Deprecated: Function Elementor\DB::is_built_with_elementor is deprecated since version 3.2.0! Use Plugin::$instance->documents->get( $post_id )->is_built_with_elementor() instead. in /home/cnw9flf6e/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5379
Against conspiracy > JFK Facts

Against conspiracy

Dave Reitzes makes the case for the lone gunman: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters.

He writes:

“And conspiracies do happen, sometimes even at the highest levels of our government; Watergate and the Iran-Contra scandal were conspiracies that reached into the highest office in the land. People in positions of influence conspire to commit unethical and illegal acts every day; it is more commonly called corruption. Obviously, it is imperative that we remain alert to the possibility of very real conspiracies in our midst (eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, after all), but it is equally important that we use our critical faculties to distinguish verifiable evidence from idle speculation.”

53 thoughts on “Against conspiracy”

  1. I’ve come to the conclusion there was a conspiracy, of what kind we still can’t be absolutely positive. My conclusion stems from the evidence the government ignored or covered up, including (and this is a very short list):

    o The WC never including the opinion of Dolce, the top Army ballistics expert, regarding the impossibility of the magic bullet remaining near-pristine after shattering two bones.

    o Dr. Perry’s nurse who said there were more fragments in Connolly than what the government said was missing from the magic bullet. Dr. Perry himself was non-committal/vague to the WC on the weight of fragments.

    o The call to the HSCA by the lawyer of JFK’s personal physician, Admiral Burkley, that he had information that proved Oswald could not have been the only accomplice. Burkley also placed the back shot at the third thoracic in the death certificate, negating the magic bullet theory. He was never called to testify to the WC or HSCA.

    o The discovery of the occipital bone lying the street that was catalogued, photographed and determined to be occipital by a local Dallas hospital. It was later given to the FBI and disappeared and did not make it into the WC.

    o The rewriting of FBI testimonies and the obvious coercion and obfuscation of other WC testimonies

    o The fact LBJ and Hoover knew someone had impersonated Oswald in Mexico City yet never investigated.

    o The fact LBJ and the entire security team didn’t get him out of Dallas immediately not knowing if these were coordinated attacks against the entire US government at the time.

    o The fact the case was “closed” the next day by DA Wade after hearing from Washington three times. The day before he had told media that accomplices had to be involved in the shooting.

    All the above intrigue and discrepancies and outright cover-up proves to me this isn’t a tale about a little screwed-up guy shooting from a warehouse window. Not even close.

  2. Thought I should explain why I said there might have been more than one attempt that day. I realized there were more than enough people/groups upset with JFK, more than upset. It was a golden opportunity for an opportunist. LHO could possibly have been ready in the Book Depository and when he realized there was another shooter, became alarmed, thinking he was being set up in some way. That could be why he hurried back to his rooming house to get the pistol, expecting and preparing for anything. If this sounds like a novel or movie, I would agree but add that so does the actual event. There are too many facts running around, too much confusion. Those involved in both attempts would have had very little advance notice thus making mistakes that would add to the confusion. This doesn’t’ rule out a conspiracy.

  3. I like what Dave Reitzes said here and I agree but I realize also that it wouldn’t necessarily rule out a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. If Watergate could be a conspiracy so could the assassination. Too bad the conspiracy buffs and anti conspiracy buffs can’t meet halfway, realizing that they both make good points and have plausible ideas. There is an answer and maybe it’s something simple, too simple. It could also be something complicated, something not anticipated like two separate assassination attempts, like one from the grassy knoll and the other from the Book Depository.

    1. Bob Prudhomme

      Now THAT would be a coincidence; two independent assassination attempts. seconds apart and within a block of each other.

      1. Bob, your general logic makes me wonder where your going with this. Gemini likes what Reitzes says ?

  4. What is so wrong with the writings of someone like, Bugliosi, who spent years doing honest research and came to the conclusion that Lee Oswald was the lone gunman? He worked through his years of research in a logical, methodical way. He has excellent qualifications. I read through his writings and found his reasoning well thought out and very plausible. Some conspiracy theories are very tempting I believe. Yet I don’t want to throw away good logical facts just because they lead to the lone gunman theory. I like what Dave Reitzes said and I’m willing to listen to some reason. There is a lot of evidence leading to a lone gunman whether we like it or not.

  5. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde

    If there is no Conspiracy…what should we name the blocking of the release of CIA records? Or the blocking of the release of Oswalds ONI records? How about the blocking of the JFK autopsy at Parkland? Or the blocking of a trial by the formation of the Warren Commission? What should we name the blocking of so much verifiable evidence?

  6. Don’t expect Dave Reitzes or Jean Davison to respond to a simple knowledgeable question. The least talked about tactic used by the Lone Nut community is to simply ignore a difficult question. If they absolutely have to respond, expect to hear the words ‘buff’, ‘Garrison’, ‘coincidence’, ‘factoids’, etc.

    The argument is over. There was a conspiracy to kill JFK, it was covered up, LHO did have contact with US Intelligence. We will keep believing this until anyone in the lone nut community can answer a half dozen simple questions.

    1. Mitch, your comment about the lone-nutters puts them in the same category as the Warren Comission itself, who, as we know, ignored many witnesses, and threatened some of those they DID talk to. I certainly believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. I get the sense that Lone nutters spend more time attacking those of us who oppose them than proving Oswald WAS the lone nut.

  7. The a Conspiracy Community has had 50 years to prove something and nothing has been proven. I was once a Cts schooled by Mae Brussell now I’m 99.9% sure Oswald pulled those triggers and the chance of a bigger conspiracy is very small, there is no evidence. Just because JFK had enemies doesn’t prove a conspiracy.

    1. JG,

      Did you take a REAL close look at the autopsy x-rays of JFK’s skull? Really close?

      I rest my case. There was a shot from the front. The lead doesn’t lie.

      1. And exactly where did you do your Radiology residency? I find these claims of expertise in the evaluation of x-rays by laymen without a shred of medical training laughable. I’m sorry JSA but you know nothing about cranial x-rays or the pathology associated with them.

      2. JSA writes:

        “Did you take a REAL close look at the autopsy x-rays of JFK’s skull? Really close?

        “I rest my case. There was a shot from the front. The lead doesn’t lie.”

        JSA is engaging in one of the common fallacies discussed in my article: reliance on lay interpretations of forensic evidence.

        Every one of the forensic experts who studied the original forensic evidence for the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, and the House Select Committee Forensic Pathology Panel, stated unequivocally — including noted Warren Commission critic Cyril Wecht — that the authenticated autopsy photographs and X-rays indicate that the shot came from behind the President, with no evidence of a shot from anywhere else.

        I listed some of these experts in the endnotes to my article; here is a more complete list:

        Clark Panel: William M. Carnes, M.D., Professor of Pathology, Salt Lake City, Utah; Russell S. Fisher, M.D., Professor of Forensic Pathology, University of Maryland, and Chief Medical Examiner of the State of Maryland; Russell H. Morgan, M.D., Professor of Radiology, School of Medicine, and Professor of Radiological Science, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The Johns-Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; Alan R. Moritz, M.D., Professor of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

        Rockefeller Commission: Lieutenant Colonel Robert R. McMeekin, MC, USA, Chief, Division of Aerospace Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, D.C.; Richard Lindenberg, M.D., Director of Neuropathology & Legal Medicine, Department of Mental Health, State of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; Werner U. Spitz, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, Wayne County, Detroit, Michigan; Fred J. Hodges III, M.D., Professor of Radiology, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and Alfred G. Olivier, V.M.D., Director, Department of Biophysics, Biomedical Laboratories, Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland.

        HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel: John I. Coe, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner of Hennepin County, Minnesota; Joseph H. Davis, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner of Dade County, Miami, Florida; George S. Loquvam, M.D., Director of the Institute of Forensic Sciences, Oakland, California; Charles S. Petty, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, Dallas County, Dallas, Texas; Earl Rose, M.D., LL.B., Professor of Pathology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa; Werner V. Spitz, M.D., Medical Examiner of Detroit, Michigan; Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., Coroner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; James T. Weston, M.D., Chief Medical Investigator, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Panel Chairman Michael M. Baden, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, New York City.

        If JSA has credentials that are comparable to any of these individuals, let him enumerate them here.

        Dave

          1. Mr. Rohde,

            You just told us that the autopsy materials prove that the President was shot from the front, indicating a conspiracy. Now you’re telling us that the autopsy materials have been “altered” as well?

            Would you care to clarify your position?I’d be happy to clarify mine.

            The 20-member panel of photographic experts consulted by the House Select Committee found the technology of 1978 to be more than adequate to allow them to authenticate the autopsy photographs and X-rays of John F. Kennedy:

            http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol6.htm

            The forensic experts I listed agreed unanimously that the autopsy evidence indicated that the President had been shot from above and behind:

            http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol7.htm

            Dave

          2. Why is your response to documented facts that contradict your hypothesis always to claim that the evidence for those facts has to somehow be faked? In 1988 four Parkland Hospital doctors were taken to the National Archives and shown the JFK autopsy pictures. All four stated that the pictures conformed to their recollections of what JFK’s head looked like in the ER. Did PBS or the National Archives create a new set of photos for those four?
            What is your expertise in photo interpretation, alteration or printing that makes you an expert in this subject?

          3. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde

            Mr. Reitzes, would you care to point out the reference here where I made any mention of which direction the shot came from?
            Or perhaps correct youself?

          4. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde

            PS: Mr. Reitzes, I’m fully aware of the panels examination and the limitations of technology at the time. While examining cameras, paper types and development types was necessary. I think they could have focussed a bit more on what is actually visible in the image itself. An examination should also have included all of the images taken, which we know didn’t happen.

          5. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde

            Photon…let me correct you. The facts don’t contradict my evidence. My evidence contradicts the supposed facts. I know your fondess for word games and subtle deceptions so I fixed it for you. The proof is in and no hypothysis. The hypothysis existed when Parkland staff stated the Bethesda images didn’t represent the wounds as they remembered, raising the suspicion that something was not right with the images.

          6. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde

            If your experts were as good as you suggest, why are they using a “post-autopsy” image to represent the supposed wounds to JFK’s head? The images they use have the rubber sewn onto the neck by morticians, who covered up the head wound as best they could as some hair and skull fragments were missing. So where is the “pre-autopsy” images that match these (minus the rubber on the neck)? BTW…that would make the Ida Dox drawing (post-autopsy) as well. In other words…and I haven’t even began to get into the actual alterations. A post-autopsy image can not be representative of pre-autopsy conditions. The images are false representations, including the Dox drawing.

        1. First of all, denying long established links between the Intelligence and policing agencies of the U.S. and organized crime is a serious flaw of understanding and realization on many levels.
          These links were formed long before the CIA was even thought of.

          Secondly, rather than dispute the theories involved with the appearance of CE399, be it near pristine or not, please show me testimony of one of those physicians that finds the appearance of CE399 to be commensurate with the alleged damage inflicted.

          Connally himself does not agree with what happened to him according to the report, and I tend to think he is at least more correct than you or I.

          Any speculation on the number of shots that differ from the account of the surviving victim would have a hard time getting off the ground in a court of law.

          The premise that the entire matter is centered around a theory that discounts the statements of the victim would be found to be unreasonable.

          None of the test firings corroborate anything other than severe distortion after striking cadaver wrists.

          Finally, for the time being, there is ample testimony regarding not only the validity of the Bethesda autopsy, but its integrity as well.
          There is also similar information regarding skull surgery, prior to the autopsy.

        2. The X-Ray Tech Jerrol Custer said certain X-Rays are fake. personally, I would take his opinion over anyone that wasn’t there. He claimed of seeing an entrance wound high in the right forehead/temple area that is corroborated by Autopsy Assistant James Jenkins, Officer Of The Day Dennis David, and Parkland Doctor Charles Crenshaw. Also, Doctors Ronald Jones, Donald Curtis, and Dr. Robert McClelland have said JFK was shot in the head from the front, so there is support for the railroad workers on the overpass and many Dealey Plaza witnesses such as Jean Hill, that JFK was indeed shot at from the front.

        3. “JSA is engaging in one of the common fallacies discussed in my article: reliance on lay interpretations of forensic evidence.”

          It’s no fallacy to look at the single bullet THEORY and say it’s so larded with b.s. and contradiction as to be a JOKE.

          Assembling a list of corrupt “Best & The Brightest” or a set of TOP Navy Brass telling Colonel Billy Mitchell that “aeroplanes will never replace the battleship” doesn’t cut it. The emperor has no clothes. The team at Parkland said Kennedy was struck from the FRONT, in the right temple. That’s not MY conjecture, Dave, that’s the facts.

    2. If you actually think that, then you’ve never really studied this case in depth – read Weisberg, McKnight, Meagher, Roffman, Fonzi and others, not Brussell. She did some good work but also a lot of speculating.

      1. Hey TLR! It’s Hideji Okina.
        I read Weisberg, McKnight, Meagher, Roffman, Fonzi’s book.
        I think Weisberg and Roffman are honest but misunderstand.
        McKnight and Meagher are not honest and mislead.
        Fonzi is honest.
        Especially McKnight and Meagher books are worst
        mislead,misinformation.

  8. You kidding? The intelligence agencies spend $100 billion dollars a year conspiring and anyone who discovers or suspects them of conspiring is a “Conspiracy Nut”…What the hell do you think they’re doing with all that money?

  9. And as always, Warren Commission fundamentalists debunk some silly old myths, ignore the actual incriminating evidence, congratulate themselves and call it a day.

    How about he explains instead, the very real CIA-Oswald connections, the fact that the lone-nut idea was pushed before the WC was even established, the deliberate withholding of information and conscious ignoring of available information by the CIA/FBI that can only be described as obstruction of justice, the evidence that suggests the “pristine” CE399 may not even have been the bullet that was found that day, the deaths of people like DeMohrenschildt and Richard Nagell that can only be called “convenient”, etc.

    As always, WC fundies would love to have you believe that if the SBT can be “proven”, no matter how unlikely, and if we can’t specifically point out the alleged sniper team that was part of the conspiracy, that automatically means there’s no way a conspiracy could have taken place and the CIA/FBI’s obstruction of justice is completely irrelevant.

    It’s things like these that make me consider any WC fundie to be a CIA propagandist, no matter how “paranoid” that may seem.
    Much like Vincent Bugliosi’s book (which has been torn to shreds in Gary L. Aguilar’s essay), there is no way these supposed “skeptics” would use their time (while apparently being ignorant of a whole mountain of serious evidence) writing these obscene defenses of the Warren Commission that even other investigations have called “deficient” (Church Committee investigation) and “not an accurate presentation of all the evidence available” (HSCA), purely out whatever motivation they claim they have.

    1. The above correspondent has apparently missed the point of my article, and I would urge him or her to read it again more carefully, and also to study the sources I cite.

      Some of the most common speculation about Warren Commission Exhibit 399, the legendary “magic bullet,” is discussed in the section of my Oliver Stone critique on the single bullet theory:

      http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbth.html

      In addition to the data I provide, the programs broadcast by the Discovery Channel and NOVA: COLD CASE (use the links provided to view both programs online) present readily comprehensible experiments demonstrating that CE 399’s condition (which is far from “pristine”) is entirely consistent with what would be expected of a bullet that performed what CE 399 did.

      Some common claims about government suppression of evidence are addressed here:

      http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100files.html

      I support the efforts of Jefferson Morley and others who are directly involved in seeking the release of all assassination-related documents that remain classified. When such materials are finally available, we will then be in a position to conclude whether a conspiracy has been concealed, or if there were other reasons these documents have been withheld from public scrutiny.

      Those skeptical of conspiracy theories are as eager to see full disclosure in this case as those who are skeptical of the Warren Commission. The WC skeptics want the files opened to prove a conspiracy; conspiracy skeptics want the files opened to end the speculation.

      As for the ever-popular “mysterious deaths” theory, my article explains why it was groundless from the start, and nothing has changed over the years, even as more and more names are added to the list without a shred of evidence connecting any of them to a JFK conspiracy. By far the best place to find information on this subject is the Kennedy Assassination Home Page:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm

      The death of George De Mohrenschildt was tragic, but it was undoubtedly a suicide. See:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt

      Why anyone would think Richard Case Nagell’s death was mysterious, I don’t know. Nagell died of heart disease at the age of 65, after making a bewildering variety of claims to anyone who would listen for over three decades. Not only that, but his story is almost universally misreported in the conspiracy literature. Numerous books and articles claim that he staged a bank robbery in order to provide himself with an alibi at the time of the Kennedy assassination, but Nagell himself never made that claim, and he specifically denied ever saying that.

      Check out this article of mine for full details:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nagell1.htm

      Dave

  10. S.R."Dusty" Rohde

    “Idle speculation” is essentially what D.Reitzes comments are. When he holds an actual legal jury verdict in his hand, that declares LHO is “A” guilty and “B” acted alone can he declare their was no conspiracy. LNT’S and anti-CT’s put on airs that their position is more valid and weighted than anyone else. That false assertion is pure fiction intended to defraud and distract the one simple fact in all of this. Lee Harvey Oswalds rights have been violated, for over 50 years. He has never had his day in court. Yet we are supposed to believe no conspiracy exists or existed. If you want prove there was no conspiracy, then start the trial. Start the trial, by jury. Let due process take its course. Let the Court subpoena CIA records. Let the rightful and legal jury reach their verdict. Because without that verdict everything else is “idle speculation”.

  11. Reitzes makes an organized and spirited attempt to defend the Warren Report but a different reading utilizing the tools of the skeptical approach demonstrates logical errors in his thinking.

    I don’t have time to write about the entire article but the first two sections are flawed in the following ways:

    Reitzes produces a chart that purports to demonstrate that 81% of witnesses heard three shots. I am not sure about the source of his data. Is it the flawed Warren Report which (it has been proven) disregarded several witnesses that did not tow the line or in other cases encouraged witnesses to say what they wanted to hear? He doesn’t deal (with proper skepticism I might add) with the fact that evidence and testimony in this case was compromised.

    He goes on to argue rightfully that eyewitness testimony is often inaccurate but he is confident that IT IS IN FACT accurate when it supports the lone gunman/no conspiracy theory.

    In the next section he states that doctors at Parkland “were wrong” about seeing an entrance wound in the front of the president’s head and an exit wound in the back. This is a very unequivocal statement that he cannot back up and bases it on studies that show that doctor’s initial observations about wounds are accurate only half the time.

    The logical and therefore correct conclusion based on his own data is Parkland doctors are as likely to be right as wrong (which he immediately discounts) but another factor is not raised. The odds of ONE doctor making a mistake may be 50% but there were many doctors and nurses present. More trained observers who agree and see basically the same thing dramatically increases the odds of being accurate. If this was merely a toss of a coin then half the doctors and nurses should have said one thing and the other half another. Based on the evidence however the majority were pretty clear that they saw an exit wound in the back of his head.

    That’s just the first two sections. Reitz seems eager to forgo his normal skepticism about the Warren Report to take aim instead at people who believe in conspiracies. In my opinion he doesn’t see the forest for the trees and his “skeptical” knife cuts unevenly.

  12. The usual stuff. Confused witnesses, umbrella man with a poison dart gun, Badgeman, acoustic evidence (which many conspiracy researchers have not accepted for decades), neurospasm, etc. It looks like a copy and paste from McAdams’ website.

  13. Nice to see you briefly mentioned Mr. Morley. I did note he didn’t mention anything about CIA files still being withheld, or your 10 year suit to release them.
    The basic fact is JFK did sign NASAM 263, instructing the bringing home of 1000 advisers by the end of 1963 (many, if not most of these did participate in combat). The overall context of that Memorandum called for getting all advisers out by the end of 65′ contingent on certain goals being met.
    The article does not mention that LBJ countermanded NASAM 263 with NASAM 273 FOUR DAYS AFTER JFK WAS SLAIN.
    I believe the Walter Cronkite 9/63interview referenced in the article is the same one in which JFK stated “in the final analysis, it is their war”.
    The author states “There is one fact that is hard to dispute, however: of the dozens of witnesses who described the sound of the shots, VERY FEW (YOU COULD COUNT THEM ON ONE HAND)said they came from more than one direction. This is not a fact this is not true.
    The fact is the opposite is true and has been proven by the tallying the statement of witnesses. I will find and provide documentation on this in the next few days.
    Finally, regarding Mr. Aynesworth, look at the CIA memo in THE Assassinations from 10/10/63 offering his services by J. Walton Moore, Dallas CIA Head in 63′ who “cleared” Oswald for contact by Dallas Petroleum Club member George De Morenshild

    1. Also, see DESTINY BETRAYED pgs. 249-255 for information on his role for for the CIA and the lawyers of Clay Shaw/Bertrand in the Garrison trial of Shaw/Bertrand.

      1. I’d like to keep this discussion on-topic, but anyone seeking reliable and factual material on Jim Garrison’s ill-fated JFK assassination probe will find detailed, accurate analysis at my website, along with an abundance of primary sources, including the Clay Shaw preliminary hearing and trial transcripts, key grand jury transcripts, and other relevant material:

        http://www.jfk-online.com/garrison.html

        Dave

      1. I’m unclear on who authored the “21 Cops” article; would it be Jefferson Morley?

        When the article suggests that the witnesses in question spoke of “a shot” from the knoll, I’m afraid this is inaccurate and misleading. None of the witnesses quoted in the article indicated that he heard shots from more than one direction. The only one I notice who even referred to that issue is Paul E. Landis, Jr., who is quoted as saying, “I still am not certain from which direction the second shot came…”

        My SKEPTIC article acknowledges that a significant percentage of eyewitnesses thought the shots came from roughly the direction of the knoll, of course. The key point is that only a tiny percentage (six percent or less, depending upon which tabulation one consults) specifically reported that the shots came from more than one direction.

        Dave

    2. Sources for every statement in my article are provided in the endnotes, of course. My source for the number of witnesses who reported shots from more than one direction is a comparison of four separate tabulations of the eyewitness testimony: one by Warren Commission skeptic Josiah Thompson, one by the House Select Committee, one by Warren Commission skeptic Stewart Galanor, and one by conspiracy skeptic John McAdams. This tabulation is presented in McAdams’ book, JFK ASSASSINATION LOGIC, and at his website:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

      The tabulations vary, for reasons detailed by McAdams, but all four tabulations agree that witnesses who specifically reported shots from more than one direction made up only a tiny minority of the total (six percent or less), and they numbered five or less, as I stated in my article.

      Mr. Wayne repeats a common but incorrect notion when he says that LBJ’s NSAM 273 “countermanded” JFK’s NSAM 263, although this is not directly relevant to the “Not-So-Cold Warriors” section of my article (which addresses speculation about how John F. Kennedy would have handled the conflict in Vietnam had he lived, and does not cover the positions of his successor). As this hypothesis was advanced in Oliver Stone’s “JFK,” I address it in my website’s detailed critique of that film:

      http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100lbjnam.html

      One might infer that Mr. Wayne is accusing LBJ of complicity in his predecessor’s death, although he does not explicitly say so. Space limitations precluded me from discussing LBJ-related theories in the “Cui Bono?” section of my article. As a former conspiracy believer who was once highly sympathetic to such ideas, it would have been interesting to address them in my article; but I had to limit myself to what I considered the most influential theories.

      Dave

  14. Very superficial article. Too many points to contend with, because of that, but just one in particular- Ruby very definitely had close Mob connections. The night before he killed Oswald, he had dinner with the head of the Dallas Mob, Joe Campisi, who was also one of his first visitors in jail. That ain’t chopped liver when it comes to Mob connections.

  15. Noted JFK author/historian Jim DiEugenio began a recent critique of Dave Reitzes with this paragraph opening sentence,‘Apparently, Dave Reitzes has an uncontrollable urge to make a fool out of himself’. The entire critique can be read here:

    http://www.ctka.net/2013/flipflop.html

    Visit the alt.jfk forum (John McAdams & his groupies online hangout)to read a multitude of examples of what Jim describes in his essay on Reitzes. DiEugenio fans know that when he takes the time to bite chunks out of what he considers an abusive ‘lone nutter’ disinformationist online the abuser has gotten as bad as they can get.

      1. I thought the entire DiEugenio critique stood on its own merits inviting a response not from your supporters but from you; sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph. Such a response would take up too much space on Jeff Morley’s website, if you have a blog perhaps you could do it there or in YouTube videos. While you’re at it, I’d like to read you take on Doug Horne’s blog analysis that Dr. Humes cut into JFK’s head, cut & removed his brain & removed bullet fragments & created the large wound mistakenly believed to be the massive exit wound an hour & a half before the actual autopsy began.
        Having your own blog allows one the freedom to respond to criticism without restrictions. I believe in both sides of the story being presented & considered. If you are going to maintain my interest you’ll need to toss in a few words I never knew existed; in Jim DiEugenio’s critiques I never fail to pick up at least a dozen new words I had no idea existed.
        New info has broken since you posted your responses above^ and below v on David Atlee Phillips being Maurice Bishop. Great speculation on what the meeting between Phillips & Oswald consisted of is spreading across the internet (everything from Phillips was giving Oswald his ‘pink slip’ to Phillips was assigning Oswald JFK ambush duties is being discussed). I’d like that issue addressed from your perspective too.
        The alt.jfk forum is not a good place to conduct any type of business; it’s chief antagonist (Marsh) is there to offend posters & lurkers to the point they turn against CT’ers imo. A blog is your best bet IMO.

        I, like Gaeton Fonzi, am not a CT’er, I am a conspiracy believer. Without hard evidence to support it too.

  16. “Conspiracy theories positing Oswald as a lone gunman in league with other plotters have never gained much of a foothold in the popular imagination; the critical point has always been whether there was a second gunman.”

    Yeah, we all saw what he did there.

    “…Jack Ruby was a buffoon. He liked the limelight. He was highly volatile. He liked to be recognized with people, and I would say this to this committee: if Jack Ruby was a member of organized crime, then the personnel director of organized crime should be replaced.”

    Meet Sam DeStefano:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_DeStefano

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top