, Army build satelite, launched and operational one month before Francis Gary Powers is downed. Paris peace summit cancled and John F. Kennedy elected in one of the closest elections ever. Maxwell Taylor resigning from the Eisenhower administration, writing a critical book that supported Kennedy and then being rewarded with the highest military position in the land. Etc., etc., etc.

Did a very small group of very powerful individuals have the power to make a president and then have the power to kill him as well?

I could be conviced, could you?

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know.

I would say that I'd believe it when I saw the government documents, but they could just fake documents to further shove the truth back. Claim to have declassified Document A, but instead, have released a fake with the same number as Document A. I wouldn't put it past them.

There's still so much that is sealed up, locked up, kept away. Only recently, thanks to a friend, did I really open my eyes that even what you think you KNOW may not be the case. A part of the case I'd long accepted as fact, might not be so - and it makes me question a lot of things that I also previously accepted as fact.

This case is like dumping twenty puzzle boxes into a giant tub, shaking it up, and then attempting to put them all together again. You'll think you have one area figured out, yet one piece doesn't fit, and you have to dig through all the pieces again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every post on this topic supports my theory that the truth may be out there already, but its form may be unrecognizable. Jim Root brings up a lot of valid points, but one question that keeps coming back to me is:

Did Oswald really take a shot at Walker?

Any suppositions based upon this "fact" may end up being a house built upon weak and shifting sand. There is, in my opinion, no "rock" upon which to base the conclusion that Ozzie Rabbit fired at Walker...Marina's not the most credible witness, and she wasn't there anyway...DeM. only repeated what he'd been told, as I understand it...so who was really there? If Oswald didn't drive, but the attempted assassin left in a car, whose car was it, and who was driving? Was the '57 Chevy in the pic DeM.'s car? What's real and what's "smoke" in this scenario?

Otherwise, I think the Oswald/Walker and Walker/Taylor relationships have been underinvestigated in years past, and may shed some light on what happened with LHO, both in the USSR and stateside.

And Nic, I agree that "what you think you KNOW may not be the case." I've encountered a lot of instances of that already...what I've been told as "fact" turned out to be fiction. That's why I raised the question...how are we gonna know the facts when we see them? There's already enough "reasonable doubt" out there to drive a person over the edge. So how does one discover what's real when so many of the principals are dead, or refuse to speak, or refuse to speak with clarity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Nic, I agree that "what you think you KNOW may not be the case."  I've encountered a lot of instances of that already...what I've been told as "fact" turned out to be fiction.  That's why I raised the question...how are we gonna know the facts when we see them?  There's already enough "reasonable doubt" out there to drive a person over the edge.  So how does one discover what's real when so many of the principals are dead, or refuse to speak, or refuse to speak with clarity?

This was something that every researcher, LN, CT, whatever - takes as fact and runs with, and I'm trying to prove if it is or isn't true, which results in a lot of calls to a lot of people. Sigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...