November in Dallas 2106

[Tim Gratz]

Last night I watched on C-Span an interesting forum on the Lincoln assassination. Participants included several historians who have written recent books about the assassination. There was a fairly large audience. (The conference actually took place on November 18, 2005.)

There was a somewhat spirited debate re why Booth shot Lincoln.

The moderator took an audience poll of two questions. There was a wide consensus that there was no larger conspiracy than Booth and his cohorts, and an almost unanimous agreement that Dr. Mudd was in fact a conspirator.

It may be pessimistic to say so but perhaps the issues surrounding the Kennedy assassination will still be debated in Dallas 100 years from now. Query whether any of the participants will include descendants of those now active in the research community?

Which reminds me: does anyone know if CSPAN filmed the conference in DC in 2005 (as it did the 2004 conference)?

[Thomas Graves]

Last night I watched on C-Span an interesting forum on the Lincoln assassination. Participants included several historians who have written recent books about the assassination. There was a fairly large audience. (The conference actually took place on November 18, 2005.)

There was a somewhat spirited debate re why Booth shot Lincoln.

The moderator took an audience poll of two questions. There was a wide consensus that there was no larger conspiracy than Booth and his cohorts, and an almost unanimous agreement that Dr. Mudd was in fact a conspirator.

It may be pessimistic to say so but perhaps the issues surrounding the Kennedy assassination will still be debated in Dallas 100 years from now. Query whether any of the participants will include descendants of those now active in the research community?

Which reminds me: does anyone know if CSPAN filmed the conference in DC in 2005 (as it did the 2004 conference)?

_____________________________________

Gratz,

Interesting question. Unfortunately I don't know the answer. Hey, have you ever noticed that the names "Abraham Lincoln" and "John F. Kennedy" both have an even number of letters??

_____________________________________

[Tim Gratz]

Well, that's odd!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It may be pessimistic to say so but perhaps the issues surrounding the Kennedy assassination will still be debated in Dallas 100 years from now. Query whether any of the participants will include descendants of those now active in the research community?

Anyone who says "we will never know the truth" seeks to block the way of inquiry. So says Charles Sanders Peirce (Pron. Perrse), America's greatest logician.

In this post, Mr. Tim Gratz seeks to sow the seeds of defeatism in the Grand Armee of JFK inquirers. Sorry Mr. Gratz, you have not been paying attention. We are much closer than 100 years and much much closer than you think.

[Adam Wilkinson]

Last night I watched on C-Span an interesting forum on the Lincoln assassination. Participants included several historians who have written recent books about the assassination. There was a fairly large audience. (The conference actually took place on November 18, 2005.)

There was a somewhat spirited debate re why Booth shot Lincoln.

The moderator took an audience poll of two questions. There was a wide consensus that there was no larger conspiracy than Booth and his cohorts, and an almost unanimous agreement that Dr. Mudd was in fact a conspirator.

It may be pessimistic to say so but perhaps the issues surrounding the Kennedy assassination will still be debated in Dallas 100 years from now. Query whether any of the participants will include descendants of those now active in the research community?

Which reminds me: does anyone know if CSPAN filmed the conference in DC in 2005 (as it did the 2004 conference)?

_____________________________________

Gratz,

Interesting question. Unfortunately I don't know the answer. Hey, have you ever noticed that the names "Abraham Lincoln" and "John F. Kennedy" both have an even number of letters??

_____________________________________

There are many "coincidences" between Lincoln and Kennedy:

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.

John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.

John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.

Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.

Both were shot in the head.

Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.

Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.

Both were succeeded by Southerners.

Both successors were named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.

Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839.

Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by their three names.

Both names are comprised of fifteen letters

Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.

Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.

Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

AND NOW FOR THE CORRECTIONS

Edited January 16, 2006 by Adam Wilkinson

[Mark Knight]

Gratz:

Lincoln's assassin, Mr. J.W. Booth, was seen by a theater full of people immediately after pulling the trigger, and as he leaped from the presidential box onto the stage below, smoking gun in hand.

There is no smoking gun in Oswald's hand.

While Booth's motives may be still debated 140+ years after the act, there is NO debate on who pulled the trigger. In the JFK assassination, there is no such consensus on who fired the shots.

So, in that respect, you're comparing apples and kumquats.

I think part of the problem in investigating the JFK assassination is that some researchers want to nail down the motive before nailing down who actually killed him. I believe that it's more important to figure out who did it first; then the reasons will either become apparent, or as with Lincoln, they will continue to be debated for another 100 years.

So my position is that, as long as the actual assassin(s) can be identified, it really doesn't matter whether the reasons are being debated 100 years from now...as I have no plans to be there.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark Knight:

I agree with you completely at the best procedure is to try to "nail down" who killed JFK BEFORE trying to determine the motive. It can be argued that many persons or organizations had motive to kill JFK but to concentrate on motive without any evidence connecting the person or organization to the assassination only muddies the waters and gets us carried away on tangents.

IMO the best evidence we have is that Ruby murdered Oswald to silence him (regardless of whether Oswald was the killer, a conspirator or a patsy) and Ruby's connections were to the Mafia. Plus we have the confessions of Marcello and Trafficante. As I see it, the question is what evidence if any is there that the mafia had partners or sponsors?

[Norman T. Field]

Last night I watched on C-Span an interesting forum on the Lincoln assassination. Participants included several historians who have written recent books about the assassination. There was a fairly large audience. (The conference actually took place on November 18, 2005.)

There was a somewhat spirited debate re why Booth shot Lincoln.

The moderator took an audience poll of two questions. There was a wide consensus that there was no larger conspiracy than Booth and his cohorts, and an almost unanimous agreement that Dr. Mudd was in fact a conspirator.

It may be pessimistic to say so but perhaps the issues surrounding the Kennedy assassination will still be debated in Dallas 100 years from now. Query whether any of the participants will include descendants of those now active in the research community?

Which reminds me: does anyone know if CSPAN filmed the conference in DC in 2005 (as it did the 2004 conference)?

_____________________________________

Gratz,

Interesting question. Unfortunately I don't know the answer. Hey, have you ever noticed that the names "Abraham Lincoln" and "John F. Kennedy" both have an even number of letters??

_____________________________________

There are many "coincidences" between Lincoln and Kennedy:

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.

John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.

John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.

Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.

Both were shot in the head.

Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.

Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.

Both were succeeded by Southerners.

Both successors were named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.

Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839.

Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by their three names.

Both names are comprised of fifteen letters

Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.

Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.

Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

AND NOW FOR THE CORRECTIONS

This just in: one week before his death, Lincoln spent the nite in Monroe, Maryland. One week before his death, Kennedy spent the nite in Marilyn Monroe!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

away on tangents.

IMO the best evidence we have is that Ruby murdered Oswald to silence him (regardless of whether Oswald was the killer, a conspirator or a patsy) and Ruby's connections were to the Mafia. Plus we have the confessions of Marcello and Trafficante. As I see it, the question is what evidence if any is there that the mafia had partners or sponsors?

The HSCA determined that Ruby had help from inside the Dallas Police Department. How about the DPD as a place to begin investigating?

[Norman T. Field]

away on tangents.

IMO the best evidence we have is that Ruby murdered Oswald to silence him (regardless of whether Oswald was the killer, a conspirator or a patsy) and Ruby's connections were to the Mafia. Plus we have the confessions of Marcello and Trafficante. As I see it, the question is what evidence if any is there that the mafia had partners or sponsors?

The HSCA determined that Ruby had help from inside the Dallas Police Department. How about the DPD as a place to begin investigating?

Do that a bunch of old retired police officers will suddenly die of heart attacks, car accidents and suicides. Have pity on their families.

[Dave Curbow]

Last night I watched on C-Span an interesting forum on the Lincoln assassination. Participants included several historians who have written recent books about the assassination. There was a fairly large audience. (The conference actually took place on November 18, 2005.)

There was a somewhat spirited debate re why Booth shot Lincoln.

The moderator took an audience poll of two questions. There was a wide consensus that there was no larger conspiracy than Booth and his cohorts, and an almost unanimous agreement that Dr. Mudd was in fact a conspirator.

It may be pessimistic to say so but perhaps the issues surrounding the Kennedy assassination will still be debated in Dallas 100 years from now. Query whether any of the participants will include descendants of those now active in the research community?

Which reminds me: does anyone know if CSPAN filmed the conference in DC in 2005 (as it did the 2004 conference)?

I didn't see CSPAN there this year, but the conference was taped and will be available from the AARC.Check the History Matters website for details.

Dave