Generation Gap?

[Mark Knight]

I've noticed that most of the folks involved in the discussions and investigation of the JFK assassination are folks of the "baby boom" era, most are over 40, and a lot are considerably older. When I tried to interest my 25-year-old son in the information I've been reading and researching, his response surprised me.

"Dad," he said, "I really couldn't care less." But, I explained, this is a murder case in which NO ONE has been convicted...no one has served a single day of jail time for killing the President of the United States of America. My son then proceeded to explain to me that the odds are, 40+ years later, the actual perpertator(s) is(are) dead, and, based upon past history, if any researcher gets too close to the truth, they will end up dead as well. "In that respect, I hope you NEVER figure out who did it," he added.

As I deal with young people today, I find that my son's attitude is probably in the majority. And of those who do show an interest in the assassination, the majority don't seem to want to do any significant research themselves; most find a scenario they support, and hang their hat on the works of others...even if the work can be discredited by some very simple research of some very accessible documents.

Are my perceptions here flawed, or are the folks under 30 just simply not interested in what is the most spectacular unsolved crime of the 20th century in America, if not the world? What have you seen and heard? Have you discussed the JFK assassination with anyone under 30? I'd be interested to learn if my experiences are unique, or if they are commonplace in the world today.

[Lynne Foster]

Are you trying to scare people?

[Lynne Foster]

Are you talking about the Nixon-Bush connection?

Did Richard Mellon Scaife murder Kangas?

Edited December 3, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Owen Parsons]

No one can possibly be as dense as you're acting.

[Lynne Foster]

No one can possibly be as dense as you're acting.

Oh right, a high school student with all the answers, pardon me. LOL

[Owen Parsons]

No one can possibly be as dense as you're acting.

Oh right, a high school student with all the answers, pardon me. LOL

You're disgusting. Yeah, uh huh, I'm sure Mark Knight is covering up the truth and possibly killed hippies.

And unlike you, I don't pretend to have all the answers.

Edit: Oh, really cute. Edit out the post (#3) where you insinuate that Mark Knight is a hippie killer and make it look like I'm attacking one of your Mat Wilson articles instead.

Edited December 3, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[John Dolva]

Mark, the only young people I've discussed the assassination with are my children and nephew (all under 12) and then only because they are curious about what I'm doing on the computer as kids are. So I've not gone into any detail. On the whole they think it's an OK thing to be interested in, but of course barbies and revenge of the sith is more interesting. Older people my age, while not interested beyond coffee chats, also see nothing peculiar in my interests. Still, not much interest in doing anything about it.

However, I think there is definitely a safe zone and an unsafe zone in assassination research.

The real truth if it was uncovered, beyond strong suspicion, would raise the stakes. This is ONE reason I personally favour the unpopular areas of research, reasoning that these areas are unpopular perhaps because they are 'spooky' black holes in which reputations, and sometimes lives are lost. The safe areas of CIA, Mob, pro-con Fidel hold no interest for me.

It's the places where people 'go postal', where information dries up, where people disappear as if they never existed that may be the areas that contain the information to pinpoint the guilty.

Edited December 4, 2005 by John Dolva

[Lynne Foster]

Can you elaborate here:

"The real truth if it was uncovered, beyond strong suspicion, would raise the stakes."

[John Dolva]

Can you elaborate here:

"The real truth if it was uncovered, beyond strong suspicion, would raise the stakes."

There was in all probability a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. And for the last 42 years, a conspiracy has been in place to hide the truth. This shifting, morphing smoke screen, if penetrated, would change things dramatically. The mirrors would be shattered, and if as many suspect, the involvement goes far into existing power structures, it would mean pruning off of fallguys, distractions, defamation suits, disappearances, and irrelevant legal maneuverings. Perhaps even global events.

I doubt 'they' would go: 'I admit it, fair cop guv, which way to the injection room?'

PS this is ONE reason I am opposed to the death penalty. Texas increases the likelyhood of no whistleblowers ever emerging. A justice system that takes into account redemption and forgiveness would create an environment where those who may in later life suffer the inevitable heartache of unresolved guilt could speak up.

Edited December 4, 2005 by John Dolva

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

John-

can you clarify what you mean by 'the safe areas"? Why do you include the CIA in this?

[Dawn Meredith]

I've noticed that most of the folks involved in the discussions and investigation of the JFK assassination are folks of the "baby boom" era, most are over 40, and a lot are considerably older. When I tried to interest my 25-year-old son in the information I've been reading and researching, his response surprised me.

"Dad," he said, "I really couldn't care less." But, I explained, this is a murder case in which NO ONE has been convicted...no one has served a single day of jail time for killing the President of the United States of America. My son then proceeded to explain to me that the odds are, 40+ years later, the actual perpertator(s) is(are) dead, and, based upon past history, if any researcher gets too close to the truth, they will end up dead as well. "In that respect, I hope you NEVER figure out who did it," he added.

As I deal with young people today, I find that my son's attitude is probably in the majority. And of those who do show an interest in the assassination, the majority don't seem to want to do any significant research themselves; most find a scenario they support, and hang their hat on the works of others...even if the work can be discredited by some very simple research of some very accessible documents.

Are my perceptions here flawed, or are the folks under 30 just simply not interested in what is the most spectacular unsolved crime of the 20th century in America, if not the world? What have you seen and heard? Have you discussed the JFK assassination with anyone under 30? I'd be interested to learn if my experiences are unique, or if they are commonplace in the world today.

This is a great question Mark. My daughter is 34 and she grew up ignoring her mother's "obsession" with a kind of "oh no this again?" attitude. But last summer she watched JFK with me (I was visiting for 5 days ) and afterward we had a very intense conversation. SHe was quite upset that all this happened, especially MLK and Bobby just shortly -(3 years)- before she was born. I think for people under 30 the JFK assassination is really ancient history, but to bring it to the present can make it far more real and relevent today. And she also got very scared, like your son's response. I think kids today see just crazy the world has become and when they see film clips of JFK and all that he represented and projected: hope, laughter, keen intelligence, it's a huge awakening to these kids. It sets the 60's in a context for them.

Sad, because todays' kids have so very little to inspire them. Certainbly not politicans- (except for those who have heard Obama !!) .

We grew up at such a unique time. I would not trade it with anyone.

Dawn

ps We have Owen and Nic here, so that does give me hope. If two kids here - 17 and 18, respectively are as interested and knowledgable as are they, we can see that others might be upon learning even a small amout about the true "crime of the century".

[John Dolva]

John-

can you clarify what you mean by 'the safe areas"? Why do you include the CIA in this?

There is an enduring tendency to label entire groups as responsible. I think this aids the smoke manufacturers. The CIA as a group is not responsible. Quite possibly past/present members or associates are.

If one attacks the CIA as a whole, the response necessarily is negative and as such it is a black hole of research : put an endless amount of attention on it and an endless stream of nothing emerges. CIA areas of work overlap in such a way that they have to be very wary of carte blanche disclosure.

Primary to the CIA is the survival of the USA as they see it. If revelations truly threaten their existence (and therefore the existence of the US as they see it) they retreat and regroup and continue. Thus the interests of the CIA and the conspirators at times run parallel.

The interests of the CIA is NOT to find the assassins, but to protect the USA as they see it. The interests of the assassins is to not be found. To the extent that CIA involvement exists that evidence is not available even if it should exist. Therefore the CIA role is to maintain the smoke screen, but not because they are as a group responsible. Therefore areas of research indicated by studying the source as CIA is safe becuse it's fruitless. EXCEPT, and this is a very important point, except as an indicator of the 'unsafe' areas. In other words, the fire is NOT where the smoke is, the 'conspiracy' IS the conspiracy.

A view outside its morphing quality, (as it shifts from CIA to Johnson to Castro to Anti Castro to Mob and lately to Garrison and back and forth ad infinitum), that is alert to the unusual may prove fruitful.

[Lynne Foster]

"There is an enduring tendency to label entire groups as responsible. I think this aids the smoke manufacturers."

That's correct John. That is exactly what many, so called researchers do, they aid smoke manufacturers.

That's why the good ones like Harold Weisberg are attacked by con artists like Gerald Posner.

That's why documents like this are so valuable especially when they are compared with the contemporaneous comments of journalists like Dorothy Kilgallen.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I've noticed that most of the folks involved in the discussions and investigation of the JFK assassination are folks of the "baby boom" era, most are over 40, and a lot are considerably older. When I tried to interest my 25-year-old son in the information I've been reading and researching, his response surprised me.

"Dad," he said, "I really couldn't care less." But, I explained, this is a murder case in which NO ONE has been convicted...no one has served a single day of jail time for killing the President of the United States of America. My son then proceeded to explain to me that the odds are, 40+ years later, the actual perpertator(s) is(are) dead, and, based upon past history, if any researcher gets too close to the truth, they will end up dead as well. "In that respect, I hope you NEVER figure out who did it," he added.

As I deal with young people today, I find that my son's attitude is probably in the majority. And of those who do show an interest in the assassination, the majority don't seem to want to do any significant research themselves; most find a scenario they support, and hang their hat on the works of others...even if the work can be discredited by some very simple research of some very accessible documents.

Are my perceptions here flawed, or are the folks under 30 just simply not interested in what is the most spectacular unsolved crime of the 20th century in America, if not the world? What have you seen and heard? Have you discussed the JFK assassination with anyone under 30? I'd be interested to learn if my experiences are unique, or if they are commonplace in the world today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They are not "unique"!

Just as I found long ago in the research of one's geneology.

Neither of my son's had much interest in either our family history, or the JFK matter.

Can not state that I blame them, genetics must play a big part.

When I had the opportunity to speak with my Grandfather; Grandmother; etc, and thus learn first hand much of their past, there was little interest in doing so.

As one gets older, hopefully values will change.

My oldest son has now begun to apprecieate our family linage, and even the younger son to some extent has as well.

This newer generation is far more conditioned to "immediate answers" to there questions, without any difficulty in searching for these answers.

However, not unlike coin collecting and other such hobbies, if not at least exposed to the item, few will find it merely on their own.

So, one is doing a dis-service if they do not at least expose their offspring to these other items.

Tom

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Owen Parsons' date='Dec 4 2005, 12:18 AM' post='47188']

You're disgusting. Yeah, uh huh, I'm sure Mark Knight is covering up the truth and possibly killed hippies.

John: How much longer are we going to have to put up with this lunacy? Mark is a very respected member here. This nut continually acccuses posters of untoward things. "Killing hippies"? This is the ranting of someone in serious need of a good book on manners, and possibly psychiatric assissistance.

Further: I was foolish enough to open one of her links a couple of weks back and then my compter required repairs by my husband. Needless to say I have not repeated that mistake.

In the time she has been here she's had two agenda's: trashing others, who are often dead, and calling members here names. Now accusing them of crimes. I noticed last night that tho she only joined in October her number of posts is higher than many regulars who have been here over a year. Yet they are never anything of substance, indeed, not even her own words, just this Mat dude.

When I read last night what she claims Harold Weisberg told her I thought : what a xxxx.

Is there any other member here who has been told to leave even close to the times she has been?

Does that not give you pause to wonder just what her true agenda is?

It's clear to the rest of us that it is decidedly NOT for educational purposes or to seriously debate the issiue of who killed JFK.

Dawn