Reader John Kirsch says I should have asked for his permission before publishing his email about the comments of “common sense.” He is right. My apologies to him.
Kirsch’s note crystallized my dissastisfaction with the quality of the discussion on the site.
The problem is not the views of “common sense,” whose anti-conspiratorial perspective is welcome.
The problem is the overall tenor of the conversation on the site. Often it is excellent. Too often it bores me with its repetitiveness and and unsupported speculation.
Which is to say, I am revisiting the JFK Facts comment policy. I will be moderating the comments more closely from now on. Theoretical statements are not going to be published, even if they accompany factual ones. I may change the comment section radically. I welcome everybody’s thoughts and suggestions.
Hello, Jeff,
I hope you keep the comments section open because it allows one to notify you and other interested parties of new research & thoughts and gives you the opportunity to check out something you might not have been aware of prior.
I do enjoy the comments section because I learn from the comments about issues I may not have considered before. It doesn’t offend me who has an opinion in any direction on any subject because we all basically locked in triangle on this case with each point being: A (Oswald did it alone) B (Oswald did it with help) C (anybody and everybody but Oswald did it).
The work you are doing on who was moving Oswald around and why is very interesting and important to the history of this despicable crime of 50 years past.
I do hope you’ll look at the YouTube researchers videos that have found evidence in existing films & photographs of pergola shelter shooters that had JFK sandwiched in between them that I find compelling.
In summary, some visitors leave comments not for topic discussion but to alert interested persons of new research and where it can be found. I enjoy visiting this site because I find it to be the most informative website on the JFK assassination operating and not the tiresome “bait & attack” websites like McAdams & Lancer.
Jeff, I trust that you will be willing to post this for the record:
Thread introduced April 8, 2013 – “At the Nuseum …. ”
April 10, 2013
‘common sense’ wrote: How could they ” be working in Monmouth, New Jersey as the war ended” when the Paperclip scientists were still in Germany in May 1945? Paperclip scientists were essentially rocket scientists- not nuclear physicists. You have confused Alsos With Paperclip.
… ‘common sense’ challenged me again on the subject of Paperclip: “Claim: Paperclip scientists working in Monmouth, N.J. at the end of WW II. Evidence: …
and further, ‘common sense’ asked: What do the Nuremberg Trials have to do with the CIA or any aspect of intelligence?
The following is reported in “Secret Agenda” (Linda Hunt, St. Martin’s Press 1991):
“Perhaps expediting trials in special cases had become routine, as Corrigan said. What was not routine, however, was that once the courts judged some of the scientists as ardent Nazis, the Germans quickly left for America while U.S. intelligence officers in Europe intervened in the court decisions.
One case involved Hans Zeigler, chief scientist for the U.S. Army Signal Corps in Fort Monmouth New Jersey. Zeigler had been a dues-paying member of the Nazi party and five other organizations and a candidate for member in the SA. Denazification court officials accused him of falsifying information on his Fragebogen. But Zeigler left for the United States and never appeared at a scheduled hearing. When asked about his case, Zeigler stated in a sworn affidavit that Army CIC agents had obtained an “exemption” for him from the denazification law. One OMGUS officer, Captain Jack James, explained that dubious excuse in a report on Zeigler’s denazification status: “The Subject never came to trial because of interference of ‘certain’ persons in Munich. The subsequent qualifications of Dr. Zeigler for Project Paperclip seemed to terminate all further actions in the denazification.” (pg. 98-99)
Regarding “Alsos,” Hunt writes: The team whose mission it was to learn if Hitler’s scientists had developed an atomic bomb was already in Europe looking for key nuclear physicists by the team other scientific units arrived in 1944. Code-named “Alsos,” the atomic bomb team was headed by U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Boris Pash whose career ran the gamut from ….. to being accused of running a CIA “special operations” unit which …. was responsible for assassinations and kidnappings as well as other “special operations.” (pg. 10-11)
“These aren’t facts, but certainly is evidence…”
And that is the conspiracy viewpoint in a nutshell.
“Theoretical statements are not going to be published, even if they accompany factual ones. I may change the comment section radically.”
What is a theoretical comment? E = mc^2? That’s a theory. It’s been proven by experiment.
A theoretical statement accompanied by a factual one: “Energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. The speed of light is approximately 186,000 miles per second.”
“I may change the comment section radically.”
Actually,it has not been proven by experiment. Nor can it ever be proven. Accelerating a particle to the speed of light is impossible, which is the basic premise of the equation. You see,what the equation postulates that as a particle approaches the speed of light it becomes infinitely massive; there is no force that can propel an infinite mass. Ergo, experimental proof is impossible.
However, particle acceleration has revealed that objects do become more massive as they approach the speed of light and behave as the equation postulates. That is good enough from a practical standpoint,but as nuclear physics often deals with the end of the curve, ie milliseconds after the Big Bang, velocities of .9999 and more the speed of light, millionths of a degree above absolute zero-true experimental confirmation is often impossible. Now what does that have to do with your statement? Just this-you made a statement of fact that is demonstrably false. You really don’t have any expertise in the subject, yet you make statements to support your position as if you do. Time after time after time we see this from the conspiracy side. Why? Because there is no real evidence that any conspiracy theory put forth in the last 50 years has had any validity whatsoever. None. And there never will be.
Take a look at those last 3 lines by Photon and there’s your problem” Because there is no real evidence that any conspiracy theory put forth in the last 50 years has had any validity whatsoever. None. And there never will be.” Minds are like parachutes they only work when open. I guess your opinion is better than Dr. Crenshaw who said JFK was shot in the throat and head from the front or DR. McClelland, and Dr. Jones, who have said publicly in recent years their belief JFK was shot in the head from in front.Likewise for Autopsy Assistant James Jenkins and X-Ray Tech Jerrol Custer. Officer Of The Day Dennis David has said he saw a still frame from film in the possession of Cpn. William Pitzer that showed a bullet hole in the right temple. In fact 4 witnesses claim to have seen an entrance in right temple-Crenshaw, Custer, Jenkins and David. Now, these aren’t facts, but certainly is evidence of conspiracy of which you said there is none.
photon,
I was going to let your comment slide; then I decided to call you out for what you are — a not smart-enough liar.
You see, photon, the equation in question is the core principle of Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity. It’s proof is in the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You accuse me of no expertise “in the subject” and then go off on a little rant about JFK conspiracists. In fact, you’re the one who lacks “expertise in the subject.” I have a degree in electrical engineering, which required courses in atomic physics, electromagnetics, quantum theory, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, solid state physics, advanced calculus, and differential equations, not to metion complex variables. I know more about YOUR NAME than you ever will. So you can shut up.
“A thousand experiments will never prove my theories correct. A single experiment will prove them wrong.”
Jeff says:
>>The question of conspiracy is eminently debatable. Those on both sides of the debate who say the other side doesn’t need to be acknowledged, recognized or dealt with are not in touch with reality<<
Well, maybe. Consider the essay by Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson regarding the provenance of CE399. The essay is well-researched and thoroughly documented.
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
I'm sure everyone at this forum has read it.
Regarding the essay, on the rare occasions that I've been able to get any responses from WC proponents, the responses are not remotely credible. They fit into the "dog ate my homework" category. To wit: the FBI was in a hurry and made some mistakes. Why didn't the hospital employees speak up earlier? Are you really suggesting that the FBI would manipulate evidence?
With the FBI's admitted destruction of Oswald's note, the Bureau proved beyond a shadow of doubt that it was willing to manage the evidence for its own purposes. All of us know dozens of examples of FBI perfidy in this case. There's absolutely no question that the FBI purposely failed to carry out a full, neutral investigation. And the Bureau was the main investigatory body. This bears repeating: Commissioner Boggs said, "Hoover lied his eyes out to the Commission."
I use the word "impossible" reservedly, but it is impossible to reason with WC proponents because they simply will not admit that the original investigation was tainted. And, there's the dismissive Chris Matthews-type of explanation (paraphrasing): "Conspiracists just can't get over it because a fellow Lib killed their president." How does one engage that kind of nonsense?
What is debatable is a proposition. Such as, Oswald did it alone.
Debates do not begin with conclusions.
They begin with agreed-upon assumptions. That is, facts.
I’ve got a suggestion: Let others post diaries. And let commenters police one another.
I would love, for example, to see a detailed diary by photon laying out the case for the SBT. Or a detailed diary on LBJ by Robert Morrow.
Jonathan, the first person to accuse Lyndon Johnson of murder was the sitting governor of Texas, Allan Shivers, and he told LBJ to his face in 1956 that he murdered Sam Smithwick in prison (1952).
A fabulous book by perhaps the greatest JFK researcher of all time Joachim Joesten has just been republished, “The Dark Side of Lyndon Baines Johnson.” Vincent Salandria and Ed Tatro would the other 2 greatest JFK researchers of all time – jmho.
http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Lyndon-Baines-Johnson/dp/1771520094/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366042232&sr=8-1&keywords=dark+side+of+lyndon+johnson
Buy this book immediately. The other Joesten book that needs to be republished is “How Kennedy was Killed: The Full Appalling Story” – also excellent.
Robert,
I’m glad you’re not disheartened by the attacks you receive.
I’ve not made up my mind as to whether LBJ was a pre-assassination plotter. I am sure he was evil. I’m also certain some of the attacks you receive are because of your view of LBJ.
If you and Phillip Nelson are right, the underlying fact needs to be trumpeted.
“Hell is other people.”
~Jean-Paul Sartre
As with any JFK forum online, the “Oswald-did-it” crowd tries to dominate the conversations and promulgate rubbish and impossibilities. I could list the forums they’ve ruined and the people driven away but why bother. It looks as though JFK Facts will be another.
Don’t worry Zeb. Half of the posts on this blog have come from a guy who @9:33 admitted to posting information that he didn’t know to be true.
There is no point continuing to participate in a forum that tolerates such dishonesty.
Well, at least I have a source for it: Craig Roberts. And, yes, he could have made up that conversation with Carlos Hathcock… or he could be telling the truth.
“Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza:”
http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Zone-Sniper-Looks-Dealey/dp/0963906208/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1365995517&sr=8-2&keywords=craig+roberts+kill+shot
I’ve seen military men do a rendition of the Harlem Shake, so I guess they could re-enact the events at Dealey Plaza, especially at a sniper school.
Everybody who can think knows that the US intelligence agencies conspired to remove JFK because he was going to pull out of Viet Nam and recognize Castro . To say otherwise is to spread lies and disinformation. Photon should be removed immediately and never be allowed to post again. I believe that this person is probably a CIA plant trying to stop the truth from coming out. We all know what the truth is, not some bizarre lone nut theory which has proven to be impossible.
I think Harry proves my point. “Question of conspiracy no longer debatable”- so shut up.
“The arguments over 399… Not worthy of further debate”- does that mean that you have examined the bullet, that you are an expert in ballistics? Have you fired the same type of bullet?
Then of course the insult; I am sure that many single bullet “kooks” have educational credentials and accomplishments greater than Harry, but even so I am not sure how that is important to establishing whether a fact is correct or not.
I never proved any “point” you ever postulated. Enjoy the scenery because that’s all you’ve got.
I think it should be okay to post speculative theories on the JFK assassination, as long as they are thoughtfully written and not attacking others in their tone. If we just stick to what we know as hard fact, we can’t offer up any ideas or theories. The site will quickly dry up.
On the other hand, I have been guilty of going ‘off topic’ for ex. on the 9/11 stuff, which I tried to debunk (conspiracy theories). I will try to stay on topic in the future, but would like to know I have the freedom to speculate and theorize on aspects of JFK’s assassination based on what I do know, or based on what I have read and/or heard.
What I like about this site is the freedom we have to explore ideas, and I for one don’t want to scare off anyone who believes in the Warren Commission’s “lone nut” version. I agree with others who say that spammers and deliberate attack artists (trolls) should be blocked, after being given fair warming. That keeps the site free from junk posts.
One other idea: It would be nice if we could email someone (an Ombudsman?) in private if we have a problem with something, rather than go the open public comments route to do this. That would keep the public comments section from clogging up with private concerns, etc.
Thanks,
JSA
“He lies,he makes stuff up” Pot, meet kettle.
Robert Morrow went over the line when lied about an American hero, Carlos Hathcock. . It is one thing to put out your views on a subject, but using an unsubstantiated claim by a known fraud is fruit from the poison tree. As far as I can see the only sin that common sense committed was to bring up rational facts based on evidence,not speculation. He seemed like something more than the usual poster here, with facts that drove some posters crazy.Instead of countering those facts with something else, posters here wanted to pick up their ball and go home. I don’t want to deal with inconvenient issues, so shut that guy up.
There is one thing that Bugliosi has brought up that seems too common with the conspiracy crowd. They make things up. They can get away with that as long as they don’t run into somebody who actually knows something about the subject, as happened with the Hathcock BS. So sorry if I don’t believe that the CIA ran a perfect assassination conspiracy that has worked for 50 years. Sorry that Dale Myers was able to prove that the single bullet theory was not only possible but probable. Sorry that Lee Oswald ran away from a crime scene before anybody else even knew a crime had been committed.
I may be wrong about Carlos Hathcock. People do just make up stuff … i.e. the Warren Report, etc.
Two of the major critics of conspiracy theories, David R. Wrone and Harold Weisberg, for decades subjected theoretical claims to reason and careful study.
Wrone wrote a bibliographical essay on the topic way back in 1973 for the Wisconsin Magazine of History. (v. 56, n. 1)
Weisberg’s criticisms of many theories are available at the Weisberg Digital Archive on line.
At that archive you can read book length critiques of the mafia theory, Oliver Stone’s theory, Jim Garrison’s many theories, and variations of theories that have LBJ, the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans involved in the assassination of JFK.
With a knowledge based perhaps unparalleled, Weisberg never found credible evidence to support any theory.
He always maintained two things:
1. The official story is not true.
2. Those who issued that story knew it wasn’t true.
The crime was beyond the capability of any one man, LHO, or anyone else.
But since the crime wasn’t properly investigated it leads to much theorizing and these theories are largely disconnected from the factual base.
And that is why I don’t read a lot of Weisberg. He didn’t have much to say, except to be an ill-tempered curmudgeon. And the fact that Weisberg was so over the top in his attacks on Oliver Stone’s “JFK” tells me Weisberg didn’t really learn a whole lot. “JFK” was based on the cutting edge JFK research of its day and has held up quite nicely.
Weisberg’s writing style was pretty awful, too.
How about Lone-Nut “kook”? The question of “conspiracy” is no longer debatable: it ended on November 22, 1963. The arguments over CE 399 are fairy tales and not worthy of further debate. They are “scenery” and lead to nothing but endless argumentation that veers away from the basic truth of the assassination: a change of the foreign policy of the US government in direct contradiction to that of the head of the Executive Branch. Those who espouse the lone gunman “theory” are like 6-year-old children trying to instruct a Ph.D in Physics on the fundamental laws of the universe based on the precepts of Mother Goose.
The question of conspiracy is eminently debatable. Those on both sides of the debate who say the other side doesn’t need to be acknowledged, recognized or dealt with are not in touch with reality.
Everything should always be debatable… The question of whether there was a high level domestic political conspiracy in the JFK assassination is an obvious fact to me.
Those who deny this are right up there with the Flat Earth Sociey and Holocaust deniers. But everything should be debatable no matter how ridiculous it is.
In reality, there was a conspiracy to cover up the facts of the JFK assassination. In reality, there is no serious contention about this.
In reality, this blog site and Morley v. CIA wouldn’t exist if there weren’t a rationally undeniable conspiracy to cover-up the facts of JFK’s murder.
Other facts point undeniably to a pre-assassination conspiracy. The Oswald-in-Mexico-City or the Syvia Odio story: take your pick: conspiracy. Et cetera.
Harry gets it basically right.
But I say, let’s argue from facts, not conclusions.
There is a well known lone nutter on the internet who for years has a goal of acting like a jackass and blowing up any discussion thread on the JFK assassination. I have seen him in action many times, with countless aliases, he posts a lot on Amazon with 5-6-7?? sock puppet handles.
He lies; he makes up stuff; plays the multiple sock handle game; & his modus operandi is endless name calling. His favorite word is the word “kook.” His goal is not truthseeking; rather it is to act as an IED on any discussion thread.
Any posts by this guy or anyone like him should be nuked immediately.
You’re living in a fantasy world.
There are intelligent, sincere, honest, well-informed people who have absorbed the same facts as you and come to a different conclusion. If you don’t understand that, you’re not in touch with reality.
I was referring to David von Pein specifically. Ask any JFK researcher if this guy is a dishonest jackass as opposed to a sincere truthseeker who happens to be a lone nutters.
I have been waiting for him to show up here with some of his many nasty, insulting sock puppets.