Editor@jfkfacts.org: ‘Why do you publish comments from people who are wrong and obnoxious?’

A couple of people wrote this week, asking why we allow anti-conspiratorial writers to comment on the site.

Answer: Because of a certain philosophical premise we embrace:

It’s called the free exchange of ideas. We’re in favor of it.

Not just some of the time. Not just for people we like. Not just for people we agree with. Not just for people who are right. For everybody all the time. If you adhere to the minimal requirements of the the comment policy, you are welcome, regardless of opinion.

Both complainers cited the style of argument used by “photon’ and John McAdams. They are said to be mean, unfair, biased, wrong, and disruptive. Maybe they are. Readers can decide for themselves.

(Most of the time, IMO, I  think their reflexive denials, habitual defensiveness, factual gymnastics, and supercilious tone are informative. If we censored their comments, readers might be unfamiliar with the factual weakness of their case. But that’s just my opinion.)

Other times these and other dissenters offer new information and perspectives.

I take their constant presence on the site as a compliment. I think John McAdams comments on this site because he knows the most important debate about JFK’s assassination on the Internet takes place here.  On that point of fact, McAdams is indisputably correct.

As comments editor Peter Voskamp said: “If we’re going to be an open forum for all comers, I don’t know how we can operate any differently.”

 

 

 

 

193 comments

  1. Gerry Simone says:

    Well said Jefferson.

    If we seek transparency or full disclosure from the government on the JFK assassination issue, we cannot then censor or stifle dissenting views or opposing debate.

    Effective moderation is also important (not to say that it isn’t here, but things may slip through the cracks from time to time).

    Maybe adversaries can learn from each other too (including the madness of their methods or spin tactics).

  2. Jonathan says:

    I agree. Although the First Amendment does not apply to a private forum such as this, adhering to its principle of an open marketplace in ideas is noble.

    The Enlightenment men who crafted the First Amendment believed that in a free and open marketplace of ideas, the best ideas would eventually win out. Humankind has never devised a better concept of social and political intercourse.

    Kudos to JFK Facts.

  3. Saxond says:

    As one of the two “complainers,” I believe the issue is a little deeper than simply a free speech question. There are a great many students of the assassination who have long since moved beyond the question of whether there was a conspiracy. The silly arguments of the Warren supporters, even if they’re instructive in their silliness, slow down the pursuit of productive discussion–which is exactly the intent. People who have basically even keel personalities always say, “Well, don’t let them get under your skin.” How nice that would be if life was this simple. But there will always be a great number of people who have stronger emotions and are combative. The dust-throwers will prey on that fact.

    Having said that, I bow to the will of the majority, and my observation is that most want a completely open venue. And that’s admirable. I don’t need this site to understand how moronic the pro-Warren positions are, personally, and what I’d really like to find is a forum just for people who don’t want to continue fighting a battle that was settled long ago–so that they can move on to the far more important questions.

    • Jonathan says:

      Having said that I believe in an open marketplace in ideas, I’m compelled to agree with your comment.

      When a marketplace is not open, is not ruled by market forces, it becomes distorted and biased.

      JFK Facts is not ruled purely by market forces. Jeff admits it’s a compliment for John McAdams and Photon to post here.

      I’d be inclined to say as well it’s a compliment for Jim DiEugenio and Pat Speer to post here.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        I had the pleasure of meeting both Jim and Pat at last November’s Lancer conference. James is a true scholar and eloquent speaker. Pat’s a meticulous researcher who’s not afraid of taking on very detailed subjects, and doesn’t mind to passionately share his in-depth knowledge with attendees in the hallway or by the bar.

        (Not to say that I wouldn’t mind meeting Professor McAdams or DVP or go on one of Dave Perry’s private tours in Dallas).

  4. George Simmons says:

    I agree with Jeff. He has the right approach.
    JFK facts needs to be a place where all people, of all opinions, are free to post their comments. I feel that this makes for a more dynamic and vibrant debate.
    As long as you treat the other commenters with politeness and respect, then you should be allowed to post here.
    Keep up the good work Jeff.

  5. mitch says:

    There are plenty of people who believe there was a conspiracy to kill the President who are also obnoxious and often wrong.

    That’s why this site is so important – it is run by two people who know what they’re talking about and who are not at all obnoxious.

  6. leslie sharp says:

    Hoist them by their own petard? I for one might be able to live with that. I hope the refs will allow a few fouls of our own down the line, all in appropriate taste, fairness and good craic.

    • echelon says:

      “Craic”? That’s a grand word, begorrah!

      The craic was ninety, as they say, or as they would say given the appropriate motivations.

      • leslie sharp says:

        ah shure, you’re a darlin’ man, and if we can’t find the murderers of our own boyo, what good is our Irish blood? Did they not put the tax on the sunlight of the world?

      • leslie sharp says:

        echelon, on the topic, here is a link to a six part series on the Irish Honour Guard which includes reflections on their role in John Kennedy’s funeral.

        beginning at 3:30 “we were like a team … one of the guardsmen says:

        “after the funeral in 1963, when we saw films from America or from anywhere else that mentioned the funeral we couldn’t see the cadets, there was no sign of them. It’s as if we were airbrushed from the pictures … and I don’t know why.”

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKAtKdGL8S8

  7. Nathaniel Heidenheimer says:

    I must rarely be wrong or obnoxious enough because many many of my posts have been rejected, especially when they are about the role of the Media and its role in the cover up.

    However some writer seem to be privileged, and are NOT ONLY published all over the corporate media but here among the little people too. That’s why I’m buying my mosquito netting and heading for the upper peninsula.

    • Mike Rago says:

      The model of this forum is flawed.

      Basically people are paying to have their voice heard.

      That is a obviously flawed model.

      I suspect those who pay the most will have their voice heard the most.

      • Moderator says:

        That is flat out false. No one pays to get their comments approved on this site. While Jeff accepts donations to keep the site up and running, those of us moderating the comments have absolutely no idea who has donated and who hasn’t.

        • Mike Rago says:

          Who are the moderators? Isn’t Jeff a moderator?

        • Mike Rago says:

          It may not be true but that is a perception that people can easily form for this site.

          People may not pay to have their post posted but they may pay to have it highlighted in the “What Readers are saying” section.

          It is not what is true that matters but what people perceive to be true that matters.
          - Henry Kissinger.

          You need to have a truly unbiased policy. No censorship and not picking and choosing.

          • Moderator says:

            Actually the comments that appear on “What readers are Saying” are just the most recent comments. The website puts them up there automatically. If you look, you’ll see this exchange is the most recent to appear there. The vast majority of comments are approved; generally only those that are over-long or exceedingly offensive (or snarky to the point of offense) are not approved.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Moderator: perhaps you will also clarify that some remarks simply make it past your scrutiny; for instance photon’s suggestion that I suffer from a bi-polar disorder.

            I recognize that I am robust in my assertions that certain ‘experts’ must be challenged, but I believe I substantiate my claims rather than disparage them personally and falsely. I was of course offended on behalf of any that do suffer the condition, not because bi-polar should be an embarrassment, but because of the deliberate and calculated cruelty photon was allowed to perpetrate on this site.

            I considered the source and moved on, but given the issue has surfaced again, I would like to know if moderators felt it was a degree of quid pro quo. If so, I will take that under advisement.

          • D. Olmens says:

            “It may not be true but that is a perception that people can easily form for this site.”

            I disagree. Many websites seek donations to stay afloat. It’s not at all unusual. It is very, very unlikely that anyone would form that perception.

            “People may not pay to have their post posted but they may pay to have it highlighted in the “What Readers are saying” section.”

            That’s just a list of the most recent comments posted. Even if it were possible to pay to have a comment highlighted there, what would be the point in doing so?

            “You need to have a truly unbiased policy. No censorship and not picking and choosing.”

            I’m really not sure where you’re going with this, but I don’t see any evidence that the moderation policy here is biased. I think the moderators do a good job on this site.

          • Moderator says:

            Leslie, the post you’re referring to above got through via basic human error/oversight. Apologies. It happens from time to time. The opposite happens too– that is, given the volume of comments we receive, sometimes they get lost in the shuffle. Commenters should try again if first something doesn’t get approved; and if it still doesn’t, then examine it to see if there’s anything in it that might be construed as offensive. Again, the vast, vast majority of comments are approved.

          • Mike Rago says:

            Saying the vast vast majority of comments are passed is not good enough.

            The ones that are not approved are the ones that are important to the poster.

            We need some guarantee that if a post is within the rules it will be posted and not subject to censorship.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Moderator: I can attest to your assertions. I have never made a donation (living on social security stipend prevents extraneous expenses), and yet I can count on one hand the number of comments that have not been accepted – and those were self-inflicted injuries I might add. fwiw.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Such a silly conspiracy theory Mr. Rago (I’d rather believe in Badgeman and Gordon Arnold).

  8. John McAdams says:

    Most of the time, IMO, I think their reflexive denials, habitual defensiveness, factual gymnastics, and supercilious tone are informative. If we censored their comments, readers might be unfamiliar with the factual weakness of their case. But that’s just my opinion.

    Just so you know, Jeff, I have an equally negative opinion of the way you interpret the case.

    • Jonathan says:

      John, why don’t you petition Jeff to post a diary here on the case, a diary on the alleged murder weapon. That seems to be one of your favorite topics. Everyone here can have a spirited debate on the facts, and then a panel consisting of, say, you and Jeff can opine to everyone here how well the case is settled on the matter of the alleged murder weapon.

  9. John McAdams says:

    I’d really like to find is a forum just for people who don’t want to continue fighting a battle that was settled long ago

    It isn’t settled merely because you and people like you say it’s settled. In fact, for most mainstream opinion, it’s settled, but not in the way you want.

    • Pat Speer says:

      What the heck is “mainstream opinion”, John?

      I thought the public reflected “mainstream opinion”?

      Most members of the public suspect a conspiracy. This has been a fact for almost 50 years. So yeah, it is pretty much “settled”.

      I’m guessing you mean the elitist opinion of those “inside the beltway” with access to the media, or members of the media itself. Their bread is buttered on the top side, so, of course, they think it’s the right side. (Thank you, Dr. Seuss.)

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Here, here!

        (My blood pressure just spiked from McAdams’ mainstream opinion comment).

      • John McAdams says:

        I know you don’t like mainstream opinion, Pat, and that’s certainly your right.

        But I was responding to the claim that the debate is “settled” and there is no need to discuss whether there was a conspiracy.

        That sort of argument leads nowhere. Try telling NOVA or the History Channel or CBS that “the argument is settled, so I don’t have to try to convince you there was a conspiracy.”

        You may not like the situation. You don’t have to. But you can’t change it without winning the argument in places outside of this forum, Ed Forum, Wechtfest, etc.

        • Saxond says:

          Just like the “mainstream” is decided on global warming, right, John? I know you’ll endorse their view there, too, since the press is always truthful to us.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          I must say that some of the pro-WC advocates have become more popular, vociferous or ‘main stream’ than the early days of this debate.

          I even have one friend who visited Dallas with a business associate (1 week after the 50th as they wanted to catch a football game) and expressed some doubt about the conspiracy angle, and he’s the one who got me started years ago when I read his H.S. book report on Best Evidence. His business associate applied an oversimplified application of O.R. to conclude that it wasn’t a conspiracy. They met Groden on the GK and he found his claim of five shoots too incredible.

    • Saxond says:

      This is an easy one. It is settled *for many of us,* and we no longer need to hear the latest new computer spin to show that somehow the single bullet theory could work (usually as legit as “photo enhancing” showing that the Badge Man is real). I have no problem with “you and people like you,” in your typically condescending phrase, go on fighting this battle endlessly. There just needs to be a place for those of us who don’t need the silly and insincere distractions that “you and people like you” bring.

      • John McAdams says:

        So a “place without distractions” is what? A place where multiple (mutually contradictory) conspiracy theories are kicked around, with no dissent allowed?

        A place where debunking conspiracy factoids is not allowed?

        A place where people share the fact that they have connected somebody they think was connected with the assassination to somebody else who is connected to somebody else whom they think is sinister (maybe because they once taught at the New School)?

        That’s not a place for “truth seeking.” It’s a place for incestuous groupthink.

        • John Kirsch says:

          “incestuous groupthink.”? that’s some hyperbole.

        • Tom Scully says:

          In addition to your recent tactics of ridicule to minimize what must be too awkward for you to discuss, you recently replied to the same “New School” subject matter this way.;
          http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/april-10-1963-oswald-tries-to-shoot-gen-walker/#comments
          John McAdams
          April 16, 2014 at 1:11 pm

          “This is a very convoluted post, Tom, mostly about how somebody knew somebody who knew somebody and isn’t that suspicious…..”

          The name of the school is Allendale-Columbia in Rochester, NY. The issues are that since author Joan Mellen gave an address at this link, http://www.joanmellen.net/truth.html in 2007 just after Mr. Bush’s eulogy to Gerald Ford, “…. and a conspiracy theorist can say what they will – but the Warren Commission report will always have the final definitive say on this matter….,” new details have emerged. Eleven days after the Warren Report claimed Lee Oswald shot at Edwin Walker in Dallas, not only was DeMohrenschildt meeting with Bush’s close friend and CIA asset in New York, Thomas J. Devine, recent interviews by Joan Mellen confirm that Devine’s close friend Joseph Dryer was also meeting with DeMohrenshcildt and Clemard Charles on that same day. Devine reported contact with DeMohrenschildt four times from April 25 to May 19, 1963.
          Newspaper articles confirm that Dryer’s brother Peter and Devine were members of a class of 20 students. Devine lived in the Sigma Chi house at MIT with Priscilla Johnson’s CIA contact Garry Coit and 14 other frat brothers. Rochesterite William Macomber provided Howard Hunt access to classified autumn, 1963 Vietnam diplomatic cables. Macomber was best man in Devine’s 1973 wedding and in the 1946 Nancy Bush, Alexander Ellis wedding. Bush’s roommate E Gordon Hooker was Demohrenschildt’s step-nephew and for three years,his business partner. John Judge must have considered John McAdams a coincidence theorist.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Well said Saxond (and so was your initial comment).

        I drifted away from McAdams’ newgroup for three reasons:

        1. Tired of the same ol’ lone assassin rigmarole.

        2. It was easier and nicer to access when my ISP hosted newsgroups plus via Outlook Express (I’m lazy to use Google Groups).

        3. Lively and heated debate is okay but condescending remarks from the lone assassin camp is unacceptable (especially if it slips by the moderator(s))

        • Saxond says:

          Thank you. To answer McAdams’ typical diatribe, there’s nothing wrong with focusing in one direction. This is what Jeff does in disallowing 9-11 theories. Similarly, there’s plenty of room within the conspiracy conversation for diverse opinions. Some gravitate toward a CIA/Cuba angle, some toward LBJ and others. We always draw a line somewhere (and that includes with free speech, since you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater); Jeff wants to draw it at anything about the assassination, though I imagine he would step in if we started getting UFO and Elvis angles to the conspiracy. Me, I believe the Warren Commission view is clearly bogus too, and that there’s plenty to discuss without rehashing something most here have already decided. Which includes the nasty dissenters here. They know what they believe; interesting they’re building their whole lives around hours and hours on the Internet trying to stop people from believing a majority view. I believe OJ was guilty, and followed his trial with interest; but I can’t imagine making hundreds and hundreds of posts, years later, trying to convince people that someone else killed those two people. Really makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            There is some merit to the notion of focusing only on conspiracy-related discussion.

            It might hash out better theories or solutions to the conspiracy question.

    • JSA says:

      John,

      You mean like the “mainstream opinion” that says climate change is man-made, is real, and is a problem? You buck the mainstream on the climate science, so does irony ever enter your cranium? Maybe I’m not asking the kind of question you want?

    • While it’s true that the vast majority of the “regular” (or “average”) public believes in a conspiracy in the JFK case (although the number of “CTers” dropped to only 59% in one 2013 poll, which is nice to see), it’s also true–based on a poll by ABC News in 2003–that that same “regular” public (as of 2003) believes in something that a large majority of INTERNET conspiracy theorists think is a complete fable — and that is: Lee Harvey Oswald WAS a gunman shooting at JFK in Dealey Plaza. ….

      “Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?”….

      ONLY OSWALD ————- 32%
      ANOTHER GUNMAN ——– 51%
      OSWALD NOT INVOLVED — 7%
      NO OPINION —————- 10%

      Pat Speer thinks the above question posed to 1,031 Americans by ABC News in November 2003 is misleading. He and I have argued about that topic in the past (see link below). Naturally, I think Pat is wrong. He thinks I’m all wet. Which is par for the “JFK debate” course, of course. :-)

      http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-448.html

      • Neil says:

        Both Larry Sabato and the History Channel’s polls in 2013 found the number of Americans believing there to have been a conspiracy to be much higher. The poll you cite must be an outlier

        • NEIL SAID:

          The poll you cite must be an outlier.

          DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

          You’d better look again….because the poll I cited (ABC; 2003) is the EXACT SAME POLL which also asked this question and received a majority of “conspiracy” votes:

          “Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man, or was it part of a broader plot?”:

          One Man — 22%
          Broader Plot — 70%
          No Opinion — 8%

          http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

          Ergo, while 70% of the 1,031 people in that poll think JFK was killed by a conspiracy, only 7% of the SAME PEOPLE think Oswald wasn’t one of the shooters.

          If we asked Internet conspiracy theorists those same two questions, what do you think the results would be? It sure as heck wouldn’t be only 7% for that question about Oswald being involved as a gunman.

  10. Neil says:

    Dissenting opinions are always good and at best they raise the quality of debate.

    My only complaint is that there’s a certain poster who is almost always snarky in his posts and sometimes goes down to the level of insulting other posters. I understand that almost everyone who posts on this website feels pretty strongly about the Kennedy assassination. But there’s really no need to make things personal.

  11. Photon, is Paul May. Let us make that clear again.

    Secondly, the verdict on the JFK case has been settled in the court of public opinion for decades. The vast majority of credible polls, like Peter Hart’s for Sabato’s book, place the number at 75% disbelief in the Warren Commission.

    What is amazing about that figure is that since about 1993, and Posner’s book, the MSM has desperately tried to put the genie back in the box, post Stone’s film. So for over two decades the Discovery Channel, History Channel, Unsolved Mysteries etc have done everything they can to stem the tide. It has been largely unsuccessful.

    The very little access the critics have through the web and small publishers has been enough to keep the figure up there.

    This last witless farrago at the 50th, was really something. But if you look at reviews of Cold Case Nova, you will see Dave Mantik’s devastating critique at CTKA very high in the search engine.

    The web helps our side a lot.

    • Pat Speer says:

      You must have missed it, Jim. Photon later claimed he was joking and that he is not Paul. May.

    • D. Olmens says:

      “Photon, is Paul May. Let us make that clear again.”

      No doubt this will become the subject of a lengthy essay on the CTKA website.

      “Secondly, the verdict on the JFK case has been settled in the court of public opinion for decades. The vast majority of credible polls, like Peter Hart’s for Sabato’s book, place the number at 75% disbelief in the Warren Commission.”

      I’ve seen varying percentages, but as a ballpark figure that sounds about right. However, simply quoting that figure and saying, “Look! Everyone agrees with us!” is a bit disingenuous. It’s the same as saying that the recent National Science Foundation survey, which found that 25% of respondents believed the sun revolves around the earth, indicates a sudden and surprising resurgence in popularity for the Ptolemaic view of the universe.

      The first and most obvious problem is that the percentage figure provides absolutely no indication about the level of knowledge the respondents possess about the assassination. If the survey had included some basic questions to gauge the knowledge of the respondents it would be a lot more meaningful.

      Secondly, who do these 75% of people surveyed think was responsible if the WC is incorrect? Your guess is as good as mine.

      Thirdly, you can claim the case is settled in the court of public opinion but this is plainly not the case for the simple reason that there is no consensus whatsoever about an alternative explanation. This is as true of conspiracy theorists as it is of the general public.

      “The very little access the critics have through the web and small publishers has been enough to keep the figure up there.”

      In the preceding paragraph you mention Stone’s film. Was that not mainstream enough? There have been forests consumed by books about the assassination, countless documentaries, and endless videos on Youtube, the list goes on. How much access do you need?

      “So for over two decades the Discovery Channel, History Channel, Unsolved Mysteries etc have done everything they can to stem the tide. It has been largely unsuccessful.”

      Have you watched any of these recently? Do you really think that’s who you’re up against?

      The problem isn’t access. The problem is that none of the conspiracy theories are persuasive.

      • John Kirsch says:

        I would call the Warren Commission’s version of events a theory and an unpersuasive one at that.

      • Neil says:

        What is “settled” is that the Warren Commission and the mainstream media have failed to convince Americans that Kennedy was murdered by a ‘Lone-nut’ who coincidentally was murdered 48 hours later by a second ‘lone-nut’.

        In spite of the fact that the media and government have pretty much been on the same page for the past 50 years, the public doesn’t buy what they’ve been selling…

    • Gerry Simone says:

      I was reviewing my FB mutual friends of friends (which include those on the LA camp) and saw a Paul May. Hmmm. I believe I’ve seen his posts on Amazon book reviews.

  12. LRG says:

    I enjoy the input of McAdams, Davison and Photon. They make me think. They make me question
    my position on certain subjects. I find that they are well informed and well researched. They rely on facts
    rather than opinions. If you shut them down then intelligent discourse is shut down. Do I agree with them as it relates to the BIG picture. I do not! We all must agree to disagree and move forward and respect the right
    to have different opinions.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Well researched or informed also means you can cherry pick and spin things around.

      Case in point: I do not believe in the conclusions of the Warren Commission based on their facts or evidence.

    • leslie sharp says:

      LRG, I respect what you’re saying but does it not bother you that regardless of the assumed credibility of the presenters, facts taken out of context, facts presented without acknowledgement of discrepancies and contradictions eventually become propaganda, and do not represent sound argument. Mouthpieces for the alleged experts are merely mouthpieces.

      Would we not ask John McAdams, photon and Jean Davison among others, to write short essays for this site … in 1,000 words or less, address the significant challenges they have encountered on this site. Begin with – given that they are in Jeff Morley’s home – George Joannides’ role in New Orleans and explain away the facts that suggest something huge is being withheld from the American public; then explain how a kid/Marine waltzed in and out of the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, and ended up in New Orleans bouncing from one volatile situation to another; move on to Dallas and how said ex-Marine ended up in a prime position to shoot a president; address the scientific challenges to the ballistics and forensics, the illegal removal of the body of Kennedy, the autopsy and missing files in Bethesda, followed by the Warren Commission’s failure to call key eyewitnesses. Do not compartmentalize as is being indulged here, but offer a sound defense of the accusation that Oswald was a lone assassin. As Jonathan continues to drive home, the burden of proof lies with them.

  13. Chuck Helppie says:

    I have a simple discussion question in the vein of this thread: “Why is it so vitally important to John McAdams and his fellow researchers to unequivocally defend the Warren Commission and its conclusions?”

    Fifty years of recent American history have revealed an incredibly deceptive nature to numerous government disclosures and actions, going back to the overthrow of some foreign governments in 1953 and 1954. Why is it so critical to you to defend this particular government study so vehemently? The Pentagon papers and the subsequent memoirs of high-level participants reveal conscious intent to deceive the American public regarding the facts of the Vietnam war. Why do you dedicate your lives to upholding the veracity of our government’s investigation into our president’s murder? Most recently, the disturbingly unanswered questions revolving around the use of the IRS as a political weapon by our current administration make the sins of the Nixon White House pale by comparison. Why do you so vehemently defend the process and conclusions of the Warren Commission?

    Here’s where I’m coming from. I don’t care to hear your numerous critics ‘analytical’ opinions of why you defend it. God knows, we’ve all heard enough of that ad nauseum for fifty years. I would just appreciate a reasoned, objective, and persuasive argument for why you personally feel it is so important to defend the conclusions of the Warren Commission in 2014? In the vein of a free exchange of intellectual ideas, I believe we would all benefit from your answer.

    • John McAdams says:

      You are making a generic argument: “government has done lots of evil things, therefore every charge that government did something evil must be true.”

      Let me tell you about a mirror image generic argument: “conspiracists have produced a lot of crazy theories, therefore every conspiracy theory is crazy.”

      I’m sure you would reject the latter, but the logic is identical to the former.

      I don’t believe JFK conspiracy theories, but just because Alex Jones is a conspiracist doesn’t mean that every conspiracy theory is crazy.

      • Chuck Helppie says:

        Thank you John, but you ignored my question. Why is it so important to you to defend the Warren Commission and its conclusions?

        I’ll allude to Saxond’s reply and simply state: The Warren Commission was nothing more than a prosecutors brief. Why is it so important for you to defend the Warren Commission?

    • Saxond says:

      Chuck, I basically asked this same question above, using the OJ Simpson trial as an analogy. I believe the “mainstream” view on that one; OJ is guilty. Why would I want to devote most of my life to keeping people from believing in some conspiracy there? Let ‘em. Now with JFK, it’s understandable that those of us who have seen a terrible miscarriage of justice are driven to see something done. But if most of us believed what the TV networks and the Warren Report told us, we’d be just like I was for nearly thirty years after the assassination–not too interested. Only when I really looked at the evidence did this case become compelling to me. And it should, since our government is lying. But if LHO had really acted alone, in my view, I’d have nothing to obsess about any more than I worry about people believing Elvis is alive. This is why people wonder about the McAdamses and the Paul Mays of the world. There’s no equivalency between pro-Warren and conspiracy believers; one group has a compelling reason for interest, the other doesn’t.

      • John McAdams says:

        This is why people wonder about the McAdamses and the Paul Mays of the world. There’s no equivalency between pro-Warren and conspiracy believers; one group has a compelling reason for interest, the other doesn’t.

        You have to standing to tell anybody who “belongs here” and who does not.

        People have every right to argue what they believe online. And that applies to LNs and CTs equally.

        You simply don’t get to rule people out of bounds who happen to disagree with you.

      • Pat Speer says:

        I’ve been involved in a lot of online battles, Saxond, with both LN and CT, and am in a position to note a difference in approach. Both sides are passionate about the “truth”. CTs think this truth has been hidden away by a “they”. LNs think an entirely different “they” is responsible for misleading the public into believing their preferred “they” was involved in the assassination of the President.

        So one side is mad that some people murdered someone and got away with it and that this murder changed history for the worse, and the other side is mad that someone lied about their country. Well, let’s think about it outside of any discussion of the evidence. The first side is likely to draw a number of people ready to accept that their country has taken a wrong turn, i.e. malcontents. And the second side is likely to draw a number of people ready to accept that the country would be fine if we could only we get the malcontents to shut up.

        In short, CTs seek confirmation for a truth that is probably unknowable, and LNs seek to stifle dissent. It’s not 100% of course. But it’s like two sides of the Catholic Church, IMO. CTs are knights in search of the Holy Grail. LNs are self-appointed torturers for the Inquisition.

        • There is nothing that stifles us more than this “us” and “them” attitude. Once you fall into that trap, you end up worrying more about whose side you are supporting than about the evidence.

          This is a murder case and needs to be handled the way a good cop would handle it – objectively and with no concern whatsoever, for how the chips may fall.

          Why does everyone feel a need to label himself? Why can’t we all simply be “someone looking for the truth”?

        • John McAdams says:

          CTs are knights in search of the Holy Grail. LNs are self-appointed torturers for the Inquisition.

          But of course, we LNs don’t want to ban people who disagree with us from discussions. We welcome discussion and debate.

          I’m sure you are aware of the rules at the Deep Politics Forum, and Greg Burnham’s forum.

          http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/17-forum-policy-statement/

          • Pat Speer says:

            The analogy holds, John.

            People on a crusade don’t enjoy the companionship of doubters and nay-sayers. They seek the companionship of fellow crusaders.

            Self-appointed Inquisitors, on the other hand, would fail to exist if there was no opposition with which they could interact…i.e. demean and ridicule.

          • JSA says:

            Nobody’s banning you over here, John. All viewpoints are welcome, but as you say, people should be clear where they are speculating (which they are free to do under the First Amendment) and where they are citing facts. It reminds me of the global warming “argument”. Each side is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own set of facts. The Catholic Church had to give way to the Age of Reason where astronomy and evolution are involved. Global warming is the next fact-based, peer reviewed concept to topple the ideologues who still cling to fossil fuel industry-funded denial. JFK assassination research is not quite there yet with many people, but I urge that they study the acoustics evidence via Donald Thomas’ work, “Hear No Evil” and see if their Lone Nut position still holds up to contrary facts.

          • John McAdams says:

            Global warming is the next fact-based, peer reviewed concept to topple the ideologues who still cling to fossil fuel industry-funded denial.

            In fact, it’s the global warming position that looks most like a faith-based orthodoxy. Remember, science advances based on skepticism, and challenging the conventional wisdom.

            Who here is demanding unquestioning acceptance of the conventional wisdom?

          • JSA says:

            John,

            Although SKEPTIC Magazine would share your view that there was only one shooter of President Kennedy (which I disagree with because of the acoustical evidence, and for other reasons), you might find it interesting to note that they do not share your view that global warming looks like a faith-based orthodoxy:
            http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/
            The scientific proof is overwhelming that global warming is real, it is dramatically accelerated from background noise (seasonal and other) by man’s burning of fossil fuels.

            It’s nice to see that at least you don’t challenge me on evolution or on our modern understanding of the solar system! I prefer to look at the scientific evidence and let the chips fall where they may. This includes climate science and the JFK assassination, among other things. I think this way of looking at the world irks conservative and liberal ideologues, who want a tidy explanation that somehow verifies their religious, nationalistic, or pro or anti-authoritarian orthodoxy. The reason why many are in denial about the scientific evidence for global warming is because they are heavily invested in carbon related industries. I’m not. I’d be happy to see nuclear, solar, and other forms take the place of fossil fuels in large enough quantities to cut down the raising levels in our atmosphere. I’m not opposed to a federal “Manhattan Project” to tackle the problem. Whatever it takes…As NIKE says: Just Do It.

        • John Kirsch says:

          Re: “…self-appointed torturers for the Inquisition” — “Surfers, skateboarders, musicians, artists, vegetarians, occupiers, activists, addicts and fornicators are all going to hell! Repent now” A church sign posted on Facebook.

  14. echelon says:

    First of all, I agree with Jeff Morley’s approach given the nature of the site (open comments stream, etc.).

    But I do feel that Jeff does not moderate the comments in line with his own rules. Ad hominem attacks and what Neil refers to as “snarky” comments should not be allowed. This applies to all sides, although I suspect in practice it would be applied to certain posters more than others.

    My own approach to this issue is in line with my preference for reading certain newspapers and not others. There are many newspapers to choose from, but some are too small-minded, over-polarised and/or badly written for my tastes. These are welcome to write whatever they like, and I certainly wouldn’t like to ban them. However, I just ignore them and save my pennies (and reduce my stress levels, Gerry).

  15. John Kirsch says:

    If I’m reading this post correctly (or reading into it, perhaps) Jeff Morley seems to be saying that publishing comments by McAdams and Photon allows the whole world to see the factual weakness of their case.
    I have to admit that hadn’t occurred to me before and it actually makes sense.
    Allowing them to post comments does nothing to undermine the position of those who find the official story unconvincing.
    Every time they resort to insults or use a condescending tone, a disinterested reader is likely to ask why they find that sort of tactic necessary in the first place.
    My experience has been that reasonable, well-intentioned people stick to the facts.
    All of which is a roundabout way of saying I have been wrong. Morley’s approach makes sense.

    • Marty Feeney says:

      I have not been in this cyber space too long but the card-carrying debater types who Posner and Warren and Bugliosi our space like bad wallpaper glue-pasted to creaking explanations and hoary tufts of the incredulous stuck to gummy chunks of the improbable make me think of Lilliputians who see the rest of us as Gulliver.

      History and its debates evolve beyond first determinations, early fundamental beliefs, state secrets, and the booty of the entitled class. In the end the “suspicion of the truth” will obliterate the concealers, the denialists, the authors of the JFK Commission Contortionist Literature-so twisted and spine-crackled-only PT Barnum will find value in it.

  16. Melvin Fromme says:

    In business ethics, ‘The customer is always right’. Here, as in any website on the Internet, if the customer doesn’t like what’s on the menu, the customer can & will take their business elsewhere. The payment the website loses is in their mouse click (web hit). It’s the customer that ultimately decides, not any webmaster.

    • JSA says:

      I have to wonder about that adage, which may apply to shopkeepers and marketeers, but where news-based information is disseminated, I have serious doubts about the sales model approach. Take journalism in America. Once we had a more professional, non-partisan press, with large staffs covering international and domestic news. They still were biased, but not as blatantly so as today, where newspapers have struggled, cut way back, and TV news has dumbed down to the cable model of partisan, 24/7 “Infotainment”. There are no ads on this site yet (thank goodness). Jeff asks for donations. I have paid my share because I support what he is doing. When I donated my money, I didn’t want to donate to an ethic which says in effect: “lure customers no matter what”. I prefer a higher standard of reporting. This isn’t a widget warehouse or an online shopping cart. Just saying.

  17. leslie sharp says:

    Jeff Morley, on reflection I realize that you may not be referring to my email of 4.28.14 when you say, “Both complainers cited the style of argument used by “photon’ and John McAdams. They are said to be mean, unfair, biased, wrong, and disruptive. Maybe they are. Readers can decide for themselves.”

    My email did not “complain” of meanness, unfairness, bias, wrongness or disruptiveness,” so I ask that you post it in full:

    Dear Peter,

    Can Jeff offer any insight into the rationale behind allowing photon to continue participating on the site?

    I’m concerned that anyone claiming to have access to restricted government employment files and exclusive access to national security information has been and continues to be welcomed as a participant. photon’s comment of April 12, 2013 evaded me until Pat Speer noted it recently. He closes with the following: (this was a response to commenter Robert Morrow).

    “My understanding is that you claim to have been in the CIA. Well, tell me something. There is no record of you being in any way associated with the Agency,any subcontractor, any other related unit. Why is that?”

    Now photon reveals that he continues to be involved in classified services to the government, and he continues to “give expert consultation in several fields, including national security.”

    If photon is not just attempting to intimidate, but is actually capable of accessing classified files, and more relative to his fellow commenters, the data mined by the NSA, does this not undermine the integrity of the site?

    regards, Leslie.

    By chance, John Oliver’s debut interview of former NSA chief Keith Alexander last night addresses the general issue of domestic spying with far more humor than I can muster.

    http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/apr/28/john-oliver-keith-alexander-hbo-show

    • Jonathan says:

      Leslie,

      Thank you for this post: for its substance and for what it reveals about JFKFacts. Your post should have been posted when first submitted. I wrote a similar post addressed to Photon directly and it was published.

  18. Rob Truitt says:

    I’ve responded to these issues before. Since I can’t change the CURRENT rules that Jeff has established, I think a disclaimer for the newcomer would be in order. A new person skimming this site reading a Paul May or John McAdams comment may get the idea that the site believes or supports that kind of reply. I can assume that JFKFacts seeks to include those folks that are uninformed about the assassination and it’s cover-up. Not that Jeff hasn’t been warned but these so called LNers aren’t here to assist us in critically investigating the JFK murder and it’s cover-up. They are here to spread their position (that position being similar to the CIA memo dated 4/1/67 re Countering Criticisms of the Warren Report from the Clandestine Services often referred to as the “dirty tricks” department) to all that will have them. They resent Greg Burnham’s & the Deep Politics forums because they’ve made an executive decision to disallow their opinions that is not only contrary to public belief but plain wrong. My belief is still that the Mays & McAdams are not here to correct the misguided CTers, but to shut JFKFacts down. They wouldn’t be happier than to shut this otherwise great JFK site down. But currently JFKFacts feels the need to have the Mays & McAdams maybe to drum up business. My guess is that JFKFacts would get a lot more contributions (including me) if we were assured the absurd were off of the forum forever. P.S. John McAdams at the 2013 Pittsburgh conference had many chances to defend his truth. But in reality he sat alone, in a corner of the room, with his back so he could see anyone approaching him, talking only to Max Holland (writes on CIA website) & asked no questions or gave his valuable insight to the speakers like Robert Tanenbaum, Cyril Wecht, Oliver Stone or Bill Kelly. But he just sat there & didn’t say a word. I might say “quite a defender of the truth, he is.” It’s a lot easier to type in a keyboard that wouldn’t talk back to you & throw stones from Wisconsin Avenue in Milwaukee then to discuss an issue with Bob Tanenbaum or Dan Hardaway for instance.

    • John McAdams says:

      They resent Greg Burnham’s & the Deep Politics forums because they’ve made an executive decision to disallow their opinions that is not only contrary to public belief but plain wrong.

      Genuine “truth seekers” are slow to claim that certain opinions are “just plain wrong” and should be suppressed.

      Genuine truth seekers are open to the idea that critics and skeptics might have something valuable to say.

      Even is you aren’t open to believing there was no conspiracy, you should at least be open to the idea that a lot of pieces of “conspiracy evidence” are bogus factoids.

      Keeping those bogus factoids on the table simply impedes learning the truth, regardless of whether the truth is LN or CT.

      • Tom Scully says:

        I appreciate having the opportunity I have been afforded here to engage John McAdams rather than on his own turf. To his credit, John does not wall off the forum he is the long time moderator of but I imagine the tone I’ve experienced there discourages posting of opposing opinions. John is a teaching scholar in the field of political science who exhibits incuriousity about the fruits and implications of Jeff’s long pursuit of informaton from the CIA in the courts, and John seems to admit to no political implications related to Jeff’s litigation or to his own reaction and treatment of JFK Assassinaton matters. Examples are John’s agreement with GW BUsh appointed Judge Richard Leon that there is a lack of public benefit from Jeff’s FOIA suit and John’s own partisanship blinds him from appreciating GHW Bush’s political motivation to eulogize Gerald Ford with such an inappropriate message.
        John minimizes any detail he is unaware of or disagrees with as a “factoid”. My only earlier post here (John has posted nine times.) indicates why it is reasonable to regard John’s involvement in JFK matters to be political damage control. What else would explain John’s choosing to ask no questions and to respond with ridicule to this information?
        HSCA: “(70) In May 1978 the committee received information that a stock-broker in Palm Beach, Fla., had known George de Mohrenschildt in Haiti. The information came from Jack Cogswell of Palm Beach.According to Cogswell, he ran into Joseph Dryer, who is a stockbroker with Loeb R, Rhodes R Co. in Palm Beach and Dryer offered informa-tion about George de Mohrenschildt.(172)”
        -
        James Kelsey Cogswell III was a CIA asset who was the first cousin of Catherine Hull. Obit.: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/obituaries/articles/2011/06/20/catherine_hull_acclaimed_as_gardener_beloved_as_person/
        Her mother was Cogswell’s aunt, Bianca Cogswell Clement. Cousin Catherine worked for OSS during WWII. Her husband was Capt. Harry Hull roomed with DeMohrenschildt in DC in 1942. Paul Joachim said DeMohrenschildt left and then returned weeks later.
        Retired Admiral Joachim was victim of never solved Oct., 1962 Chicago murder.: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=49237604
        “The killer searched Joachim’s pockets after he was felled, walked away, then returned to search them again. A money clip containing $35 was untouched.”

        Rochester Journal – Dec 19, 1936
        “In leading parts were Charles Boswell, Buddy Kitchen, Hawley Ward, Tom Devine. Julian Fitch, Martin Sher, Mike Mulligan, Peter Dryer,…”
        Misadventures of a Fly Fisherman: My Life with and Without Papa
        Jack Hemingway – 1987
        “I made contact with Joe Dryer and his brother, Peter, who was sharing digs with him in an apartment near the Malecon on the edge of old Havana. Their project sounded interesting, but there was no place in it for me..”

        Daily Boston Globe – Aug 14, 1947 ” one of 16 Tech students livings in the adjoining Sigma Chi fraternity house … Other student were Thomas Devine of Rochester who told of taking refuge in .”

        Instead of encouraging research or simply reserving comment, readers can observe McAdams’ responses.

      • Jonathan says:

        John McAdams,

        LRG admires the way you stick to facts. I’ve asked you, on April 27th in the thread “Who Found Oswald’s Wallet” to document the provenance of the alleged Klein’s ad to which you’ve repeatedly linked. As the Beatles wrote, No Reply.”

        I have to say it must be pretty easy for you to come in here with some links, jargon (“factoids”), knowledge however skewed and biased of the JFK case, and a big welcome mat, and pick your targets of opportunity.

        Unlike LRG, I often find the gruel of your comments fairly fact thin.

        You write: “Genuine truth seekers are open to the idea that critics and skeptics might have something valuable to say.” With which I agree.

        You’ve linked to an alleged fact — a picture of a Klein’s ad. I’ve asked you for its provenance in a prior thread. You’ve chosen not to reply. My response is — if you’ve got something valuable to say (establish, document, prove, etc.), then do so.

        • John McAdams says:

          To get the original source, I would have to get the originals of The American Rifleman. I might take the trouble to do that at some point.

          But do you really think the ads are faked?

          Did David Von Pein fake the ads?

          I suppose since conspiracists think every other piece of inconvenient piece of evidence is faked, why would you not think that?

          So reject the evidence if you want. I don’t care.

          • Jonathan says:

            No, John.

            Don’t submit something you assert is a true copy. And then not support what you submit.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Did the ad appear only in “The American Rifleman?” My recollection is that “Field and Stream” carried the ad as well. fwiw

          • Jean Davison says:

            Jonathan,

            A search of Google images for “Klein’s American Rifleman 1963″ turns up the same (or very similar) ads.

            For instance:

            http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6726.0

            http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee290/JFK22NOV63/Rifle5-1.gif

            The claim that Klein’s didn’t install scopes on 40″ models was based on 15-year-old HSCA recollections, but Klein’s ads show they were wrong.

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to Jean Davison:

            Thanks for the links. They don’t resolve the question of what length rifle Klein’s allegedly shipped to A. Hidell at P.O. Box 2915.

            Here’s how things would stand from an evidentiary standpoint on the question of what length scoped Carcanos Klein’s was shipping in March 1963: The testimonies of Westra and Sharp would be admissible in a trial court. Period. The ads to which you link would fall to a challenge of relevance.

          • John McAdams says:

            Actually, Jean, the second link does work.

            But that doesn’t matter. Obviously, all of these images were faked or forged. Just like all the handwriting that ties Oswald to the purchase, and just like the Zapruder film, the autopsy photos and x-rays, and pretty much everything else.

          • John McAdams says:

            The testimonies of Westra and Sharp would be admissible in a trial court. Period. The ads to which you link would fall to a challenge of relevance.

            This is the way you challenge any evidence your find inconvenient. It’s getting tiresome.

            This is historical inquiry, not a trial.

            If you think the ads are faked or forged, say so. Quite hiding behind the “would not be admissible” dodge.

            The simple fact is that Oswald got an MC rifle from Kleins. It doesn’t matter which of the two lengths it was.

          • leslie sharp says:

            John McAdams, I beg to differ with you, and I trust that Jeff Morley et al have not expended tens of thousands of dollars in pursuit of guaranteeing an “accurate record for historical purposes” (not to mention the sacrifices of average citizens who have not benefited monetarily, ever).

            To reiterate, this is not about history. This is a cold case murder investigation, and regardless of your attempts to diminish it to your level of ‘expertise,’ we here (I hope that I speak for most) are after something else entirely. You can bury yourself in comparisons to the Lincoln assassination and attempt to build a credential at Marquette; meanwhile, we who lived as young adults in the 1960′s have not lost the plot.

            You say to Jonathan: “Quit[e] hiding behind the “would not be admissible” dodge.”

            How can any thinking person acting in good faith on this site suggest that Jonathan’s assertion is a “dodge?” I sense a degree of desperation in you John, not unlike the occasions when photon and Jean have “shown their teethe.” Jonathan’s question is not only legitimate, it is a legally based challenge.

            “The simple fact is that Oswald got an MC rifle from Kleins. It doesn’t matter which of the two lengths it was.”

            There is no simplicity in the facts surrounding the rifle, and for you to suggest that is dishonest and misleading for the new student of the assassination. I would think that Marquette expects more from you; I hope my comment passes muster with the moderators because it goes to the issue of who pays this man’s salary, and what influence might they have on him/John McAdams?

          • John McAdams says:

            I hope my comment passes muster with the moderators because it goes to the issue of who pays this man’s salary, and what influence might they have on him/John McAdams?

            This always, soon enough, happens in discussion with conspiracists.

            They turn hostile, and ad hominem.

            Yes, I know it’s frustrating to debate with people who don’t believe in conspiracy. Tough.

      • Chuck Helppie says:

        Why is it so important for you, John, to personally defend the Warren Commission and its conclusions?

        • John McAdams says:

          Why do you think it is so important, Chuck, to attack the Warren Commission and their conclusions?

          You owe people here an explanation for your behavior.

          We all want to know.

          You wouldn’t be hiding your motivation, would you?

          [Note to moderator: this is precisely tit for tat in response to the post above that you approved.]

          • Chuck Helppie says:

            John, your unwillingness to answer my simple question doesn’t warrant any response on my part until you answer me first. Why is it so important for you to personally defend the Warren Commission and its conclusions?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            A fair response in which the answer might be self-evident (no need to explain to the moderator).

            Do you explain why on your website, or have a mission statement of sorts?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I’d like to add this if I may.

            David Reitzes told me years ago in an email that after starting off as a CTer, he himself (not speaking about JM) became pro-WC after consulting all the evidence in the case and doing his own research.

            I’ve done the same but question the so- called evidence and the WC conclusions.

          • Jonathan says:

            John,

            It’s important to me to attack the Warren Commission and its conclusions because I have a stake in all this, an emotional and a physical stake.

            What’s my stake emotionally? As an 18-year-old, I didn’t understand politics. I only knew an attractive president and then his alleged killer had been murdered.

            I could see the Warren Commission wasn’t seeking truth. I was naive John and ignorant, but I could think.

            Today, the Warren Commission is revered by the MSM. But its conclusions do not stand up to examination.

            Physically: I stood in an ROTC formation at attention for 2+ hours on a cold November 25, 1963 in Champaign, Illinois.

            You never did that, John. You never took it to the next levels. Commission, language school, intelligence school, Viet Nam. I don’t blame you, John, I only ask for the provenance of the documents you submit here.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Chuck Helppie, I’m interested in your pursuit of this issue with John McAdams. It dawned on me that you are actually challenging John as to motive. Why indeed is it important to him to ‘personally’ defend the conclusions of the Warren Commission? Why doesn’t John simply argue the points, present his summation (in 1,000 words or less as I suggested in another comment) of how the entire weekend unfolded, addressing all of the discrepancies, contradictions, missed testimonies etc. rather than consistently refer to compartmentalized facts derived from the Warren Report, and very little else except when he bounces the ball back to Jean Davison. It is a fascinating challenge that you have introduced.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jonathan, you cut to the core with this comment. This is about stakes, physical, emotional, psychological and dare I say issues of the American psyche. You seem to embody the essence of what was lost when Kennedy was murdered … followed by an experience in Vietnam that on reflection appears to have been in service of something other than what you were told, a willingness to serve that fortunately did not destroy your conscience, and your current demand to know what happened on 112263 – to make sense of it all. Not everyone went through that degree of intensity; my own experience sitting in our T1-B Hensel apartment on the campus of Texas A&M a few years after the assassination as the calamity of Vietnam unfold on television – crying uncontrollably and helplessly night after night – pales in comparison.

          • John McAdams says:

            Why doesn’t John simply argue the points, present his summation (in 1,000 words or less as I suggested in another comment) of how the entire weekend unfolded, addressing all of the discrepancies, contradictions, missed testimonies etc.

            In a thousand words or less, eh?

            You are kidding, right?

            rather than consistently refer to compartmentalized facts derived from the Warren Report, and very little else

            I challenge factoids. I know you folks don’t like that, since once anybody catches onto the sheer number of bogus factoids that are part of the conspiracy culture, they turn skeptical of the whole business.

            That’s what I want. A skeptical approach to the evidence.

            You folks pride yourselves on being skeptical of the Warren Report. You need to be skeptical of the stuff you read in conspiracy books, and on conspiracy websites.

          • John McAdams says:

            John, your unwillingness to answer my simple question doesn’t warrant any response on my part until you answer me first. Why is it so important for you to personally defend the Warren Commission and its conclusions?

            No, you are going to have to answer first.

            Why is it so important for you to personally attack the Warren Commission and its conclusions?

            What is your purpose here?

            People have a right to know.

            Are you unwilling to say?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Why Attack the Warren Omission??? Because it was a lie perpetrated on the people of the USA by our elected officials. Dulles ran it. Are you kidding me? The cia director fired by JFK over the Bay of Pigs?
            Or we could go to that single, magic, pristine bullet that went in at T-3 but “came out” the front wound in his throat, broke Connaly’s rib and wrist, then landed in his thigh.
            How about Ruby at Parkland, National and former dallas reporter Seth Kantor, Who knew him by sight? “mistaken”.
            What about Jack Rubenstien having no Mafia ties? That’s where I threw the Warren Report summary against the wall.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            ? mark regarding regarding Seth Kantor/Ruby was a mistake. Should have been a . Kantor was a White House reporter covering the trip for Scripps-Howard news services. See: “The Ruby Cover-Up” by Seth Kantor, 1978.

        • Thomas says:

          Chuck’s question is being avoided like the plague.

          • John McAdams says:

            Chuck is going to need to respond to my question.

          • leslie sharp says:

            John, I think I’ll play self-appointed referee here and use the silliest phrase I can think of:

            “Chuck Ask You First!”

            April 29, 2014 at 9:20 am
            I have a simple discussion question in the vein of this thread: “Why is it so vitally important to John McAdams and his fellow researchers to unequivocally defend the Warren Commission and its conclusions?”

          • Brian H says:

            Gentlemen the problem with Mr McAdams arguments are simple anyone can claim another’s info to be bogus. This argument works in an individual basis however when one looks at the totality of the the evidence that makes a conspiracy crystal clear all the individual debunking the McAdamsers do is MUTE.
            I believe John McAdams Gerald Posner Paul (photon) May and Vincent Bugliosi know full well that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy! They will just never admit it as they make they’re money working the other side of the truth period. Get used to it CTers it’s not likely to change anytime soon…..

      • Pat Speer says:

        I agree, John. There are a lot of factoids on both sides of the fence. In my review of your book, I gave you props for admitting that at least one “official” theory regarding the medical evidence (the jet effect) was nonsense. I don’t recall. Did you ever add anything saying as much to your website?

        Because I would definitely agree that a website devoted to debunking nonsense…on BOTH sides of the fence, is of value, no matter the personal beliefs of its administrator.

        • Chuck Helppie says:

          Professor John McAdams,Ph.D: I’m calling you out to answer a simple question. You continually try to misdirect the conversation when you are uncomfortable and I’m not going to let you do that this time. Today it’s just me asking you the question. I may soon be joined by others since you are so obviously uncomfortable with providing any cogent answer. It’s a simple question and I will ask it again: Why is it so important to you personally to defend the Warren Commission and its conclusions?

  19. Jonathan says:

    The biggest problem at JFKFacts is that it censors comments.

    In an open marketplace of ideas, all comments are accepted. The marketplace decides which ideas are best.

    When a marketplace of ideas is subject to an input filter, it is not a true marketplace of ideas. It is biased in termed of the filter.

    I’d just as soon JFKFacts ban a poster such as me as filter his or her comments.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Censor comments? Like what?

      Also, isn’t there a difference between censoring and moderating?

      I’ve been ‘censored’ at alt.assassination.jfk with an explanatory email for each intervention by a moderator.

      • Jonathan says:

        Moderating is a nouveau term born of the internet blog era. It means whatever the site master chooses it to mean.

        Censorship exists in various forms, although the word usually connotes the activity of some government or other regulatory body.

        The problem with which I wrestle is not finding the right word to describe the withholding of comments. It’s that withholding of comments distorts the free exchange of ideas, the free flow of questions and answers, necessary to marketplace of ideas that allows everyone’s thinking to advance.

        The moderator assures all here the vast majority of comments are posted. I have no reason to doubt that. The moderator also assures us that one reason a comment is withheld is that it’s unnecessarily offensive (I don’t like the term snarky). I can say some of my withheld comments, some not all, fit that description.

        I’d even go this far: moderate me but no one else. I want to see what others are thinking and writing. This isn’t the JFK Politeness Forum. It’s JFK Facts. Sometimes the only way to bring facts to light is to rattle cages and cause growls.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          IMHO:

          Censorship is restrictive & may be arbitrary.

          Moderation is editing to a posted guideline.

    • Mike Rago says:

      A moderated site should not ask for donations.

      We do not get to choose the topics.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        The donations are not for memberships or special privileges.

        They are to finance the cause for the release of classified files that relate or could relate to the assassination.

  20. Well, here we go again. We know what to expect I think from the DVP/Ayton book.

    I was tracking these polls for Oliver Stone when he was doing his appearances at the 50th.

    In addition to the Hart poll, there were three others who all came in at around 75%. THe 59% was an outlier.

    Secondly, in addition to the Hart name, Hart did not just poll. They did focus groups. These groups were quite valuable. They revealed that first, JFK was the most admired president since FDR. By far. Also that the public feels that a great split took place in the country after 1963 and the nation has not really been the same since then. Combined with the main poll, these findings give us much ammo.

    As per Olmens, look, everyone knows the MSM is loaded against good work on the critical side. Has been for decades. I guess you never read Feinman’s essay on the CBS 1967 special which shows Midgley wanted balance in that show. The higher ups vetoed it.

    We have great evidence on our side. I would love to get Jeremy Gunn on, John Newman,Jerry McKNight, Don Gibson. Won’t happen though. Too much truth.

    As per Paul May, yes he is Photon. What’s the big mystery. He more or less admitted it himself. If he wants to use an alias, the question remains, why?

    • D. Olmens says:

      DiEugenio: “Secondly, in addition to the Hart name, Hart did not just poll. They did focus groups. These groups were quite valuable. They revealed that first, JFK was the most admired president since FDR. By far.”

      The reason you highlight this is that it plays neatly into the “JFK was a shining light, a transformational leader” (medical ailments, philandering and other questionable behavior are generally overlooked) thread that runs through so much of the pro-conspiracy literature. This is historical revisionism. A wished for past and an imagined future.

      Researchers push this image of the vital, energetic young President who would remake the world anew because it’s absolutely essential to underpin the good/evil narrative and conjure up the required cast of enemies for their theories.

      JFK is admired? Why? Because he was a nice guy? Because of his legislative achievements? I’d be highly surprised if the survey respondents could name three of the latter. I’m not suggesting he shouldn’t be admired, was the worst President, or anything of the sort. Not at all. Just that people tend to view him with rose tinted spectacles.

      DiEugenio: “Also that the public feels that a great split took place in the country after 1963 and the nation has not really been the same since then. Combined with the main poll, these findings give us much ammo.”

      Vague and nostalgic. This impression is reflective of the era when the assassination took place: a period in history when collective belief systems in Western societies fractured around issues of race, gender, ethnicity, class, and so on. Tumultuous times. The suggestion here is that from a perspective decades later, the death of JFK marks a kind of demarcation point in collective memory. Why is that? Is it because everything was just fine and peachy beforehand? No. Is it because the assassination preceded the horrors of Vietnam? Likely a contributing factor. It is because there’s a common perception that the post-war period was a time of fairly unremarkable but relative stability before the social upheaval of the ’60s? Very likely. Is it because the assassination sticks out as a single moment in that period due to the horrendous shock of the event itself and the unparalleled mass media coverage? Very, very likely.

      DiEugenio: “As per Olmens, look, everyone knows the MSM is loaded against good work on the critical side. Has been for decades. I guess you never read Feinman’s essay on the CBS 1967 special which shows Midgley wanted balance in that show. The higher ups vetoed it.”

      Everyone knows? Vague generalization. Ok, you’ve got one example. Any others? Can you demonstrate some sort of organized or consistent pattern over the years since? If that is the case, what are some possible explanations?

      As I said in my previous comment, your problem is not the MSM. Go into any bookstore, anywhere in the world and pick up a selection of books on twentieth century history. Look up the assassination. The historical consensus on this issue has not shifted in the intervening decades. That’s reflected in the MSM. Therein lies your problem.

      • Anyone who cannot name examples of media mias on the JFK case is not very knowledgeable of the history of the case.

        In addition to the Feinman expose of the 1967 CBS special, there is the 1967 Walter Sheridan fiasco. In that one, it has been shown that witnesses were coerced, harassed, and even offered money to say what the producers wanted. The declassified files of the ARRB are quite full of evidence in this regard and I used it in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed. (see pages 237-243) In fact, that show was so biased that the FCC granted Garrison equal time to rebut it. But beyond that, it is now revealed that the producers has clearance from NYC HQ to do what they did. Which parallels what Feinman demonstrates that CBS did.

        How many examples do you want?

        Who was the chief consultant on the Jennings show? Gus Russo. Is Russo going to give the critics equal time. No. And there is documentary evidence for this. When one of the reporters for the show called up David Wrone, they evidently did not know who he was. So Wrone started giving the guy an earful about CE 399. In fact he left the phone for a moment to get some back up. When he got back, the line was dead.

        Your comments about the results of the Hart polling are similarly ersatz. When Hart asked why these people admired JFK, they repeatedly mentioned 1.) The Missile Crisis and 2.) His stand on civil rights. If you had read the book you would have known this.

        As per the great split taking place, you somehow missed the very insightful poll contained in Kevin Phillips book Arrogant Capitol. It measured the belief in the government by citizens. It began in 1960 at a rage of well over the seventies percentile. It ended in about 1993 with a low of 19% The single biggest drop off was in 1964, the year the WR came out. Way too early for Vietnam, and too early for the “tumult” of the sixties.

        • leslie sharp says:

          The significance of John Kennedy, the man, is not the quality or lack there of his character, it is that his persona captured the attention of the poor, the disenfranchised, immigrants and their children and their children’s children, many in the middle class, and indeed not just a few academics, professionals and business figures. I think that individuals like Galbraith and McNamara found Kennedy to be worthy of the gamble they took with their own careers. That’s not a romantic notion, it’s how cultures evolve. So your attempts at rationalizing the assassination as just a milestone along the way by denigrating Kennedy the person falls short of your best work, Mr. or Ms. Olmens.

          This is about a collective in search of one that could lead us to make the world anew, not the reverse, and John Kennedy became the archetype for that dream. Don’t make this about him; he was a flawed human being. Make this about ‘your’ dream for a better world, and tell us that we made an unwise choice in 1960?

          No rose tinted glasses here, just a conviction that when a US President is shot and killed in broad daylight, particularly when that president embodies a high degree of hope and progress for the nation, it is incumbent on Americans to demand resolution to the murder, lest our ideals sink further into the recesses of “history” as little more than a failed democracy. Democracies do fail.

          As to the practical issues you brought up: the fact is that Kennedy was going after the Fed, the steel industry, the oil industry, the mob, and the CIA, not to mention exhibiting a passion for third world cultures to retain their uniqueness and self determination; and then there is Ireland and what might have transpired had he lived, a United Ireland. These hot spots, most of which dovetailed or collided with the interests of the British Government, suggest to me that Kennedy was very unpopular as an understatement among many in power and influence on the global stage.

      • Jonathan says:

        D. Olmens,

        You get things partly right, partly wrong.

        What you get right: [1] THE MAINSTREAM HISTORIANS (Dallek, for example) hew to the Official Story. They aren’t about to ruin their careers and become outcasts. Larry Sabato goes as far as a conventional scholar will go in confronting the Official Story. So yeah, history is written by the victors.

        [2] THE JFK PRESIDENCY HAS BEEN ROMANTICISED. It was at the time. Camelot was real time baloney. A lot of people then alive knew it was baloney.

        What you get wrong or ignore: JFK was breath of fresh air. He represented youth (he was filmed playing touch football, he had two young children and a young, beautiful wife who brought culture and arts to the White House, he surrounded himself with young experts), and he appealed greatly to young people. He was in colorful contrast to the gray, elderly president he succeeded. He called to youth and gave young people a rallying place in the Peace Corps.

        Unlike hie predecessor, he began showing an interest in civil rights, a serious interest.

        Above all, he moved the U.S. and the USSR away from nuclear war. For those of us scared to hell by “On the Beach” this was a HUGE relief.

        His assassination and the way our government handled it did create a divide in this country, between the people and the government. Having been a young-adult witness to the crumbling trust in the government in the wake of the Warren Report, I’ve no doubt, none, as to the profound effect the assassination, its aftermath, and the way it was handled had on the way the American people view their national government.

  21. John Kirsch says:

    I think the division of opinion here mirrors the unsettled nature of the assassination issue itself.
    At the half-century mark, the sad fact is that neither camp has made a slam-dunk case, IMO.
    The Warren Commission report bears the official imprimatur of the federal government. Yet most Americans reject its “lone nut” theory of events. The government’s case was not helped by the commission’s inability to provide any kind of clear motive for Oswald’s alleged assassination of JFK. And the shooting of Oswald in the police station assured that conspiracy theories would blossom in the wake of Dallas.
    But those who doubt, or flatly reject, the commission’s version of events, even those who say the president’s death was the result of a conspiracy, have their own shortcomings.
    I know that some people believe it is unimportant to identify the shooter or shooters (if you believe Oswald did not kill JFK or even fire a rifle that day). I can see their point — up to a point. The deeper question (again, if you believe in a conspiracy), is to uncover the men who hatched the plot and supervised the execution of it.
    Still, from a public relations standpoint, doubters of the official story suffer for their inability, at this late date, to say who did kill President Kennedy. If you walked down the main street of any city in the U.S. and told the first 10 people you encountered (assuming they were old enough to know what you’re talking about) that Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t kill JFK, I guarantee you the first question they would ask is, who did?
    That may not be fair, but it’s true and it’s a hurdle that doubters of the official story have yet to overcome.
    Given the dodgy nature of much of what is described as “evidence” in this case, I think the careful, nuanced, fact-based approach that Morley is using is best. He is fishing in deep and treacherous waters.

  22. Mike Rago says:

    This site is really not set up to handle lots of voices and lots of comments. The more people that participate the more comments will go undetected.

    When the comment load is heavy many comments will go undetected.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      What do you mean? Only during an upgrade to the site in March 2014 were we warned that some comments my not be saved during a transitional maintenance period.

      Otherwise, I’ve never experienced unposted comments. Maybe not moderated, but not unposted.

      How long have you been here Mike?

  23. Ronnie Wayne says:

    I read about the DVP book elsewhere and thought Posner II.
    I’ve felt for years the polls represent a Mandate from the American People, that any politician would love to have, to FREETHEFILES.

  24. M. Ellis says:

    I don’t care much about opinion polls. I usually enjoy professor McAdams’ comments, even though I poke fun at them occasionally. It would be a less interesting and educational place without him around.

    I also look forward to his upcoming review of ‘Reclaiming Parkland’, after he’s read it.

    You are going to read and review the book, aren’t you professor?

    • John McAdams says:

      Probably not. I work factoid by factoid, and not book by book.

      Debunking Armstrong’s factoids on the purchase of the rifle is a higher priority.

      • Jonathan says:

        John,

        I look forward to your upcoming diary here on the rifle.

      • Tom Scully says:

        John, let’s get real, shall we? You’ve avoided resplying to any
        actual detail I have posted. We are in your court, even on Morley’s website.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_October_Surprise_Task_Force#Personnel
        House October Surprise Task Force
        Personnel
        The Task Force’s Chief Minority Counsel, Richard J. Leon, had been Deputy Chief Minority Counsel in the Congressional Iran-Contra investigation.[3][18]

        The Task Force’s Chief Counsel, Lawrence Barcella, was a former federal prosecutor best known for the Edwin P. Wilson case; in 1985 Barcella had (in a highly unorthodox move for a federal prosecutor) given a legal opinion to an unnamed government official on giving the go-ahead to an Iran-Contra-related private weapons shipment.[19] Barcella had also been a partner at law firm Laxalt, Washington, Perito & Dubuc, where, according to the Sen­ate Bank of Credit and Commerce International report, Bar­cella worked directly with Paul Laxalt, then a partner in the law firm and previously chairman of the 1980 Reagan election campaign, on the BCCI account after BCCI was charged with money-laundering.[20] BCCI had been used by Oliver North as part of the Iran-Contra operations.[21]

        • John McAdams says:

          John, let’s get real, shall we? You’ve avoided resplying to any actual detail I have posted.

          What am I supposed to say when you post stuff like that?

          You seem intent on connecting everybody to everybody. But so what? Do you really believe that you will somehow uncover conspirators that way?

          The way you are going, you’ll soon have a thousand people “connected” to somebody who was connected to somebody who might just maybe have been connected to the assassination.

          • Tom Scully says:

            John,
            Your replies are not responsive, they are tactical
            nonrepsonses. If the details in my posts really are too complicated for you, how could yuu hope to reply to Jim DiEugenio’s points about the holes in the rifle and pistol chain of evidence and Armstrong’s research details related to the rifle?
            In my last post I simply presented the problem of the Judge handling the ten year old Morley FOIA case being the assistant minority counsel in the 1992, House “October Surprise” inquiry.
            My other posts in the thread build on the initial unlikely coincidences of Bush’s roommate Hooker being the step-nephew and business partner of the man described as Oswald’s closest friend in Dallas, George DeMohrenschildt. You make a political decision to nonrespond to the expansion of the hard to fathom relationships I just described.
            John, I am adding only three more names. Bush’s close friend, Devine, and his close friend, Dryer, meeting allegedly coincidentally with DeMohrenshildt in NYC on the same day. That day was just eleven days after DeMohrenschildt claimed to have turned Oswald’s face suddenly pale, merely with a comment, “Lee, how could you miss the shot?” A comment you dismiss as a joke.
            Devine met with and reported on George DeM a total of four times on behalf of the CIA. His close friend, Dryer shared his April 25 meeting details with Joan Mellen, but this was not reported by Dryer or by Cogswell to the HSCA.
            Lastly, I posted of the additional unlikely coincidence that Devine and 14 others, resided at least three years in a Sigma Chi frat house with Priscilla McMillan’s CIA contact Garry Coit.
            You can risk responding the way you did, gambling that readers will agree these simple but disturbingly numerous connections between Bush and his friends to two persons of interest to the CIA, DeMohrenschildt and Priscilla are just too complicated for you to actually address.
            I would not expect scholar of political science and a self professed expert on the JFK Assassination to dismiss my specifics the way you’ve chosen to. Mr. Bush’s eulogy of Ford sent a message to “Conspiracy Theorists,” in what amounted to Bush’s brazen attack on all critics of the Warren Report. Readers will decide if your “everyone is connected” dodges succeed in making me look silly or highlight a problem of your lack of curiousity about what Op Wubriny details Bush and Devine keep to themselves.

  25. John Kirsch says:

    It looks like Morley has managed to get both camps mad at him, which suggests that he’s doing something right.

    • Jonathan says:

      John,

      That’s CW (BTW I always read and like your comments).

      A political blog where I post has very little moderation. Strong opinions, libels, and insults are let through. The discussion on certain issues — e.g., whether a Republican candidate should embrace choice (which I favor) — gets very heated and personal.

      But there’s nothing withheld. Everyone’s view is posted and either supported or savaged. It’s the Colosseum of commenting. The main beneficiaries in the Colosseum aren’t the participants. The beneficiaries are the silent witnesses who observe but don’t participate. They are the Silent Majority. They are the persons about whom I mainly care when I add a comment to a blog.

      • John Kirsch says:

        Jonathan, thanks for your comment.
        Yes, I have to agree that saying a journalist who gets both sides mad at him is doing his job smacks of the CW. It was my years as a reporter coming to the fore. Actually that’s a rather glib thing to say.
        But the sentiment behind my comment was real, at least from my standpoint. Maybe I was trying to express my frustration with the fact (at least from my standpoint and that of many other people) that 11/22 remains shrouded in mystery 50 years after the fact.
        (I know the WC defenders see it differently. The only thing I will say about them is that their lack of curiosity is striking, as is their rigid adherence to the notion that the WC got it right, end of story.)
        The fact (again from my standpoint) that 11/22 remains a mystery suggests to me that the approach researchers have taken all these years is flawed.
        Think about it for a moment. Isn’t it extraordinary that so much of the discussion on this site (and on others, too, presumably) is focused on the most basic questions, such as who fired at the motorcade, how many shots were fired and where from?
        If we have been unable to provide definitive answers to those questions after 50 years, then maybe we need to try a different approach. And I don’t know what that would be.

    • Thomas says:

      For those of us not quite as tethered to a camp Jeff’s approach is refreshing.

  26. Sandy K. says:

    My curiosity about the facts began in 1964 as a 9-year-old, reading my father’s paperback copy of the Warren Report. I experienced a visceral rejection of its contents and conclusions. The WC story failed the truth test then as it does now.

    I encourage researchers in the JFK case to keep fighting the good fight. We commoners depend on you. Supported by facts presented on this site, we have an ability to convince others that the unsolved JFK assassination continues to be important, relevant and foreboding.

    • leslie sharp says:

      Sandy K. Your comment is loaded with meaning and intensity. At the risk of cliche, “out of the mouths of babes.” I too was young, 16, and I knew the moment the announcement came over the intercom that something very bad had happened in and to the United States of America and that nothing would ever be the same. Hopefully you have recorded your experience, and maybe you would expand on it here. You must have been a sophisticated reader at 9!

      • Sandy K. says:

        Leslie you are among the most salient commentators on this site and I appreciate your rejoinder. When I’m at the end I’ll probably wish I had back the hours spent on studying this case. Thankfully, there are reliable guideposts as established by investigative bodies and by the research community. Certainly no one has all the answers, however there are those who have found some answers. Bill Kelley, Jim Douglas, Peter Dale Scott, Vince Salandria, Michael Griffith, David Mantik, Vince Palamara, Harold Weisberg, Cyril Wecht and Doug Horne come to mind immediately.

        Over the past five years my macro-view of this case has crystallized. It was and continues to be a state crime. Elements of the state were participants in the planning, the execution and, even to this day, the cover-up. It’s the continuing cover-up that’s particularly galling. Records from a 50-year-old murder case being kept away from the American people because of “national security”? Outrageous.

        The challenge faced today is aptly summed up by one of our main players from 1963: “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State” – the late James Jesus Angleton, chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) counter-intelligence (CI) staff, Associate Deputy Director of Operations for Counter-Intelligence/ADDOCI.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Sandy K, thank you. And like you (and probably a number of others here), I ask myself periodically, how am I going to view this quest as twilight approaches.

          I respect your list, and consider them all giants in their fields. I particularly appreciate PD Scott for defining the broader picture very early on, and Salandria for his wisdom and insight, and his cautionary statement … “they will wear you down.” I would add several somewhat unsung as yet heroes in my opinion: a Texas researcher named Richard Bartholomew who very early on tackled the Texas angle; Linda Minor who “gets it,” The Big Picture, and Tom Scully, whom I predict will eventually be vindicated and lauded by more than just a few for the level of detail he continues to uncover.

          You have said it all … “Outrageous.”

          • Sandy K. says:

            Leslie let’s agree to outlive the JFK cover-up. Above, my spelling failed. It’s Jim Douglass and Bill Kelly of course. Mr. Kelly’s site jfkcountercoup.com is excellent.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Sandy K., I’m several generations behind this phrase, but I like it: “I’m all in.”

          • Brian H says:

            To Sandy K. and Leslie Sharp. Well said ladies only thru relentless research does the truth become crystal clear! I think it’s safe to say both of you have done your due diligence on this case. Another person who has done tremendous research is Noel Twyman his book Bloody Treason is a great read and he did a ton of research for it he damn near got a confession out of Gerald P. Hemming during a weak moment and if not for the fear of his own safety probably would have he stopped Hemming from revealing any more info at one point but the intent was clear by Hemming! Joan Mellen is another great resource she has uncovered a ton of evidence thru the years and has worked tirelessly on the JFK assassination. And for the record is a very nice lady. Lastly Mark Oaks in Dallas not well known but has talked to a lot of key players and is a great about answering questions!!! Again well done Ladies…..

          • leslie sharp says:

            Brian, that’s very nice of you, and very informative. I think that Greg Burnham presents a lot of the Gerry Hemming material as well at his new site assassinationofjfk.

            I’ve not studied Twyman’s book, and I need to. And I’m not familiar with Oaks, but I’m a fan of Joan Mellen. I wonder if Mark is accessible via the net? Having lived in Dallas for years, I would like to compare notes with him. Thanks for the reminders.

          • Brian H says:

            Here is his Email address Leslie. realjfkfacts@hotmail.com again he’s a class guy I met him while doing research in Dealey back in February I’m planning another trip back for possibly late September….

  27. If McAdams is working of debunking the rifle then why has he not replied to my queries on that. Let me repeat them.

    What is the proof Oswald ever picked up the rifle? Who is the witness who gave him the long box? Where are the regulation documents which should be in the record for shipment of a weapon over state lines?

    Where is the USPS card which authorized someone named Hidell to pick up merchandise at a box in someone else’s name? (BTW Wikipedia even lied about this one.)

    If all of this is lacking, and it seems to be so, then Oswald picking up the rifle is a WC factoid. There is no real evidence, let alone proof, he did so.

    And BTW, this is not Armstrong. These are lacunae in the WC records that they ignored. (David Belin in particular.)

    Secondly, where is the proof the FBI was at REA the day of the murder to certify that Oswald picked up the handgun? Would that not have to be a necessity if the FBI was at DPD HQ? Which they were.

    • John McAdams says:

      Let’s see: the writing on all the order materials for the MC was in Oswald’s handwriting.

      It was ordered under the name “Alex Hidell” which was a well-known Oswald alias.

      It was sent to a post office box that was Oswald’s.

      It ended up in Oswald’s possession (photographed in the Backyard Photos, for example).

      It was found on the sixth floor of the Depository, with Oswald’s palm print on it.

      But Jim apparently wants a film of Lee Oswald going to the window of the post office and picking up the rifle.

      But that would not do, since the film would be said to be faked of forged.

      As for the pistol: it was on Oswald’s person when he was arrested. But I suppose all the cops lied about that, right Jim?

      • Brian H says:

        John you know full well that Oswalds palm print nor any fingerprints were found on that piece of junk gun!!! The three shells found didn’t even match for Pete’s sakes… And the only prints found in and around that area belonged to Malcolm Mac. Wallace……..

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        A lot of the people reading and posting on this site know Mr. D can defend what he says well from here, other web sites (CTKA +), and his books. Your response was in reply to his post but not addressed directly to him so I’ just like to note:
        1. No, one was in his handwriting, one was printed if I remember correctly. The authenticity of at least one or the other has been questioned by handwriting experts. Other legally required postal documentation has been missing for 50 years.
        2. Right! It was ordered by Hidel. But that was not a well known alias until the 23rd when the FBI “discovered” it came from Klien’s Sporting Goods. Only after that was the fake ID with his picture on it (the only one of it’s type of millions like it with a picture) reported by the DPD being found in one of O’s wallet’s.
        3. Yes! And picked up by who? Hidel? Who was not authorized on his application for the POB to pick up anything from it?

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Oops. Posted by mistake. Not done.
          4. Nope. Like Chief Curry said “we were never able to put O. in that window with that gun in his hand” (my memory of quote, someone clarify). The BY photos? From some of the few notes or memories about O’s interrogation he said it was his face but not his body, which he could prove later. Look at the shadows. See jack whit’s analysis, measurements and overlays.
          5. Yes, a mannlhicer carcano (note: if you google that term mcadams website is your 4th choice for info, coincidence?) along with a mauser, but O. or Hidel never signed for it. Ahh, the palm print. It wasn’t there, it was, it wasn’t, it was. No fingerprints on it, shells or the unfired bullet in the gun.
          6. The pistol? Witch one? I’ve read during questioning O. said he bought it at a pawn shop in Fort Worth. Show (legally required) some documentation he or Hidel ever picked it up.
          BTW. Did I not read something about you declining or ignoring an opportunity to debate Mr. DuEugenio on the subject in the last few years?

        • Brian H says:

          Ronnie excellent work sir here is a little info nugget most might not know! Gerald Patrick Hemming admitted working at Kliens sports in Chicago for a time prior too the JFK assassination he was quoted as saying I worked there cuz I needed to make money……one other thing Richard Case Nagell confirmed that he and a few others used the Alias Alex Hidell on a few occasions…..

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Thanks Brian. Did not know about Hemming at Kleins. Very interesting. Something I read somewhere years ago had made me wonder about Richard Cain in a Chicago-Kleins connection. I don’t remember the details. I’ve mentioned the Nagel use of Hidell on here before with no comments from others. Seems important to me if he or some one else might have ordered the gun using that name but sent to O’s P.O> Box (although no poof anyone picked it up there using either name).

    • John McAdams says:

      Where is the USPS card which authorized someone named Hidell to pick up merchandise at a box in someone else’s name?

      The Dallas Post Office did not have that part of the form.

      The New Orleans Post Office did have the same form for Oswald’s rental of a box there, and that one did have “Alex Hidell” on it.

      Not that it matters much, since it’s rather far fetched to believe that every time a package came in some employee would did out that form and check the names on it. And do that for each and every package that arrived at the Dallas post office.

    • John McAdams says:

      Where is the USPS card which authorized someone named Hidell to pick up merchandise at a box in someone else’s name?

      The Dallas Post Office did not have that part of the form.

      The New Orleans Post Office did have the same form for Oswald’s rental of a box there, and that one did have “Alex Hidell” on it.

      Not that it matters much. It’s extremely far-fetched to believe that every time a package came in some employee would dig out that form and check the names on it.

      Can anybody show they would do anything like that?

  28. LOL. Jim D. thinks the FBI would need to go to REA to confirm that Oswald took possession of S&W revolver #V510210, even though Oswald had that gun IN HIS HAND just 35 minutes after Tippit was shot with it.

    But DiEugenio is much more concerned about Oswald picking up that gun eight months earlier (as if that matters a whit).

    IOW–let’s just ignore the fact Oswald was waving around the Tippit murder weapon in the theater (trying to kill more cops with it), and instead concentrate on how LHO took possession of it back in March. After all, chaff always trumps wheat in Jimbo’s world.

    It’s hilarious to watch the lengths the CTers will travel to pretend Oswald was innocent of the Tippit murder too.

    MORE HILARITY RE: V510210:
    http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

    • Jonathan says:

      David,

      Let’s look at the situation you describe from an evidentiary standpoint.

      At trial, you try to tie the revolver Oswald allegedly ordered to the Tippit murder weapon. You fail, because the chain of custody is lacking, and because the bullets in Tippet’s body cannot be matched to the pistol allegedly recovered from Oswald.

      Please, to convince all here, without emotion or hyperbole, lay out the chain of custody from Seaport Traders to Oswald. Document each step. Then, please, address the bullets recovered from Tippit’s body and whether they were matched to the revolver Oswald alledgedly had.

      • John McAdams says:

        I think you know perfectly well that the bullets are a red herring.

        The spent cartridges found at the site of the Tippit murder matched Oswald’s revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons.

      • Why on Earth do you think a “chain of custody” is needed from Seaport Traders to Oswald? Such a chain is not needed in the slightest way to prove Oswald killed Tippit.

        Why?

        Because Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM when he was arrested in the theater. (Do you think somebody ELSE killed Tippit with Revolver V510210 and then gave that gun to Oswald in the next 35 minutes?)

        What difference does it make HOW and WHEN Oswald came into possession of the Smith & Wesson revolver (V510210) prior to the 22nd of November? The critical issue is: he DID have it in his hands at 1:50 PM CST on November 22nd. That is a proven fact.

        In short — Given the evidence in the Tippit case (including the various eyewitnesses), it is virtually impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have been innocent of shooting Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit on 11/22/63.

        MORE:
        http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/hilarious-defense-of-oswald.html
        http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit
        http://with–malice.blogspot.com

        • KenS says:

          On page 314 of “With Malice,” Myers writes “Despite the similarities, the majority of ballistic experts were unable to positively state that the bullets that killed J.D. Tippit were fired from Oswald’s revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons.” So Oswald had a pistol. Was it the Tippit murder pistol? The experts couldn’t say. And there are big questions about the cartridge cases (before you go there).

      • John McAdams says:

        lay out the chain of custody from Seaport Traders to Oswald.

        This argument is close to bizarre, since there is no requirement at all that prosecution show where a criminal got the weapon. Often nobody knows.

        Just putting the weapon in the hand of the accused and proving he committed the murder is plenty.

        You need to quit posting pseudo-legal stuff that has no actual basis in law.

      • John McAdams says:

        lay out the chain of custody from Seaport Traders to Oswald.

        This argument is odd, since there is no requirement at all that prosecution show where a criminal got the weapon. Often nobody knows.

        Just putting the weapon in the hand of the accused and proving he committed the murder is plenty.

        You need to quit posting claims about the law that you can’t support.

        If you want to claim that this or that piece of evidence should be dismissed, you need to post some legal authority to back up your claims.

        But in this case common sense will do.

        • And you better stop dodging questions you cannot answer.

          If the Tippit case had gone to trial you had better think this issue would have been a keystone of the trial.

          The wallet was a telltale sign at the Tippit scene. And so is the fact that there is no chain of possession for this revolver to ever come into Oswald’s hands. The FBI either visited REA on 11/22 and found nothing, or they never went there. I find the latter very hard to buy. So to me, the first makes more logical sense.

          At trial, this would have been a big lacunae in the case, as would the impossible timing of LHO being there, and the messy ballistics evidence.

          Meanwhile, I still ask my question: looking at pages 173 74 in the WR, what is the evidence, let alone proof, that Oswald picked up the revolver?

      • Jonathan says:

        Wow, David and John.

        The spent cartridges at the murder scene were initialed by a police officer, John McAdams. Do you deny this?

        David, it’s simple: Did the DPD sniff Oswald’s pistol? Answer: No.

        C’mon, guys. Don’t B.S. me. I’m too old and experienced for that. If you want to convince me, give me the facts. That’s all.

        • LOL. I guess Jonathan thinks “sniffing” the pistol is a much better way to prove or disprove Oswald’s guilt, instead of relying on the bullet shells the killer was dumping on the ground and all of those witnesses who said it was Oswald.

          Better yet–Let’s just ASK Oswald: Did you do it?

          “I didn’t shoot anybody, no sir.” — L.H. Oswald; 11/22/63

          Case solved. Let’s go have lunch.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            Trouble is, the bullet shells don’t match the bullets removed from Tippit’s body. And they don’t have the initials on them that they should have.

            Enjoy your lunch — roast crow and humple pie!

    • Gerry Simone says:

      If Oswald wanted to kill a cop in the theatre, he could’ve done so quite easily.

      I believe he was afraid they would shoot first and positioned himself defensively just in case.

      Then they punched to subdue him.

  29. Well, I figured McAdams would use this stuff for the rifle transfer and then dodge my question about where was the witness who gave Oswald the long package? I mean, the guy just forgot right?

    And where are the regulation documents that needed to be signed according to the law.

    And how did Oswald get the rifle since it was not ordered in his name and therefore it should have been returned according to postal regs, unless someone else was certified to pick it up.

    This is all ignored because it makes the transfer a factoid of the WC.

    What does McAdams use: the BYP and handwriting samples. Then he says it was found on the sixth floor, ignoring the fact that it was the wrong rifle. And my good, who could use the palmprint today? LOL Well, maybe McAdams. Which is why he is who he is. All of this would have been destroyed on cross examination in court.

    As per DVP and the whole REA episode, he has never been able to explain this, not now and not at Simkin’s forum. How did Oswald know when the handgun got there? Where was his written signature on the transfer to him? Why did the FBI got go to REA that day to get this proof? DVP actually once said that the post office delivered the gun to Oswald and kept his money and then gave it to REA!

    I am not kidding. He actually wrote that out on Simkin’s forum. This is how much at a loss he was to explain that transaction. But hey, when the evidence is not there, you have to fill in the cracks with something, anything.

    Cannot wait to read his book. Will have as much fun with it as I did with Bugliosi’s.

    • John McAdams says:

      Jim, you posted a lot of factoids here.

      And where are the regulation documents that needed to be signed according to the law.

      Jean has debunked this. The documents Mark Lane claimed had to be produced in fact applied only to handguns, and not to long guns.

      And my good, who could use the palmprint today?

      Any sensible person. Not only did several officers see the print in the Identification Bureau over the weekend (before it was supposedly faked on Monday), but Day told an FBI agent on the 22nd that he had a print, and was going to lift it.

      Jean Davison discovered that document. Also see First Day Evidence for the officers who saw the print.

      ignoring the fact that it was the wrong rifle.

      Oh, my! You don’t still buy the Mauser story, do you? Tom Alyea’s film not only shows the rifle was an MC, there were distinctive marks on it that ID it as Oswald’s MC. Several photos of Day carrying the rifle out of the Depository show the same thing.

      See HSCA Volume VI.

      where was the witness who gave Oswald the long package?

      You actually believe postal employees are supposed to remember a customer who picked up a package eight months earlier?

      therefore it should have been returned according to postal regs,

      Holmes testified that if somebody came to the counter with a slip to claim a package, it would be given to them. They obviously had access to the box, since they had the slip.

    • John McAdams says:

      And my good, who could use the palmprint today? LOL Well, maybe McAdams.

      Here, Jim, is the documents (discovered by Jean Davison) that blows out of the water the claim that the print didn’t exist on the rifle when it was recovered, and was created by pressing the gun into Oswald’s dead hand.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_palmprint.gif

      • John McAdams says:

        John, that document does not prove what you think it does. In fact, it suggests the opposite.

        The document does not specify the location of the print, but indicates Day was planning on photographing the print. Day spent most of his time dealing with the…trigger guard prints. He photographed the trigger guard prints. If the print mentioned in the document is the barrel print, we need to ask ourselves why there is no mention of the trigger guard prints. Day’s conversation with Pinkston, then, quite possibly came early in the evening, before he even knew about the barrel print.

    • JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

      DVP actually once said that the post office delivered the gun to Oswald and kept his money and then gave it to REA!

      I am not kidding. He actually wrote that out on Simkin’s forum. This is how much at a loss he was to explain that transaction. But hey, when the evidence is not there, you have to fill in the cracks with something, anything.

      DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

      It’s interesting to note how short Mr. DiEugenio’s memory is. Either that, or Jim wants to deliberately ignore the fact that in December 2011, I essentially proved to Jim that the post office DOES, indeed, collect money from people who receive C.O.D. mail through the United States Post Office, with the post office then forwarding the customer’s money to the proper recipicent (or “mailer”).

      Allow me to quote the USPS regulation regarding this matter that was in place for the handling of COD mail as of 2003 (now, Jim D. can argue that this regulation might not have been in effect in 1963, but he cannot dodge these words that were on the USPS books in the as of August of 2003):

      “Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient. If the recipient pays the amount due by check payable to the mailer, the USPS forwards the check to the mailer. If the recipient pays the amount due in cash, the USPS collects the money order fee(s) from the recipient and sends a postal money order(s) to the mailer. The amount collected from the recipient may not exceed $1,000. COD service provides the mailer with a mailing receipt, and a delivery record is maintained by the USPS.”

      Jim should be shifting his argument to this one — Well, Davey, then where is the “delivery record” that your regulation above says was “maintained by the USPS” for Oswald’s revolver transaction in March 1963?

      Instead, Jim is still saying I was dead wrong about the post office EVER handling cash from COD customers.

      Switch your arguments, Jim. Because it’s fairly clear you’ve lost the first one (even though you have failed to notice that since 2011).

      USPS SOURCE:
      http://pe.usps.com/archive/html/dmmarchive0810/S921.htm

      ALSO SEE:
      http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-72.html

      • Brian H says:

        Mr Von Pein your facts and statements are incorrect sir and no give and take debate is ever resolved unless one sticks to the facts.
        You sir seem to have left out one minor detail the woman who did Infact witness Tippets murder! She said right after the police arrived and took her statement that she had witnessed two men at the scene one short and heavy the other tall and very thin neither of which was Oswald and both had pistols the tall skinny one was the shooter! Her Name was
        Acquilla Clemons! Oh and your beloved Warren Commision never called her to testify wonder why?

        • To Brian H.,

          Keep pretending Clemmons’ solo account of TWO killers trumps the OTHER TWELVE people who fingered Oswald as either the LONE killer of Tippit or the LONE man fleeing the scene with gun in hand.

          Is it any wonder CTers keep chasing their tails? They can’t even figure out the real easy stuff–like who killed J.D. Tippit. And nothing is easier than that one.

          • BTW, Clemmons did NOT witness the murder of Tippit. She witnessed the aftermath.

            (And I just got a lecture from Brian about “sticking to the facts”. Geez.)

          • Brian H says:

            Are you sure about that David? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/jfkclemons.htm she Infact swore to her grave that she saw the actual murder and that the DPD told her to keep her mouth shut! Further both Donald Higgins and his wife heard shots walked out they’re front porch and saw the same to men leaving. Lastly Earlene Roberts testified seeing Oswald at 1:04 standing at the bus stop. The problem with this is that this was a couple minutes before the DPD dispatcher recorded T.F. Bowleys call over Tippits Radio informing them that Tippit had been shot. Oswald was and had been a mile north of the shooting for several minutes at that point… One last thing not ONE witness could positively identify Oswald as the shooter initially and that’s when it should have been the easiest to do so only later were they able to must have been a miracle or a bullet to the head!

    • John McAdams says:

      And my good, who could use the palmprint today? LOL Well, maybe McAdams.

      Here is the documents (discovered by Jean Davison) that refutes the claim that the print didn’t exist on the rifle when it was recovered, and was created by pressing the gun into Oswald’s dead hand.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_palmprint.gif

      Day had discovered the print on November 22.

    • John McAdams says:

      Jim, you posted a lot of factoids here.

      And where are the regulation documents that needed to be signed according to the law.

      Jean has debunked this. The documents Mark Lane claimed had to be produced in fact applied only to handguns, and not to long guns.

      And my good, who could use the palmprint today?

      Not only did several officers see the print in the Identification Bureau over the weekend (before it was supposedly faked on Monday), but Day told an FBI agent on the 22nd that he had a print, and was going to lift it.

      Jean Davison discovered that document. Also see First Day Evidence for the officers who saw the print.

      So the image in the movie “JFK” of the rifle being pressed into Oswald’s dead hand was bogus.

      ignoring the fact that it was the wrong rifle.

      Oh, my! You don’t still buy the Mauser story, do you? Tom Alyea’s film not only shows the rifle was an MC, there were distinctive marks on it that ID it as Oswald’s MC. Several photos of Day carrying the rifle out of the Depository show the same thing.

      See HSCA Volume VI.

      where was the witness who gave Oswald the long package?

      You actually believe postal employees are supposed to remember a customer who picked up a package eight months earlier?

      therefore it should have been returned according to postal regs,

      Holmes testified that if somebody came to the counter with a slip to claim a package, it would be given to them. They obviously had access to the box, since they had the slip.

      Do you really believe that, anytime a package arrived, the post office personnel went to the files to see whether it could be delivered the person who had the slip?

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Cannot wait to read his book. Will have as much fun with it as I did with Bugliosi’s.

      Can’t wait for your review Jim. :)

  30. Let me add more about the revolver. One of the most embarrassing parts of the Warren Report is on pages 173 and 174.

    This is where the WC advances its case that Oswald picked up the handgun used in the Tippit murder. In retrospect, its surprising that the first generation of critics did not use this stuff more to show just how much of a factoid the idea that Oswald went to REA to pay for an pick up the handgun. The WC used four pieces of evidence to prove its case.

    Look at those exhibits and see which ones were part of the transaction that had to take place if Oswald actually got a postcard from the USPS at his PO box and went to REA to pay for and pick up the handgun. (Keep in mind, REA is like a forerunner to FedEx)

    Answer: None of them.

    Which leads to this Question: Did the FBI even go to REA on the day of the murder of Tippit and get any documents to prove Oswald took possession of that handgun?

    Answer: There is no evidence that they did. But there is an even worse implication reflected in those WC pages. Namely this: they did go and could not find anything in the documentary record to prove their case.

    Von Pein has been trying to dodge this point for years. He cannot. He is stuck with it.

    As per McAdams’ contention that the cartridges matched the handgun, uh Mr. McAdams, please tells us about the chain of possession of those cartridges, if you could be so kind.

    If that information would have been entered into a judge’s chambers, I don’t even think the cartridges would have been allowed into evidence.

    The WC case against Oswald in the TIppit murder is as factoidish as its JFK case.

    • John McAdams says:

      Jim, you have simply ignored the fact that the pistol was recovered from Oswald, after he tried to shoot Officer McDonald with it.

      So you want to complain about the paper trail?

      What difference does that make? He had the pistol.

      As per McAdams’ contention that the cartridges matched the handgun, uh Mr. McAdams, please tells us about the chain of possession of those cartridges, if you could be so kind.

      Sure. One of the cartridges was recovered and given to Doughty, who put his initials on it.

      Another was recovered and given to Dougherty, who also put his initials on it.

      Two were recovered by Benavides, and given to Poe. Poe failed to put his initials on the hulls, and gave them to Pete Barnes of the Identification Bureau. Barnes put his initials on them, and passed them along.

      Poe testified he gave the hulls to Barnes, and Barnes testified he got them from Poe. So they would have been admissible as evidence at an Oswald trial.

    • John McAdams says:

      Jim, you have ignored the fact that the pistol was recovered from Oswald, after he tried to shoot Officer McDonald with it.

      So you want to complain about the paper trail?

      As per McAdams’ contention that the cartridges matched the handgun, uh Mr. McAdams, please tells us about the chain of possession of those cartridges, if you could be so kind.

      OK. One of the cartridges was recovered and given to Doughty, who put his initials on it.

      Another was recovered and given to Dougherty, who also put his initials on it.

      Two were recovered by Benavides, and given to Poe. Poe failed to put his initials on the hulls, and gave them to Pete Barnes of the Identification Bureau. Barnes put his initials on them, and passed them along.

      Poe testified he gave the hulls to Barnes, and Barnes testified he got them from Poe. So they would have been admissible as evidence at an Oswald trial.

      • This is a good example of McAdam’s (mis)use of evidence. And he has the nerve to complan elsewhere about his comments being overmoderated.

        I asked about the chain of custody of the shells at 10th and Patton. Let us go with the whole story, not the McAdams WC version. Because this kind of selectivity is what brought the WR into disrepute in the first place.

        The first reports from the scene indicated that the weapon used was an automatic. This was based on the identification of a recovered shell. (Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, pgs. 155-56)

        This is not a lone anomaly. Because as Hurt points out, in the crime scene inventory from the first day, amazingly, there is no listing of any shells recovered from the scene! (Ibid, p. 155) This did not happen until SIX DAYS after the murder. (ibid)

        As Jim Garrison points out, this is interesting because of what the DPD did with the bullets. They only sent one bullet to the FBI to be tested to see if it came from the revolver. (McAdams actually said during our debate that this did not matter, one was the same as four.) Now, as the DA wrote, the FBI could not get a match. Therefore, the cartridges had to match or the case was in deep trouble.

        This is where two other factors enter. First, as everyone knows, the shells and bullets do not match. Of the bullets, three were Winchester copper coated and one bullet was Remington lead. (Garrison, p. 199) Then, of course, the shells are divided as 2 and 2.

        On top of that, there is the disappearing Poe ID. Poe marked two of them. But he could not find his initials on the shells later. Barnes was also unable to positively ID the shells. (ibid, p. 201)

        Let me add one more point about this ballistics evidence. The gun was not checked in at the scene. (Hurt, p. 157) It was not until several hours later at HQ that the gun was marked as being Oswald’s.

        As Garrison wrote, this scenario–with the six days old shells,the missing markings, the mismatching ballistics– has all the earmarks of the police firing the gun later to get shells to match the gun. (But not the bullets, since as McBride points out, the HSCA said you cannot definitively match cartridges to bullets.)

        So, this is the evidence the state would have to present in court. As Bob Tanenbaum once said, it would be embarrassing.

        Par for the course though, from the most unethical, corrupt, indefensible police department in the country at the time.

        • Photon says:

          ” The first reports from the scene indicated that the weapon was an automatic. This was based on the identification of a recovered shell.”
          Jim, that simply is not true. The reason why the officer that found the shells thought that they were from an automatic was simply because HE FOUND THEM- automatics eject shells, revolvers don’t. You completely neglect to mention that Oswald was seen at the scene to be ejecting spent shells from his revolver.
          Those shells were matched to the revolver that Oswald used to try to kill a cop in the Texas Theater.
          Jim/ Fearfaxer, your description of the DPD left out the most important adjective- incompetent. To pull off a conspiracy frame of the complexity that you claim is simply unbelievable based on the multiple mistakes that you claim took place. Use some common sense.

          • Jonathan says:

            Photon,

            I’m not sure of the point you’re making. A semi-auto cartridge, such as the .38 Super, has a shell casing distinctly different from that of a revolver cartridge, such as a .38 special. The rim of a .38 Super has essentially the same diameter as the Super’s shell case. The rim of a .38 Special had a diameter larger than the Special’s shell case.

            The DPD said it found four unfired Western .38 Special rounds in Oswald’s pocket two hours after arresting him.

            I agree with Jim DiEugenio. If a DPD officer at the Tippit scene claimed to recover semi-auto shells, I’d tend to give credence to what he said. Visual examination of the shell casing would have been sufficient to identify it ass from a revolver or from a semi-auto.

            Further, I dispute your characterization of the DPD as being merely inept. There are plenty of reasons to believe as you know that it was rife with corruption in the early 1960s.

            Score 1 for Jim DiEugenio.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            Photon:

            If you think it bothers me to have you claim that I’m actually Jim DiEugenio posting under another name, I can only say “thanks for the compliment.” I’m as honored to be confused with him as you’re obviously ashamed of being associated w/Paul May. ;-)

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Jim, that simply is not true. The reason why the officer that found the shells thought that they were from an automatic was simply because HE FOUND THEM- automatics eject shells, revolvers don’t.

            Not according to Michael Griffith’s research:

            http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/tippit.pdf

            I quote:

            “An experienced policeman and a former combat Marine both said an automatic pistol was used (as opposed to Oswald’s revolver). Moreover, the policeman,
            Sgt. Gerald Hill, based his automatic-pistol identification on the shell
            casings. As any firearms expert can attest, it’s very easy to distinguish
            between automatic shells and revolver shells. What’s more, in a 1986
            interview, Hill said he knew the shells were .38-caliber shells because he
            picked one of them up and examined it. This is significant because .38
            automatic shells are marked “.38 AUTO” on the bottom. Hill specifically said
            he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined. It is no wonder,
            then, that Hill got on the radio and said “the shells at the scene indicate
            that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38.”

  31. M. Ellis says:

    DVP wrote: “a chain is not needed in the slightest way to prove Oswald killed Tippit.

    Why? Because Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM when he was arrested in the theater.”
    —-
    Assuming for the sake of argument you’re right on that point, documents providing a chain-of-custody would be able to show if someone else had originally picked up the revolver and transferred it to LHO. That would be an important fact – wouldn’t it?

    That’s why a chain of custody is necessary in a court trial.
    But no doubt, it’s not needed when a mob guy can walk into a police station whack the defendant before he gets to trial.
    —-

    I like examining facts that are not in dispute. 544 Camp Street and the FPCC leaflets stamped for that address – for example – are not in dispute. LHO stamped that address on those leaflets.
    Then he stopped.

    McAdams, DiEugenio, DVP and the WC agree on that. They disagree about what it means. But still it’s a starting point. With undisputed facts, one can reason and decide, which explanations make sense.

    There are many mysteries in this case. But a FEW of them start with agreed-upon facts, like 544 Camp Street, or the lack of photographic or audio evidence showing LHO was in Mexico City, or JFK’s missing brain. These are facts people agree on. They disagree on what conclusions to draw from them.

    Disputing the factual findings of the WC is fine I suppose. But where I’m at in this process – it is easier to just look at facts everyone seems to agree on first and take it from there.

    And to their credit, some researchers, are using the WC’s own witnesses and testimony to discredit the overall conclusion of the commission. They get it.

    That’s not wasted time. I think arguing about facts that people can’t agree on to begin with, is usually a waste of time.

    I am a novice. So that is where I start. What facts do both sides have in common? What are their theories to explain those agreed-upon facts? Which of their theories makes sense? Which beg credulity?

    • M. ELLIS SAID:

      Disputing the factual findings of the WC is fine I suppose. But where I’m at in this process – it is easier to just look at facts everyone seems to agree on first and take it from there.

      And to their credit, some researchers are using the WC’s own witnesses and testimony to discredit the overall conclusion of the commission. They get it.

      That’s not wasted time. I think arguing about facts that people can’t agree on to begin with is usually a waste of time.

      I am a novice. So that is where I start. What facts do both sides have in common? What are their theories to explain those agreed-upon facts? Which of their theories makes sense? Which beg credulity?

      DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

      In my view, the conspiracy theory that is lacking the most in the “makes sense” department is the one that a large percentage of conspiracists actually seem to swallow whole — the one that has a gang of unknown assassins/conspirators planning to kill the President AND trying to frame one man–Lee Harvey Oswald–for this crime. Those alleged assassins then decided–IN ADVANCE, quite obviously–to fire shots (per the CTers) at President Kennedy’s body from both the rear and FRONT of JFK’s limousine, thereby ensuring the failure of their “One Patsy” plot if any of those frontal shots hit any victims in the car (or hit anything else).

      People endorsing such a MULTI-gun, ONE-patsy plot have either never thoroughly thought about the complete insanity and illogic of such a plan, or those theorists are blood relatives of Oliver Stone’s. :-)

      • Fearfaxer says:

        What utter nonsense.

        Having someone (maybe Oswald maybe not) fire from behind JFK would help to confuse matters if the kill shot came from the front (which seems to have worked out brilliantly). Somebody was going to have to take the fall for this murder. And two people not meant to get shot were in fact wounded: John Connolly (seriously) and James Tague (minor flesh wound).

        Your comment is so typical of what I really love about you Lone Nutter’s — you can’t remember the most elementary facts of the case, or understand the simplest logic, and then resort to a consescending sneer when referring to anyone who doubts the official story.

        • It’s nice to know that so many CTers WOULD, indeed, have been foolish enough to plan–in advance!–a frame-the-patsy assassination plot by firing at JFK from multiple directions.

          The idiocy and recklessness of such a plot would astound and perplex anyone’s mind — except JFK conspiracy theorists on the Internet.

          Amazing.

      • Jonathan says:

        David,

        I don’t think you grasp the assassination. One or more persons wanted JFK dead at all costs. The person or persons made sure to nail JFK in a shooting gallery part of Dallas. The person or persons made sure there would be a trail leading to Oswald. The person or persons did not want to get caught.

        Let’s posit arguendo Oswald was the solo sniper. Putting aside all the factual problems with this assumption, it’s logically inconsistent with the clear fact the killer(s) didn’t want to get caught. Why would Oswald leave behind an incriminating rifle (not so incriminating I believe, but that’s another story) and a wallet and spent shells?

        Oswald wasn’t a dummy. And he denied culpability. So why would he leave such a trail for law enforcement authorities?

        It’s not an answer to say he acted rashly, at the last moment, with no preparation. That wasn’t Oswald M.O. in his adult life, and the facts don’t support such a proposition.

        What the facts and common sense support is the proposition that Oswald pulled no trigger on 11-22-63, not even in the Texas Theater; and that he was set up to take the fall because his intelligence connections insured there wouldn’t be a full and fair investigation of his life and death or of JFK’s.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Oh yes they have.

        Orlando Martin (decorated Marine drill-instructor and fire-arms expert) discusses in his book, Analysis of a Shooting, that the type of ammo used from the front was a frangible bullet, which upon fragmentation or better yet, disintegration, would obfuscate forensics when another gunman is using FMJ ammo that leaves a trace.

        Case in point:

        1. Particular or dust cloud shown on the lateral X-ray of JFK.

        2. Also, Jerrol Custer says he saw particles or fragments in a neck x-ray, and that the neck wound was further distorted by probing (as opposed to just a tracheotomy).

        3. Blow back on impact of shot fired from in front from ensuing explosion by frangible bullet.

        4. FMJ may break but they won’t disintegrate into minute particles like an exploding bullet. The extreme example (and joke) would be CE399. Those WCC are very magical indeed! First they barely deform upon smashing longitudinally through a 5th rib bone and crashing through radial wrist bone, and yet, upon piercing a skull bone, leave the mid-section on the outer table of JFK’s skull and the rear and point sections as fragments in the limo. In his professional opinion, a FMJ round would penetrate a skull no problem and would’ve exited on the left front side of Kennedy’s head. (Those fragments could’ve come from Connally or struck the chrome-plated steel windshield frame and not JFK, ergo a second shooter).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more