Would We Know The Truth If We Saw It?

[Terry Mauro]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*******************************************************************

"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."

*******************************************************************

Which also runs the risk of the story being repeated, or reiterated a third, fourth, or fifth time. And, much like the loss of generations which occur each time you add another track to a tape in a recording studio, resulting in what is known as

tape "hiss", quite discernible on the finished product, even after hours have been spent in the final mixing process. So too, can the initial accounts of witnesses also take on another sound of their own, either through unintentional embellishment on the part of the witness, in an effort to satisfy the interviewer's questions, or on the part of the interviewer, equally unintentional, in an effort to extract something more prescient than the witness may be able to offer.

[Nic Martin]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*******************************************************************

"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."

*******************************************************************

Which also runs the risk of the story being repeated, or reiterated a third, fourth, or fifth time. And, much like the loss of generations which occur each time you add another track to a tape in a recording studio, resulting in what is known as

tape "hiss", quite discernible on the finished product, even after hours have been spent in the final mixing process. So too, can the initial accounts of witnesses also take on another sound of their own, either through unintentional embellishment on the part of the witness, in an effort to satisfy the interviewer's questions, or on the part of the interviewer, equally unintentional, in an effort to extract something more prescient than the witness may be able to offer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very true indeed, however - this one event had visual evidence attached, and this one witness is quite reliable. When I'm finished trying to prove it yes or no, and I've cleared it with my original source, I plan on posting it here.

[Jim Root]

Mark

I appreciate your position on the assassination attempt on the life of Edwin Walker. It seem to be the most common comment I receive when talking about the death of Kennedy with persons that are knowledgable about the Warren Report. For the most part, in the general population, few people are aware of the fact that the Warren Report even makes reference to another assassination attempt tied to Oswald. Movies like JFK just avoid the matter. It seems to me that within a large portion of the assassination research community it is felt that if this inconvient event is associated with Oswald it might point to Oswald, as the Warren Commission suggests, as the lone shooter.

For myself the argument is bogus. Either side of the coin is interesting as a subject for researcher and if ignored from either point of view we automatically lose focus on what could be a key element in our attempts to discover the truth.

If Oswald did not attempt to shoot at Walker there seems to have been a necessity to tie this event to Oswald by the Warren Commissioners. Would this then be a part of the coverup? But then the police reports that were filed at the time and the investigation that was done, to no avail, would become a part of a coverup of an event that was yet to occur. This would suggest a conspiracy that would have to have gone back to a period of at least seven months before the assassination of JFK. The fact that Walker became an open critic of Kennedy is cited by the Warren Commission as a prime example in the "lone nut" explanation of an Oswald who was unbalanced in his political thoughts and ready to assassinate anyone on either side of the political spectrum. The event was necessary in order for the Warren Commissioners to make the conclusions that they did in fact make. Then we look at the actions of Walker over the 24 hours following the assassination. Those actions suggest that Walker was worried about being tied to the assassination of Kennedy. The German newpaper interview would be nothing more than an attempt by Walker to show that he had the same enemies as Kennedy and almost had the same fate at the hands of the same killer. And the letter from McCloy to Walker five months before the assassintion of Kennedy was just a coincidence.

On the other side of the coin: Is the possibility that Marina Oswald did in fact provide truthful information about this event and the event did in fact occur. Then we could look for a motive of why would Oswald would attempt to assassinate Walker. I can make a suggestion that the extra travel day and the following day from Oswalds defection to the Soviet Union (October 9 and 10, 1959) provides for a possible meeting between Oswald and Walker to have taken place. Information about Oswalds travel during this time period is in fact left out of the Warren Report, why? If a meeting between these two men did in fact take place we have a whole different scale upon which to balance our thoughts on this subject. And the actions of Walker in the 24 hours following the assassination of JFK takes on a different sense of urgency. We would have the fear of a man who knew that the accused assassin could tie him to the assassination of Kennedy by association. The fear of a man who knew how intellegence organizations worked and which persons could have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President. Those "persons" would be the only persons, other than Oswald, who could associate him with Oswald. The actions of Walker in the 24 hours after the assassination would then be the actions of a man attempting to save his own life because he may have been the one person who could blow the whistle on the whole thing! The fact that he would provide information to a foreign newspaper suggests that he knew how to survive in that type of situation and how to act quickly. And the letter from John J. McCloy would be in place to keep him quite for the rest of his life.

Walker and Oswald meeting would require two additional needs. 1) Oswald would be associated with the world of intelligence. 2) Walker was involved in intelligence activities.

I am sufficiently convinced that Walker was involved with intelligence activities. I am convinced the Walker was closely associated with Maxwell Taylor and that Walker had been used, on more than one occassion, by John J. McCloy for certain intelligence "jobs."

But once again: Either side of the coin must be looked at closely when we study the assassiantion of JFK. For myself I believe the coin to be double-headed.

Jim Root

[Nancy Eldreth]

Anyone think about the possibity that the crazier the story is stated on some things or issues is the one that should be looked at the most?

[Terry Mauro]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*******************************************************************

"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."

*******************************************************************

Which also runs the risk of the story being repeated, or reiterated a third, fourth, or fifth time. And, much like the loss of generations which occur each time you add another track to a tape in a recording studio, resulting in what is known as

tape "hiss", quite discernible on the finished product, even after hours have been spent in the final mixing process. So too, can the initial accounts of witnesses also take on another sound of their own, either through unintentional embellishment on the part of the witness, in an effort to satisfy the interviewer's questions, or on the part of the interviewer, equally unintentional, in an effort to extract something more prescient than the witness may be able to offer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*******************************************************************

Very true indeed, however - this one event had visual evidence attached, and this one witness is quite reliable. When I'm finished trying to prove it yes or no, and I've cleared it with my original source, I plan on posting it here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*******************************************************************

"Very true indeed, however - this one event had visual evidence attached, and this one witness is quite reliable. When I'm finished trying to prove it yes or no, and I've cleared it with my original source, I plan on posting it here."

*******************************************************************

That's great, Nic. I'll be looking forward to reading what you've found out about this. I know you're dedicated to getting to the heart of the matter. Keep up the good work.

[Mark Knight]

Jim, I think the Walker shooting attempt is at the heart of understanding the JFK assassination case. If Oswald didn't do it, then a key argument of the lone nutters is eliminated. But if he DID do it, at what level do we accept it...that Oswald was nuts enough to shoot anybody, as the WC contends...or that Oswald saw himself as a patriot, and saw the attempted assassination of Walker as a form of heroism?

There are just so many layers to this particular mystery itself--not to mention other aspects of the assassination--that it's a key reason that I asked the question, whether we would recognize the truth when we saw it. I think your investigation into Walker, and Taylor and Hurt and whoever else turns up this direction, will be one of the keys to understanding what actually happened. But will it be THE key, or just A key--one among many needed to know the truth?

And so it goes with Jack White et al and the photographic evidence...seems like everyone's looking for THE key, when perhaps we should be concentrating on A key, part of a collection that will finally unlock the labrynth of evidence and false leads. While I don't discount the value of their work, because I believe it IS valuable, it may only yield PART of the picture.

The entire spectrum is represented in the world of the JFK assassination investigators, from those who think they've solved it with a single piece of evidence [Colonel Mustard behind the wheel with the shellfish toxin], to those who try to weave in every factoid ever discovered. In such an environment, I wonder how we'll know if --or when--we get it right.

[Jim Root]

Mark

I think your remarks are the observations of a wise man in search of a truth that we may never know. I spent alot of my youth hiking the John Muir trail in California and have lived in Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. For years I have spent my summer vacations in the Boundry Waters area of Northern Minnesota. These experiences have led me to take to heart the old saying that sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees.

It is my belief that so many people spend so much time looking at Dealey Plaza and the events of Nov. 22nd that they forget the forest that the assassiantion event actually exists within. Real honestly if I were to attempt to duel with a knowledgeable person within an intelligent discussion about what happened on that fateful day I would be unarmed. Certain persons surrounding the assassination and their relationship to each other, well thats a different story.

For myself the intrigue is who were the conspirators not who pulled the trigger. If Oswald did it alone why is there so much misinformation within the Warren Commission Report? If the Warren Commissioners needed to "cover-up" something what were they covering up and who controlled the coverup? If Oswald did not pull the trigger then why did the commissioners frame him for the offense?

If Oswald had a reason to assassinate the President and the conspirators set him up to take the fall, those same conspirators would be very pleased that a majority of the population of the United States do not beleive that Oswald was involved. If Oswald was used by the conspirators and he realized he was being framed as soon as the event occured, what did he know that made him make that assumption? Why did Oswld attempt to call John Hurt? Why did Oswald want the Smith Act Attorney Jonathon Abt?

The Black Tom Case took over 20 years to solve and another 10+ years to settle. John J. McCloy solved it using dogged determination and by working backwords from the event. Much of the solution came from old signals intelligence information that was reexamined and by reviewing the complex associations of the people that were thought to be involved. It took McCloy years to unravel that complex case. For his efforts McCloy was put in charge of a reemerging US Intelligence Organization as the US prepared for WWII. No better choice, no one with more experience in the area of espionage and intelligence, in my opinion, could have been better positioned to "pull off" both the coverup and the assassination of JFK than a person such as McCloy and his close friend and associate Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and friend of Edwin Walker) General Maxwell Davenport Taylor.

One could suggest that if McCloy were involved he could not leave any stone unturned, he could not leave any damaging documents laying around. Perhaps his undoing will be the one document that he felt he had to leave behind as his "insurance policy" in the event one lose cannon could blow the whole plan.

Few if any papers left in the Kennedy White House dealing with McCloy would make it to the Kennedy Library. Yet McCloy was not an insignificant player in the Kennedy White House. On the other hand we can find an inoccuous letter written by McCloy to Edwin Walker five months before the assassination placed in an easily discovered file that makes no sense if the two men had known each other and had worked together in intelligence operations as I believe they in fact did. I believe that that letter was sent to Walker because he was the one man who would know exactly who Lee Harvey Oswald really was once the assassination occured and would have had an understanding that Oswalds mission to Russia was a US Intelligence operation because he was involved with helping Oswald to get there and had seen him face to face rather than knowing him by just some code name. At the time I believe that the McCloy letter was believed by Walker to be another prop used to support his cover while he infiltrated the far right movement in America. The actions of "Ted" Walker in the 24 hours following the assassiantion of JFK do, I believe, fully support this concept. If my information and suppositions are correct, that "faked" letter, if Walker attempted to spill the beans, would be used to tie Walker to the assassins. After the assassination Walker quietly fades away from the American landscape and assassination buffs.

My how I would love to gain access to the Walker papers that are restricted form researchers. Even Gary mack was unaware that the Walker papers were unavailable to researchers. Why?

While the death of Oswald would forever silence the man who may have had a reason and the ability to associate Walker with the intelligence organization that was in control of him, we might find that Oswald had an insurance policy of his own. Oswald it seems may have left behind clues of his own(if one believes the testimony of Marina Oswald and the Warren Commision in this area). The "hunter of facists" photo, the note to Marina in Russian which explains what to do in the event that he was caught for shooting Walker, the photos of Walkers home taken at a time that can be established by the work crews in the backround, attending a speech by Walker, the purchase of a rifle and pistol in the days preceding the assassination attempt on Walker, Oswalds strange travel itenary (covered up by the Warren Commission) that allows for a potential time and place that these two men (Oswald and Walker) could have met on October 10, 1959.

If all this has some truth associated with it, then Oswald would have had a motive for his actions. This would provide a reason for members of the highest eschelons of government to readily participate in the coverup without actually realizing that the assassination of the President had been planned by small group of people within the government. The possibility that the same people that may have controlled the Presidntial route in Dallas on that day also had access to the information that was collected about Oswald in the months preceding the assassiantion must be considered as significant. The information was available for them to know where Oswald was working before the route was planned. Those same few (very few) people would also be aware of an association between Oswald and Walker (as suggested above) and they could have resonably believed that it had been Oswald that may have shot at Walker.

Put the route past a man who had both a motive and the means to assassinate a President (I don't even care if you want to place additonal shooters in the area). Have available a person (Oswald) whose intelligence activities would have to be withheld from an American public in shock from the assassination. The conspirators would have to have the ability to create a Commission that could control the investigation, seperate from the Dallas PD and the FBI, and then control they would have to be able to control that commission. Rather than larger, the group of conspirators becomes smaller and smaller.

And did I mention, wouldn't it be strange if they all were associated with John B. Hurt a man with the same name as the person that Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to contact on the night of the assassiantion.

Just thoughts

Jim Root

[Robert Howard]

Mark

I think your remarks are the observations of a wise man in search of a truth that we may never know. I spent alot of my youth hiking the John Muir trail in California and have lived in Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. For years I have spent my summer vacations in the Boundry Waters area of Northern Minnesota. These experiences have led me to take to heart the old saying that sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees.

It is my belief that so many people spend so much time looking at Dealey Plaza and the events of Nov. 22nd that they forget the forest that the assassiantion event actually exists within. Real honestly if I were to attempt to duel with a knowledgeable person within an intelligent discussion about what happened on that fateful day I would be unarmed. Certain persons surrounding the assassination and their relationship to each other, well thats a different story.

For myself the intrigue is who were the conspirators not who pulled the trigger. If Oswald did it alone why is there so much misinformation within the Warren Commission Report? If the Warren Commissioners needed to "cover-up" something what were they covering up and who controlled the coverup? If Oswald did not pull the trigger then why did the commissioners frame him for the offense?

If Oswald had a reason to assassinate the President and the conspirators set him up to take the fall, those same conspirators would be very pleased that a majority of the population of the United States do not beleive that Oswald was involved. If Oswald was used by the conspirators and he realized he was being framed as soon as the event occured, what did he know that made him make that assumption? Why did Oswld attempt to call John Hurt? Why did Oswald want the Smith Act Attorney Jonathon Abt?

The Black Tom Case took over 20 years to solve and another 10+ years to settle. John J. McCloy solved it using dogged determination and by working backwords from the event. Much of the solution came from old signals intelligence information that was reexamined and by reviewing the complex associations of the people that were thought to be involved. It took McCloy years to unravel that complex case. For his efforts McCloy was put in charge of a reemerging US Intelligence Organization as the US prepared for WWII. No better choice, no one with more experience in the area of espionage and intelligence, in my opinion, could have been better positioned to "pull off" both the coverup and the assassination of JFK than a person such as McCloy and his close friend and associate Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and friend of Edwin Walker) General Maxwell Davenport Taylor.

One could suggest that if McCloy were involved he could not leave any stone unturned, he could not leave any damaging documents laying around. Perhaps his undoing will be the one document that he felt he had to leave behind as his "insurance policy" in the event one lose cannon could blow the whole plan.

Few if any papers left in the Kennedy White House dealing with McCloy would make it to the Kennedy Library. Yet McCloy was not an insignificant player in the Kennedy White House. On the other hand we can find an inoccuous letter written by McCloy to Edwin Walker five months before the assassination placed in an easily discovered file that makes no sense if the two men had known each other and had worked together in intelligence operations as I believe they in fact did. I believe that that letter was sent to Walker because he was the one man who would know exactly who Lee Harvey Oswald really was once the assassination occured and would have had an understanding that Oswalds mission to Russia was a US Intelligence operation because he was involved with helping Oswald to get there and had seen him face to face rather than knowing him by just some code name. At the time I believe that the McCloy letter was believed by Walker to be another prop used to support his cover while he infiltrated the far right movement in America. The actions of "Ted" Walker in the 24 hours following the assassiantion of JFK do, I believe, fully support this concept. If my information and suppositions are correct, that "faked" letter, if Walker attempted to spill the beans, would be used to tie Walker to the assassins. After the assassination Walker quietly fades away from the American landscape and assassination buffs.

My how I would love to gain access to the Walker papers that are restricted form researchers. Even Gary mack was unaware that the Walker papers were unavailable to researchers. Why?

While the death of Oswald would forever silence the man who may have had a reason and the ability to associate Walker with the intelligence organization that was in control of him, we might find that Oswald had an insurance policy of his own. Oswald it seems may have left behind clues of his own(if one believes the testimony of Marina Oswald and the Warren Commision in this area). The "hunter of facists" photo, the note to Marina in Russian which explains what to do in the event that he was caught for shooting Walker, the photos of Walkers home taken at a time that can be established by the work crews in the backround, attending a speech by Walker, the purchase of a rifle and pistol in the days preceding the assassination attempt on Walker, Oswalds strange travel itenary (covered up by the Warren Commission) that allows for a potential time and place that these two men (Oswald and Walker) could have met on October 10, 1959.

If all this has some truth associated with it, then Oswald would have had a motive for his actions. This would provide a reason for members of the highest eschelons of government to readily participate in the coverup without actually realizing that the assassination of the President had been planned by small group of people within the government. The possibility that the same people that may have controlled the Presidntial route in Dallas on that day also had access to the information that was collected about Oswald in the months preceding the assassiantion must be considered as significant. The information was available for them to know where Oswald was working before the route was planned. Those same few (very few) people would also be aware of an association between Oswald and Walker (as suggested above) and they could have resonably believed that it had been Oswald that may have shot at Walker.

Put the route past a man who had both a motive and the means to assassinate a President (I don't even care if you want to place additonal shooters in the area). Have available a person (Oswald) whose intelligence activities would have to be withheld from an American public in shock from the assassination. The conspirators would have to have the ability to create a Commission that could control the investigation, seperate from the Dallas PD and the FBI, and then control they would have to be able to control that commission. Rather than larger, the group of conspirators becomes smaller and smaller.

And did I mention, wouldn't it be strange if they all were associated with John B. Hurt a man with the same name as the person that Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to contact on the night of the assassiantion.

Just thoughts

Jim Root

First, I would like to say that Jim Root's previous post is well worth reading again, and as an aside, I would mention that for those who are familiar with the Dreyfuss Affair, the 'Old Pearl Harbor' and other various and sundry scandalous matters where the truth broke free, if indeed, the JFK Assassination is ever solved in the sense that there is something resembling a consensus of 'what really happened' a revelation such as Edwin Walker actually acting in an agent provocateur capacity, would probably not be so shocking now as it would have been then, but that is not the point to adding to this thread.

I think that the current direction our country appears to be heading in has very bad implications for a group of individuals committed to pressing onwards to resolution of the unanswered questions re the Kennedy Assassination.

I do not possess great academic credentials or authorship of a significant or (insignificant) book about the Kennedy Assassination, but I have learned a lot over the last few years particularly about the 'New Realities' in America circa 2006. Please bear with me.

It occured to me recently that in the last few months two significant (I think) books have been released about November 22, Joan Mellen's A Farewell To Justice and Ultimate Sacrifice by Lamar Waldron, I really believe both books are very significant, but that's not the point. What strikes me is the intensity level of the reaction to these two books. When say, Dick Russell's exemplary The Man Who Knew Too Much (1993) was released, (just to cite an example) the media reaction was actually pretty positive, it recieved good reviews, I am sure it sold well, etc. That was just some 12 odd years ago, it seems that the direction of things in American culture is directly correlated to two actions, both of which have been commented on in various Forum posts.

1. The media crisis, if anyone would take exception to calling the situation a crisis, I would point out that many of the indy media outlets are, and have been created by former insiders for such shows as 60 Minutes, the old Big Three Networks - ABC, CBS, NBC etc. If there was a perception from inside the inner sanctum of media that it was becoming something of a joke as far as credibility, there would arguably be no independent media to begin with.

And more importantly

2. Corruption in High Places. The current 'War Between Democrat's and Republican's' I submit is a sham and a smokescreen, and paraphrasing Jonathan Vankin should be called 'This Is Your Government on Drugs,'

In conclusion: The aformentioned topics are certainly not 'breaking news' by any means. To clarify my statements in this post, they are summed up in two succinct points.

a. The 'current situation' makes resolution of the unanswered questions re November 22 practically anachchronistic, and arguably the same dynamic that took place when in the late 1990's the 'resolution' in many individuals minds of the Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. (see William Pepper's 'Order's to Kill') recieved barely a 'blip on the radar screen' of the media monster that has been in a process of compromisation for many years now. Would the resolution of the Crime of the Century be any different?

b. What is the driving force behind the 'New State of the Union,' it can be summed up in one word. Fear.

Fear and confusion, are the two great immoblilizers of any effective or constructive effort to restore sanity to a de-stablizing force, whether on a personal or societal plane. Subsequently, fearlessness and organization are essential to restoring stability. It is not part of a normal cultural process for a society to be as divided as America has become in the last 20 years, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., wrote of this in

'The Dis-Uniting of America, ironically he is targeted occasionally by the media conglomerates.

Harry Truman once was known, for a saying 'The Buck Stops Here.' In Washington these day's it appears the new saying is 'The Buck Will Proceed To Someone Else's Desk- Final Destination "Unknown"

A Final Observation, The Port's Deal with the United Arab Emirates is an example of how what once was a breach between Washington and the American People has become a fissure, There are few books that are on the market that look at how at when this dynamic first began to take place.

One of them most certainly was 'Who Will Tell the People' by William Greider; Some Republican's woke up after September 11, 2001 and eventually joined the A.C.L.U., - I personally do not care about 'political correctness' seeing how the term was popularized by the two of the most dispicable forms of totalitarianism ever unveiled - Communism and Nazism they subjugated and murdered ostensibly some 60-70 million people.

A link to Support some of the salient (Hopefully) points

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/050701a.html

Those Who Do Not Learn the Lessons of History are Doomed to Repeat Them - Santayana

Edited April 1, 2006 by Robert Howard

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Jim, I think the Walker shooting attempt is at the heart of understanding the JFK assassination case. If Oswald didn't do it, then a key argument of the lone nutters is eliminated. But if he DID do it, at what level do we accept it...that Oswald was nuts enough to shoot anybody, as the WC contends...or that Oswald saw himself as a patriot, and saw the attempted assassination of Walker as a form of heroism?

There are just so many layers to this particular mystery itself--not to mention other aspects of the assassination--that it's a key reason that I asked the question, whether we would recognize the truth when we saw it. I think your investigation into Walker, and Taylor and Hurt and whoever else turns up this direction, will be one of the keys to understanding what actually happened. But will it be THE key, or just A key--one among many needed to know the truth?

And so it goes with Jack White et al and the photographic evidence...seems like everyone's looking for THE key, when perhaps we should be concentrating on A key, part of a collection that will finally unlock the labrynth of evidence and false leads. While I don't discount the value of their work, because I believe it IS valuable, it may only yield PART of the picture.

The entire spectrum is represented in the world of the JFK assassination investigators, from those who think they've solved it with a single piece of evidence [Colonel Mustard behind the wheel with the shellfish toxin], to those who try to weave in every factoid ever discovered. In such an environment, I wonder how we'll know if --or when--we get it right.

First and foremost!

One just may wish to resolve exactly how the assassination transpired before deciding to expend his life chasing the many myths and mythological creatures of Dealy Plaza.

Chasing the "it can't be done" scenario of three shots from Z-210 to Z-313 serves little purpose if in fact this is only the first two shots.

And since many who are/were considerably more qualified than I, and who also had direct access to the existing and untainted evidence, state that Z-313 is shot# 2, then I would be more stupid than most were I to not accept it as fact.

Especially with numerous witness's also stating it as the facts.

Too bad that the purveyors of "Multiple Assassin" scenarios have not bothered to fully verify the shot sequencing prior to embarking on their journey to some lost planet, which never existed to begin with.

Which leaves us with a Lone Assassin at the window of the TSDB (question now answered) as well as the WHY? of the WC obfuscation of the facts of the assassination!-------Also answered to a limited extent!

Lastly, it is all truly a "labyrinth" in which no single key will give the answer. A "KEY" will only open the door to another portion of the puzzle and without this key for this puzzle, one will remain chasing fictionous leads until the true lead is lost among them.

A true masterpiece by many parties.

[Bruce Cormier]

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?

Superb question, Mark, and more than four decades after the fact, it might be the only question that really matters. With all that has been written on this, there is a fairly decent chance that the essential truth IS out there but hasn't been recognized as such, for obvious reasons. I respond to your question as follows:

1. If somehow (and this would be remarkable, IMO), the WC and Posner basically got it right, there is very little chance that a consensus will emerge in support of that conclusion. And rightly so, given the Gov'ts suppression of information regarding the assassination and its investigation, and the fact that the formal investigations that have occurred have been greatly flawed. Even the most ardent LN'er must concede, based on what we now know, that both the WC and HSCA inquiries were inadequate; the rational LN'ers' point would be that these inquires reached the right conclusion albeit based on an inadequate record. Given these shortcomings, and because it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, the WC's findings seem doomed regardless of how accurate they may be.

2. If "the truth" is something else altogether (which strikes me as right), the degree of acceptance it receives will depend on the quality and source of supporting evidence. What evidence would be most persuasive? A confession, I suppose, supported by very specific confirming evidence that could not be fabricated (and, ideally, of which only the perpetrators could be knowledgeable). As you may know, there have been several purported confessions, first, second, and third hand, that have met with great skepticism, and with good reason.

Barring this, a massive document dump by the Gov't that would enable people to connect the dots would seem most helpful. But that too would be met with great skepticism given the Gov'ts track record. Suppose, for example, that some future adminsitration were to announce, "this is what happened, and these are the documents that evidence it." Inevitably there would be substantial questions about the authenticity and completeness of the disclosure. Whether those questions could be overcome would depend on the quality of the supporting evidence.

3. Even if a persuasive version of "the truth" were to be documented, there always will be people who will claim that it is false. Never underestimate the bonds that tie people to their pet theories, which are proxies of how people view the world.

[Sid Walker]

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?

Superb question, Mark, and more than four decades after the fact, it might be the only question that really matters. With all that has been written on this, there is a fairly decent chance that the essential truth IS out there but hasn't been recognized as such, for obvious reasons. I respond to your question as follows:

1. If somehow (and this would be remarkable, IMO), the WC and Posner basically got it right, there is very little chance that a consensus will emerge in support of that conclusion. And rightly so, given the Gov'ts suppression of information regarding the assassination and its investigation, and the fact that the formal investigations that have occurred have been greatly flawed. Even the most ardent LN'er must concede, based on what we now know, that both the WC and HSCA inquiries were inadequate; the rational LN'ers' point would be that these inquires reached the right conclusion albeit based on an inadequate record. Given these shortcomings, and because it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, the WC's findings seem doomed regardless of how accurate they may be.

2. If "the truth" is something else altogether (which strikes me as right), the degree of acceptance it receives will depend on the quality and source of supporting evidence. What evidence would be most persuasive? A confession, I suppose, supported by very specific confirming evidence that could not be fabricated (and, ideally, of which only the perpetrators could be knowledgeable). As you may know, there have been several purported confessions, first, second, and third hand, that have met with great skepticism, and with good reason.

Barring this, a massive document dump by the Gov't that would enable people to connect the dots would seem most helpful. But that too would be met with great skepticism given the Gov'ts track record. Suppose, for example, that some future adminsitration were to announce, "this is what happened, and these are the documents that evidence it." Inevitably there would be substantial questions about the authenticity and completeness of the disclosure. Whether those questions could be overcome would depend on the quality of the supporting evidence.

3. Even if a persuasive version of "the truth" were to be documented, there always will be people who will claim that it is false. Never underestimate the bonds that tie people to their pet theories, which are proxies of how people view the world.

I think this is thought provoking and worthwhile thread.

I don't believe Bruce's point 1 is possible. There's already way too much evidence for an informed and honest researcher to conclude that the Warren Commission and Posner & co are, in fact, correct. Of course, that may be a contentious (possibly offensive) claim for some folk, but I believe it to be demonstrably true. ‘Magic bullets’ do not exist in the real world, for instance.

I think 2 is most unlikely, barring a dramatic political revolution in the USA.

We're dealing, in my opinion, with a very well entrenched and powerful group of conspirators, still active and probably more consolidated in their power than 4 decades ago.

So, in my view, the crime is only likely to be solved to the satisfaction of honest, informed researchers - and any 'solution' will undoubtedly be contested.

I suspect that's already the case.

I realize there are other threads specifically for discussion of Michael Collins Piper's Final Judgment. Unfortunately, they didn't seem to get into the important task of critiquing his theory and discussing the holes in it, if those holes exist.

Piper attached two chapters of his book in posts to to this thread. Substantive and critical comment was invited. As far as I can see, none of any substance was received.

I’ll attach another document to this post. Also written by Piper, it provides an overview of his Final Judgment hypothesis. It was written roughly a decade after the first edition of Final Judgment was published.

A short extract follows:

I was frankly astounded myself at the amount of material that emerged which did support my thesis. At the same time, though, there is absolutely no "evidence" of any kind to REFUTE my thesis. Only opinion, as in, "Oh, Israel would never do anything like that!"

Although I did keep thinking until almost the very end of the writing process that I would perhaps find some fact that would contradict my thesis, I never found any such information.

Instead, in the ten years that have passed since I was working on the first draft of the book, I have found a wealth of new information that solidifies and expands upon what had already been published.

The very strength of my book, according to many readers who are familiar with other data on the JFK assassination, is that it shows how all of the more familiar theories about the assassination are connected—and that connection is indeed the Israeli connection.

To this day, eight years after the release of the book:

• No one has been able to rebut the thesis, misquoted any of my sources or quoted any of my sources out of context.

• No one has been able to demonstrate where any of the key points in my thesis are refuted by other information.

• No one has has cited any specific errors (relevant to the thesis) that would contradict my thesis.

In the book I have pointed out the minor errors that have appeared in previous editions and challenged my readers: “Show Me Where I’m Wrong.” But none have done so.

Considering the energetic and very public efforts of the Jewish ADL to defame this book, one would think that the ADL would assemble a crack team of researchers to tear the book apart. And bear in mind that if the book were that insignificant, the ADL would not pay Final Judgment the attention that they do.

But the ADL refuses to debate me. People should ask "why?"

Piper’s thesis has, in my opinion, the hallmarks of a theory that's essentially correct.

A post I made about I.F. Stone was not derived from Piper’s book - I appear to have stumbled across that additional (minor) Israeli intelligence connection myself. That’s what one would expect from a ‘solution’ to a crime. If a theory is correct, other investigators are likely to find additional corroborating evidence.

I think the question people may need to ask themselves is whether they really want the truth about the JFK assassination – whatever that truth may be?

Those who do, to paraphrase George Orwell, may find it has been right in front of their nose (on this forum, for instance) for some time.

Mossad___JFK_Conspiracy.rtf

[John Dolva]

That's all very well Sid. It's also possible that what you are looking at is a ''dream' come true' for anti zionists. Which is a focus diametrically opposite to the assassins as, for example, WKKKK Very nice for them, if that was the case. A bit like 'Castro did it' for the anti communists.

It's possible that what you are looking at is a long nurtured and prepared layer in the smoke screen which indeed indicates we are closing in.

There may be no contrary evidence found because like in all these theories, adherents will snap at support and critically evaluate contrary evidence in a skewed manner.

It may be that no contrary evidence exists because it concerns separate threads of events and it would be surprising perhaps to find any significant overlaps.

On the other hand you may be right.(I doubt it though). In the meanwhile, I, for one, would consider more seriously the theory, once I can see a consistency in recognising that Jews are human beings, and that Zionism is a political ideology, supported and opposed by Jews and non Jews. Once there is a consistently propagandised and followed through focus off the Jew and back on individuals, Jewish and non Jewish Zionists and the peripheral mercenaries from any persuasion, a recognition of the non zionist Jew and non Jew (which is where I personally stand) as different from the anti zionist Jew or non Jew, perhaps there will be more prepared to look at the matter. I don't know.

Otherwise, a good thread with many good ideas about perception.

Quote Bruce :: "Superb question, Mark, and more than four decades after the fact, it might be the only question that really matters. With all that has been written on this, there is a fairly decent chance that the essential truth IS out there but hasn't been recognized as such, for obvious reasons. I respond to your question as follows:

1. If somehow (and this would be remarkable, IMO), the WC and Posner basically got it right, there is very little chance that a consensus will emerge in support of that conclusion. And rightly so, given the Gov'ts suppression of information regarding the assassination and its investigation, and the fact that the formal investigations that have occurred have been greatly flawed. Even the most ardent LN'er must concede, based on what we now know, that both the WC and HSCA inquiries were inadequate; the rational LN'ers' point would be that these inquires reached the right conclusion albeit based on an inadequate record. Given these shortcomings, and because it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, the WC's findings seem doomed regardless of how accurate they may be.

2. If "the truth" is something else altogether (which strikes me as right), the degree of acceptance it receives will depend on the quality and source of supporting evidence. What evidence would be most persuasive? A confession, I suppose, supported by very specific confirming evidence that could not be fabricated (and, ideally, of which only the perpetrators could be knowledgeable). As you may know, there have been several purported confessions, first, second, and third hand, that have met with great skepticism, and with good reason.

Barring this, a massive document dump by the Gov't that would enable people to connect the dots would seem most helpful. But that too would be met with great skepticism given the Gov'ts track record. Suppose, for example, that some future adminsitration were to announce, "this is what happened, and these are the documents that evidence it." Inevitably there would be substantial questions about the authenticity and completeness of the disclosure. Whether those questions could be overcome would depend on the quality of the supporting evidence.

3. Even if a persuasive version of "the truth" were to be documented, there always will be people who will claim that it is false. Never underestimate the bonds that tie people to their pet theories, which are proxies of how people view the world."

..................................................................

" If "the truth" is something else altogether (which strikes me as right), the degree of acceptance it receives will depend on the quality and source of supporting evidence."

that would be nice I think, and to those who 'think' quite right.. but I think the last sentence here in some cases (perhaps many (more)) should be given more weight.

"Never underestimate the bonds that tie people to their pet theories, which are proxies of how people view the world."

(IMO)

Edited April 27, 2006 by John Dolva