Comment of the week

Bill Kelly – May 17

…The only way to get to the bottom of the missing records issue is to have the relevant subcommittee of Congress hold oversight hearings and investigate – but that won’t happen until Congress and the NARA are met with a united and committed group that can wield some power and influence – and not the dissing, back stabbing, squabbling “community” of researchers we now appear to be.

 

 

67 comments

  1. Tom S. says:

    Link to last week’s “Cotw”https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-5/

    I think Bill Kelly has it backwards. My opinion after reading every comment submitted to this site during the last seven months is that there is not enough squabbling. Opinions and analysis seem influenced (driven ?) by tribal identity.

    I am instituting a six day experiment beginning tomorrow morning. I am only going to approve comments that seem reasonable. If you do not see a comment you’ve submitted, please submit it in this thread, 24 hours or later after your original submission. Here, your comment can be rated for accuracy or reasonableness by other commentors.

    I am growing weary reading other forums. Those who post opinions objected to on tribal grounds are “ushered out.” Fact based debate does not happen because “we already know what we know,” all newly presented, well supported research to the contrary.

    I believe we must constantly challenge each other in the interests of discerning what is likely accurate.

    This recent article influences me to be pessimistic about overcoming the tribal influence but I believe we still have to try.:

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
    We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from climate change to vaccinations—faces furious opposition.
    Some even have doubts about the moon landing.

    …..Science appeals to our rational brain, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion, and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers. “We’re all in high school. We’ve never left high school,” says Marcia McNutt. “People still have a need to fit in, and that need to fit in is so strong that local values and local opinions are always trumping science. And they will continue to trump science, especially when there is no clear downside to ignoring science.”

    Meanwhile the Internet makes it easier than ever for climate skeptics and doubters of all kinds to find their own information and experts. Gone are the days when a small number of powerful institutions—elite universities, encyclopedias, major news organizations, even National Geographic—served as gatekeepers of scientific information. The Internet has democratized information, which is a good thing. But along with cable TV, it has made it possible to live in a “filter bubble” that lets in only the information with which you already agree.

    How to penetrate the bubble? How to convert climate skeptics? Throwing more facts at them doesn’t help….

    • Vanessa says:

      Free speech by popular vote.

      You really have lost your way Tom.

    • George says:

      The really pathetic part of this is, Tom – that no one came here as “part of a tribe”. YOU applied that label and forced the issue where there wasn’t one.

      The true tribalism was coming from you, Leslie and Willy in attempts to protect the status quo.

      We all know what is going to be deemed “reasonable” here. This is just a kangaroo court by any other name.

      • “Leslie and Willy in attempts to protect the status quo.” ~Greg Parker aka ‘George’

        What status quo is that exactly Parker? Obviously Leslie, Tom, and I are not in solid agreement on everything here. We are each free thinkers on our own terms.

        You claim not to be part of a “tribe”, well I will accept that with a certain caveat; because I think your group is better characterized as a cult: True Believers in a blurry image backed up by dogmatic rhetoric.

        Kangaroos! Yes by gawd, a fauna native to Australia as I understand it.
        \\][//

        • George says:

          We’re not a cult, Willy. You could call us a movement; you could call us a rabble. But a cult is just you being a regular Willy.

          Well done on knowing where kangaroos come from. But as is so often the case among Too many of your fellow countrymen and women, you are clueless about your own history.

          Kangaroo court is American English, first recorded 1850 in a Southwestern context (also mustang court), from notion of proceeding by leaps.
          http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=kangaroo+court&searchmode=none

          yes, by Gawd, indeed!

          • George, er Reverend Parker,

            You proceed on assumptions on such a regular basis that one can justly say it is one of your routine habits.

            Case in point; “kangaroo courts” v kangaroos as native to Australia, and my assumed ignorance of the use of the term in the US.

            This assumption is then presented in the Australian/British vernacular of calling me a male sex organ — in this country the term is “dick” or more profanely “pr*ck”. This US vernacular would not be tolerated on this forum, but you being the wiseguy Aussie you are feel perfectly comfortable that you will get away with it – as you did.

            So what is your personality profile as it compiles here on this forum? In just this one instance you are found to be ‘presumptuously arrogant’, and quite the bit of a willy yourself.

            Now add to these conclusions the fact that you routinely avoid answering questions put to you. That question that you avoided with all of your pointless verbosity was and remains this: What status quo is that exactly Parker? The status quo you maintain that Tom, Leslie, and myself are “protecting”.

            Finally, yes I could call your group a “movement”, “rabble”, a “tribe” etc. However it is my opinion that the term ‘cult’ best describes your behavior.

            It is a process Mr Parker, “a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.” That object being the venerated ‘Prayerman’ or if you wish in your cult’s specific lexicon: “Prayer Man”.

            No matter that the truth of the matter is that this venerated object is in fact merely a blurry photograph, that even the heretics and true believers of your cult squabble about in the confines of your ashram.

            Is that a camera or a coke in his hands Reverend Parker?
            \\][//

        • david thurman says:

          In Re: to Willy Whitten > May 17, 2016 “Are you of the opinion that Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK?”

          You know better than that! We may disagree on the authenticity of the z film, but I doubt if either of us believe Oswald shot anyone on 22 November 1963, at least I don’t think he did. Are you aware of Bart Kamp’s (Dealy Plaza UK) “Prayer Man” research/movie? He’s a prof., quite in depth + interesting. http://www.prayer-man.com/

  2. Ronnie Wayne says:

    An experiment in which your subjective approval “seem reasonable”?
    I’m no Scientist as you allude to Science but your criteria for the experiment might bear further examination.
    Are you a Scientist Tom?

    • Tom S. says:

      Ronnie, I volunteer seven days per week as “comments editor” of this website. I’ve included an appeals option as a component of a six day experiment. I am motivated by a concern I am not enforcing the comments policy as it is presented- https://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/ .

      Almost every JFK Assassination discussion forum I visit actually seems not to tolerate discussion. On the Ed Forum, there is no criticism of Mark Lane, – http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22840
      … the threads “discussing” whether the money order received by Klein’s Sporting Goods shouted down the only contributor,

      http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&p=319053
      ….I guess we should all apologize for not jumping in the air and declaring it all case closed when Lance appeared. My God a long time lawyer was going to teach us all what real research was. Like what we have been doing was playing pick up hoops all the time…

      of significant new evidence and is still presenting contrary to actual evidence vs. speculation. No discussion of Garrison’s failure to disclose his wife’s familial ties with the very individuals Garrison described as his CIA sponsored antagonists was possible in the Clay Shaw thread on deeppoliticsforum.

      ROKC, aka the Oswald was prayer man incubator is as the author of the National Geographic Mag. article author describes,

      http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
      …..
      When we argue about it, Kahan says, we’re actually arguing about who we are, what our crowd is. We’re thinking, People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this….

      And the results of a challenge free evidence gathering and analysis process has produced “evidence” found on the front page of numerous newspapers of 23 November, 1963, – https://jfkfacts.org/fact-check-wsj-errs-on-key-jfk-point/#comment-876865
      ….allegedly strongly supporting Oswald surrounded by his perjurer co-workers on the front steps taking in the sight of JFK’s passing motorcade.

      Peter Janney’s ridiculous book enjoys 73 percent five stars out of 313 reviews, – http://www.amazon.com/Marys-Mosaic-Conspiracy-Kennedy-Pinchot/dp/1626361274/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1463542928&sr=1-1&keywords=mary%27s+mosaic#customerReviews
      …despite this game changing fact nearly having to have been beaten out him.:

      https://memoryholeblog.com/2014/09/05/the-murder-of-mary-pinchot-meyer/
      September 5, 2014
      The Murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer
      On this edition of Real Politik James is joined by Peter Janney, author of Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace.

      …..In January 2014 Janney deposed William Mitchell as part of a wrongful death civil lawsuit to procure information on Mitchell’s potential responsibility for Meyer’s murder. “I am still in the last stages of my research that I hope will pull the pieces together that may point to the fact that [William] Mitchell had a specific role in this event on October 12, 1964. But I do want to make clear that I no longer believe that he was the actual assassin.”

      Ronnie, do you hold yourself to a particular standard of accuracy? It is easier not to, much easier.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Tom, I appreciate your volunteering to moderate the site. It’s a thankless job I wouldn’t want.
        Yes I have standards of accuracy though I guess not as strict as you. As the Facts are often difficult to ascertain in this case it’s hard to conclude anything without resorting to related material. Which is thus subject to further interpretation.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          How about the paper bag? That seems to be pretty well BS.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            When did it ever appear in any crime scene photograph of the re created crime scene, with the shells neatly aligned side by side?

        • Tom S. says:

          Ronnie, thanks, I agree it is a challenge to make accurate calls on points and opinions submitted in comments, or in posts on a conventional forum, especially if there is a diversity of views as there are in McAdams’s google newsgroup, Duncan MacRae’s http://reopenkennedycase.com forum, and at JFKfacts.org. The difficulty of the challenge is one reason it does not happen, and another is the reluctance I’ve observed, to confront and attempt to debate those authors, posters, commentors, presenters, researchers, scholars, or journalists who mislead inadvertently or intentionally.

          Where Bill Kelly observes too much squabbling and backstabbing, I observe, for the most part, polite silence or inappropriate deference in reaction to extraordinary claims. There are some poor bastards who have used up their deference quota; Fetzer, Cinque, and Judyth come to mind, but who decides when that finally happens?
          How often must one be proven wrong, proven deliberately misleading, proven combative as a poor substitution for failure to present extraordinary evidence in support of extraordinary claims, before “the community” actually reacts as Bill Kelly describes as the common state of affairs?

          It would seem to be an informative exercise to identify and list the names of those who are not to be criticized. Ironically, although the mission of http://CTKA.net seems to be to criticize, Jim DiEugenio himself is exempted from what he and his chosen contributors mete out. Is this justified, how, why? Does McAdams make as many extraordinary claims as DiEugenio has?

          “George” certainly has experience debunking John Armstrong’s claims and is qualified to accurately describe how well that has gone over, gauged by the reaction of “the community” to his criticisms of Armstrong and his surrogates. Armstrong has an exemption; just ask DiEugenio.

          Within the tribe, as in high school, there are clicks of exempted individuals seemingly above the fray.
          This is not a bad status to attain, it seems sought after, but are the members of “the community” who are above the fray the most knowledgeable or most reliable? Are they in any other tribes, politic, academia, the sciences? Are Nobel prize winners, fortune 500 CEO’s, or members of the academy who vote on the candidates for the annual awards, the most knowledgeable or most reliable?

          In terms of career elevation, media attention, public opinion, do accuracy and integrity matter?
          Observing “the Donald,” the anecdotal evidence supports an answer of, definitely not.

          Does it matter to readers of JFKfacts.org if the bulk of what is presented in comments is accurate or at least well supported, or even sincere, speculation? The National Geographical Mag. article says, probably not.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Tom S.
            May 18, 2016 at 1:40 am

            “Does McAdams make as many extraordinary claims as DiEugenio has?”

            No sir. Dr. McAdams can make a honest read of that NSAM order I probably shouldn’t mention here. DiEugenio blows it to hell just like his hero John Newman. I wouldn’t believe anything these two had to say unless I could verify it.

  3. “How to penetrate the bubble? How to convert climate skeptics? Throwing more facts at them doesn’t help…”~Nat’l Geographic article

    The question then arises; are the climate skeptics in fact wrong?

    Is the debate on the issue of “Climate Change” as black and white as the proponents propose?

    Are the “solutions” that are offered by the corporatist (cabon tax being one) actually going to fix the environmental crisis which in fact is the fault of the industrialism led by the corporatist financiers anything more than another of their scams? Are they sincere?

    I am not speaking to the concerns of the author of the Nat’l Geographic article here. I am speaking to the world of Realpolitik. The world of greed built by the Power Elite.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the environment is ruined. Pollution is strangling the oceans, rivers and forests of this planet. Is it carbon dioxide, the life-breath of plant life that is really the problem here?
    It is a cycle you know – plants breath carbon dioxide in, and produce oxygen that animal life breaths.
    \\][//

  4. A competent moderator at any forum is a thankless labour of…… love? A sysiphusian task, not unlike what you had been attempting at Simkin’s place as I recall, Tom. You are to be commended for staying the course.

    And bytheway, could you answer ‘whistlin’ willy whitten’s query of this ‘comment of the week’, ifyouplease? In 12 paragraphs or less?

    • Vanessa says:

      I would also like to hear Tom’s response to Willy’s query on this ‘comment of the week’.

    • For Tom & Mark A. O’Blazney;

      “I think you’ve painted yourself into a corner in which tribal identity and its influence on your thinking and discernment has created a condition in which the paint is never gonna dry. Your condition seems inescapable.”~Tom S. – May 17, 2016 at 10:00 pm
      https://jfkfacts.org/whats-judgment-rush-judgment/#comment-876894

      I think you have grossly misjudged me Tom. As far as “tribal identification” is concerned, I have had many disagreements with those whom you would characterize as “my tribe”. Your allegations above aren’t all that different than the Reverend Parker’s accusations of my protecting some “status quo”.

      I think you have begun an interesting philosophical discussion here on this thread. I am not insulted by any of your remarks, I just feel we should expand upon the ideas you have put forward. The assassination of JFK is a complex case, one that has been approached by a legion of angles by thousands of people in the last 50 plus years.

      Are there cliques? Yes of course! But in any instance of ‘consensus’ , it is a movable feast. All consensus has a natural shelf life as individuals eventually realize the subtle differences in their take on a topic from their comrades. This is why Christianity splintered and continues to splinter throughout the ages. From the original Catholicism of the Roman presbyters brought together by the Roman Emperor Constantine, to the Protestant reformations, to the penumbra of Christian cults of the present era, such splintering of once held consensus and the dogmas thereof, continues to this day.

      What is in your brothers and sisters hearts is a mystery only revealed by blurry analogies and metaphors of the limits of human language.

      As the Taoist sage says; “Like is not”.
      \\][//

  5. George says:

    “You proceed on assumptions on such a regular basis that one can justly say it is one of your routine habits.

    Case in point; “kangaroo courts” v kangaroos as native to Australia, and my assumed ignorance of the use of the term in the US.” Willy

    Deny deny deny! See, this is where you bring yourself undone, Willy. You trying to score points off my use of the term “kangaroo court” only works if it was of Australian origin. That it is actually of American origin means you shot yourself in the foot.

    And you’re probably still hopping around like a one-legged wallaby.

    Have a nice day, Willy.

    • Listen Parker, I have lived here my whole life, I know what Kangaroo Court means in Amerikan parlance, I don’t need to look up the history of its use here. I was making fun of your Aussie kangaroo crap-dance.

      Don’t wish me a nice day you bloody hypocrite.
      \\][//

      • George says:

        “I was making fun of your Aussie kangaroo crap-dance.”

        Sure you were, Willy, sure you were.

        I raise a point about kangaroo courts and you reply by pointing out kangaroos are native to Australia.

        Your explanation has as much meat on it as an anorexic rubber chicken.

        Have a super evening, \\][//!

  6. George says:

    “Case in point, you’ve vandalized this website since April 17, taking full advantage of the commitment here to suffering through all opinions and the acting out of symptoms of personality disorders beyond the expected sensibilities of reasonable readers” Tom S.

    What I see is a bunch of people reacting to new information from people they don’t like in manner that highlights their own flawed personalities. Sooner or later, those people start projecting as a defense mrechanism. And you have your guard so high, I’m afraid you keep exposing that soft underbelly.

    “Vanessa mounting her high horse to lecture me about my deficiencies as comment editor” Tom S.

    You get off lightly. You should see her in action at our reeducation camps.

    “One question, how long after a former member of your forum is gone before you stop the chase, Carmine and I being just two examples?”

    Sorry Frank, but not everything is about you. Or Carmine.

    I will say this. Carmine is made of sterner stuff than you.

    “It fully supports the contention that Vanessa, nor any woman with any self-respect would ever be associated with your forum,”

    That’s just downright sexist.

    “I approve the appearance of all of it, even as you both still posture assertions you are here to “discuss” prayer man.”

    What does “approving the appearance of it all” mean? Not to mention “posture assertions”?

    My attempts to stay on topic are met with complaints about everything from a misplaced comma, to a completely mangled interpretation of what I had said. So yes, Tom. Efforts to stay on-topic are being sabotaged. That’s fine with me. Again – I’m a counter-puncher. I’ll return whatever is thrown my way. Vanessa on the other hand – as her posts clearly shows – pleads time amd again to be able to return to the subject instead of having to parry off-topic questions and comments. No good shouting at me that this has turned ugly. You were determined to make it go that way from the start so you could get on your high horse.

    “Is the punishment meted out by you and your group of trolls of an openended duration?” Tom S.

    You feel you’re being punished Tom? How long have you had this feeling?

    Speaking of durations, how long are you going to keep flogging this dead horse?

    “Peter Janney’s ridiculous book enjoys 73 percent five stars out of 313 reviews, –” Tom S.

    • Oh don’t get me started with dead horses, Parker. Nice of you guys to credit Mr. Scully in one of your ‘prayer man’ articles, bytheway. Something happened when you switched from your old website, a definite paradigm shift. Very sad. Just my opinion, though. We all have them.

      • bart kamp says:

        opinions yup, we all have them
        how about posting some evidence for a change?

      • George says:

        A “dead horse” is a resolved issue. Janney and his book are dead horses. If Tom wants credit for killing them, he’s got it. But I think it’s time to move on and stop flogging it.

        PM is not a resolved issue.

        The only paradigm shift was in becoming more proactive and lateral thinking in working on how to to get the case reopened.

        PM is one plank.

        I was also the first to compare Oswald’s situation with cases looked at by the Innocence Committee. That was last November at our conference. Glad to see the idea picked up in the States via the two Bills.

        We also have a lot more new research to roll out, and other projects percolating in the background. We may fail in our efforts, but we are not afraid to fail. We hate not trying.

        That we have made enemies along the way shouldn’t be surprising. A lot of cherished beliefs and theories are at stake, after all.

        • Oh, I assure you, Mr. Parker, the strange case of Mary Pinchot Meyer is alive and well ……… right, Mr. Mitchell ?

          Furthermore, it is now my opinion that this JFK “case” shall never be reopened, even after the release of any withheld documents et.al. in October of 2017. We are waiting for Godot.

          At least we have a common cause with Judyth Vary Baker and her publisher, who aids and abets this consummate liar. And then there’s Ralph Cinque, who, for the second time, has succeeded in having Google remove Joseph Backes’ blog from the internet. That is stranger than Trump.

  7. Oswald’s Doubles:
    How Multiple Lookalikes Were Used to Craft One Lone Scapegoat

    The following segments of Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable – Why He Died and Why It Matters examine the composite scapegoat served up to the world in the guise of Lee Harvey Oswald and the domestic intelligence network that was writing his story. Recently I read Norman Cousins remarkable “Asterisk to the History of a Hopeful Year, 1962-1963,” The Improbable Triumvirate: John F. Kennedy, Pope John, Nikita Khrushchev. In it, Cousins describes his experiences as an emissary between President Kennedy, Pope John XXIII, and Nikita Khrushchev.

    Just as Khrushchev chose to reveal to the people of Russia what had truly occurred during Stalin’s reign of terror so they could all move forward, it is of utmost necessity for all of us in America to finally choose to know the facts concerning why our President was publicly executed in 1963 for becoming, in the eyes of his national security state managers, a traitor and a national security risk. John Kennedy was turning toward peace in the critical imperatives of seeking to end the Cold War with the enemy, his Russian counterpart, and a rapprochement with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, the “thorn in the side” of the American military-industrial-intelligence complex.

    The following truth-telling of Butch Burroughs, Bernard Haire, T. F. White, Wes Wise, Robert G. Vinson, and Ralph Leon Yates allows us to peel back layers of obfuscation and unspeakable deception that have been directed at this country’s people for fifty years about why their beloved President was murdered by elements of U.S. national security state personnel that evermore direct the affairs of this corporate empire state. Peace is possible and can manifest when we are willing to see and acknowledge the unspeakable.

    From: Jim Douglass, JFK and The Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
    Orbis Books, (New York: Simon & Schuster 2010),
    pp. 286-303, 350-355, 464-470, 481-483.
    Book excerpts reproduced with the permission of Orbis Books.

    pages 286-303

    Warren Commission counsel David Belin wrote: “The Rosetta Stone [the key to Egyptian hieroglyphics] to the solution of President Kennedy’s murder is the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit.”[391] From the Warren Commission’s standpoint, the killing of Tippit, who presumably challenged the assassin’s flight after he killed Kennedy, was said to prove “that Oswald had the capacity to kill.”[392]

    Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg saw Tippit’s murder instead as the government’s way of poisoning the public mind against Lee Harvey Oswald: “Immediately the [flimsy] police case [against Oswald] required a willingness to believe. This was provided by affixing to Oswald the opprobrious epithet of ‘cop-killer.’”[393]

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/TwoLHOs.html

    \\][//

    • Tom S. says:

      Oswald’s Doubles:
      How Multiple Lookalikes Were Used to Craft One Lone Scapegoat

      Willy, I am glad you submitted this in this thread because my reaction to it was to bring it here.

      You opened your presentation to this topic in another comment you submitted today.:

      https://jfkfacts.org/whats-judgment-rush-judgment/#comment-876984
      Willy Whitten – 2016/05/18 at 9:24 am
      …It is therefore reasonable to bring up the Oswald doppelganger hypothesis, as “far out” as the Warrenistas will complain this theory to be….

      This being accuracy week, I’d like to read other opinions as to whether it is “reasonable” to introduce such a thing as “therefore reasonable to bring up,” because it might help to determine, going forward, just what sort
      of website this should be, at least in discussion threads. To my way of thinking, the preplanning and staging coordination required to put on a show for the Davis sisters, by itself makes it farfetched, unreasonable.

      This is not to say it is inappropriate to present or discuss, only to introduce it as “reasonable to bring up.”
      It showcases tribal identity effect because it seems it would not even be presented as you presented it, anywhere else, the kind of speculation to entertain in lieu of corroborated testimony or other evidence.

      Does your comment stay visible since it has been submitted during an accuracy experiment?

      • “To my way of thinking, the preplanning and staging coordination required to put on a show for the Davis sisters, by itself makes it farfetched, unreasonable.”~Tom

        Of course Tom, were it a show just for the Davis girls, but as the record is read, it seems this doppelganger shows up quite a few time. In fact later at the Texas Theater he is arrested after the first Oswald is brought out the front of the theater and the second Oswald is found in the balcony, and taken out to the alley behind the theater.

        There is also the madhatter speeding car ride when “Oswald” takes a test drive with salesman in the shotgun seat. This while the real Oswald was still in the Soviet Union.
        The real Oswald did not drive.

        But I too am curious to find out how “far fetched” others think the idea is. James Douglas’ book was extremely well received. If you have read this section you might understand why:
        http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/TwoLHOs.html

        \\][//

        • Tom S. says:

          James Douglas’ book was extremely well received.

          …..by ?

          Washington Decoded: Unspeakably Awful
          http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2009/12/unspeakably-awful.html
          Dec 11, 2009 – By John McAdams. James Douglass treads a familiar path in JFK and the Unspeakable.

          I found it did include a number of original interviews. When I used it as a research leads tool and a fact checking source, too often I encountered uncorrected rehashes of flawed presentations of older sources. I’ll try to actually support this observation by next Tuesday. Considering the book in its entirety, it is comparatively to tier, in its niche.

          • “JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters is a book by theologian and Catholic Worker James W. Douglass (Orbis Books 2008 / Touchstone Books, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, 2010) that analyzes the presidency of John F. Kennedy as well as the events surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The book is drawn from many sources, including the Warren Report. The book’s central thesis is that Kennedy was a cold warrior who turned to peace-making, and that as a result he was killed by his own security apparatus.[1]

            Published by The Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers’ Orbis Books, it received an award from the Catholic Press Association and coverage in the religious press; sales shot up after Oliver Stone recommended the book, with it featuring in Amazon.com’s Top 100 for a week.[2] The 2013 edition of the book was endorsed by Kennedy’s nephew Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who said it had moved him to visit Dealey Plaza for the first time.[3]”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_and_the_Unspeakable#Critical_and_commercial_reception
            . . . .
            See: Critical and commercial reception. In this wiki article. The only bad review mentioned there is the one by McAdams.

            \][//

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Willy Whitten
      May 18, 2016 at 9:40 am

      “The following segments of Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable – Why He Died and Why It Matters examine”

      Willy, I had several people tell me if I just read Jim Douglass “JFK and the Unspeakable” I would understand what happened. So I bought it and read it to much disappointment.

      It is the same old crap without much supporting evidence. From Oswald’s “crypto clearance” to Jack had ordered all troops home from Vietnam and Jack would have saved us from Vietnam. Again without much supporting evidence.

      But I do rank it much higher than Prouty’s work.

    • George says:

      “The following truth-telling of…”

      Talk about cults, that phrase reeks of a faith-based zealotry. I mean… that’s it, isn’t it Willy? Whenever the term “truth-telling” is trotted out, you can be sure of only one thing. The “truth” being told needs a a whole bunch of faith to sustain it. What it eschews is any sort of light being shone into the dark recesses.

      Burroughs? Since his statements over the years are contradictory, Which is his “truth-telling” and which isn’t?

      Haire? Most likely saw a witness being taken in for a statement.

      Vinson? Just another BSer like several other self-proclaimed participants.

      Yates? He picked up a cruising Larry Crafard – which is why he couldn’t explain his presence in Oak Cliff. Admitting he picked up a male prostitute would hardly do him, his family or credibility much good.

      • Again George, so much bluster and so little substance to back it up. Zero sources Mr Parker means zero points.

        You are misrepresenting Burroughs. As Douglass describes in his book, the Commission strategically phrased the question “did you SEE Oswald enter the theater” rather than ask how Burroughs knew when Oswald entered the theater. The did not follow up with the obvious question “how did Burroughs know Oswald was in the theater.
        As Burroughs explained to Douglass, he HEARD someone enter the theater at around 1:PM., later he saw the new patron enter the seating area, and sit down conspicuously right next to other patrons, and after but a moment get up and sit next to someone else.
        At 1:15 Oswald came to the snack counter Burroughs was attending and bought popcorn.
        1:15 is the official time for the shooting of Tippit.

        I gave the reference already. Read it this time:
        http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/TwoLHOs.html
        \\][//

        • George says:

          Okay. let me see if I understand here.

          Your story is…

          The WC cleverly forgot to ask Burroughs how he knew Oswald was in the theater even though there is no indication given to the WC that Burroughs did in fact know. Moreover, they neglected to ask if he had HEARD anyone enter.

          Meanwhile, Oswald was UNSEEN because he sneaked in, after NOT killing Tippit and even though he had money and even though there is no evidence of Oswald ever exhibiting this type of behavior before.

          Then we have Burroughs for reasons not explained, stating that Oswald had entered between and 1 and 1:07. More bizarrely he claimed that he had “seen” Oswald in the darkened theater presumably from his concession stand. Did Douglass investigate if this was even possible? Other witnesses claim that the cops had to turn the lights on to see Oswald – even from inside the seating area)

          Lastly, you have an Oswald impersonator being arrested and taken out thre back, never to be heard of again.

          Sounds legit! 😉

          • “Meanwhile, Oswald was UNSEEN because he sneaked in, after NOT killing Tippit and even though he had money and even though there is no evidence of Oswald ever exhibiting this type of behavior before.”~George

            Oswald didn’t “sneak in” Burroughs couldn’t see anyone pass that way from his post at the concession stand.

            “More bizarrely he claimed that he had “seen” Oswald in the darkened theater presumably from his concession stand.”~Ibid

            Don’t use such hyperbole Mr Parker, anyone who has been in a theater with a film running knows it is not difficult to see the other people in the theater. Your comment wants to make it seem like it is pitch black darkness in such circumstances. We all know that is BS.

            The WC was “clever”? It doesn’t matter if it was clever, it did not inquire as to how Burroughs could tell someone entered the theater.

            There are plenty of sightings of an Oswald “look alike” in this case. Two other people saw a man that looked like Oswald taken out the rear of the theater as well.

            Finally, I thought YOU Mr Parker, were supporting Oswald’s innocence. Isn’t that the name of your “Project”? Why do you speak from both sides of your mouth here?
            \\][//

          • Butch Burroughs, the concession man, however, then witnessed a second Oswald arrest in the Texas Theater. After the officers had dragged Oswald out the front door, within three or four minutes, Burroughs saw an Oswald look-alike placed under arrest, handcuffed and taken out the back door.

            Bernard J. Haire, the owner of Bernie’s Hobby House just two doors east of the Texas Theater, went outside to see what all the commotion was, but couldn’t get through the crowd. So he went back through his store to the alley in back and walked over to the Theater’s rear exit, where he saw the police taking “Oswald” into custody.

            According to the Dallas Police Department’s official homicide report on Officer J.D. Tippit, “Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas theater at 231 W. Jefferson.” Dallas Police detective L.D. Stringfellow also reported to Captain W.P. Gannaway, “Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater.”

            https://i0.wp.com/harveyandlee.net/November/balcony2.gif

            https://i2.wp.com/harveyandlee.net/November/balcony1.gif

            \\][//

  8. Bogman says:

    My two cents:

    I think there’s people who have the time and inclination to come to JFKfacts and debate the finer points of the case. That’s fine.

    I will debate as well but the real value I’ve gained from this site is clarifying in my own mind what the state of the case truly is. That comes from reading posts and following links and doing some research from points of departure on this site.

    In other words, for me, the site has been an invaluable service to those of us who despise the “mysteries” of the JFK assassination and want to get to the cold, hard facts (or what can be best surmised if the full facts aren’t yet available).

    So, thank you, Tom and Jeff and everyone else here who contributes in good faith.

  9. Tom S. says:

    https://jfkfacts.org/whats-judgment-rush-judgment/#comment-877035
    Bill Clarke – May 18, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    Chuck Schwartz wrote:
    …I’ll give you an example from Newman’s book,”JFK and Vietnam” page322. This is the basis of the book.
    ________________________________________________
    “Kennedy decided to use Taylor’s and Harkin’ reports of battlefield success to justify the beginning of the withdrawal he was planning.” Italics by Newman.

    “Kennedy kept his plan a closely guarded secret, but by March he was determined not only to withdraw—come what may—after 1964, but, if possible, to take a clear step in that direction….”
    ________________________________________________
    Bill Clarke reply:

    “Withdraw come what may”. How grand! Total BS. You wonder why there isn’t supporting evidence for this blooper in his book? There is none and no reference in his book is listed in the book. No Kenny O’Donnell said Jack told him this, No senator saying Jack told him this. Nothing. Newman pulled it straight out of the air. Pure junk.

    We could go on but this should be enough. Never read, “Where the Angels Tread Softly”. Once a writer shows me his is so much BS I no longer waste time on him. Unfortunately many, including DiEugenio, Galbraith and others of some note take the book to heart.

    Newman’s seminar at the LBJ Library was also roundly booed by the heavy weight Vietnam historians (email from Ted Gittinger, LBJ Library). So this isn’t just my opinion.

    • Tom S. says:

      I invite consideration of Bill Clarke’s comment. Is it accurate? Why such vehemence, considering the following? Should the comment remain visible (approved), be unapproved per a determination resulting from this facr checking process, stay approved but accompanied by a disclaimer, or left up as is?

      I’ll start with these competing considerations.:

      https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/Mz5OcJtjxRc
      THE SECOND BIGGEST LIE

      by Michael Morrissey
      …….
      On the last page of a seven-page article in GQ (Jan. 1992, p. 75), Nicholas
      Lemann finally confronts Garrison’s and Stone’s main thesis by referring not to
      the documents but to a 1964 interview with Robert Kennedy.
      See: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=6761&search=lemann#relPageId=152&tab=page
      This is apparently the same 1964 interview cited by Herbert Parmet (discussed above).
      I have not been able to consult the original material, which is part of an oral history
      collection at the JFK Library in Boston, but it is interesting that Lehmann cuts
      off the quotation at a strategic point.

      Interviewer: Did the president feel that we would have to go into Vietnam in a
      big way?

      RFK: We certainly considered what would be the result if you abandon Vietnam,
      even Southeast Asia, and whether it was worthwhile trying to keep and hold on
      to.

      Interviewer: What did he say? What did he think?

      RFK: He reached the conclusion that probably it was worthwhile…

      This has to be a deliberate misrepresentation. The ellipsis conceals what we
      know from Parmet’s citation:

      “As Bobby Kennedy later said, his brother had reached the point where he felt
      that South Vietnam was worth keeping for psychological and political reasons
      ‘more than anything else.'” (Parmet, p. 336).

      Piecing these two parts of RFK’s remark together, the complete sentence would seem to have been:

      “He reached the conclusion that probably it was worthwhile for psychological and
      political reasons more than anything else.”

      As I have already mentioned, “it was worthwhile” in this context more likely
      meant “it was not worthwhile” (psychological and political reasons hardly
      justifying a war), especially since we know, just as Robert knew, that President
      Kennedy had decided to terminate US military participation by the end of 1965….

      • Tom S. says:

        http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/Gilpatric-R/GilpatricR.PDF
        Transcript, Roswell Gilpatric Oral History Interview I, 11/2/82, by Ted Gittinger
        …..
        RG: Yes, I think he wanted to get across to Diem and the South Vietnamese generals and the
        whole government apparatus out there that the U.S. wasn’t going to take on what he
        regarded as their problems. We would be in an accessory advisory role but we weren’t
        going to become the principals. So far as I could perceive up until Kennedy’s death in
        November, he never varied from that general attitude.
        TG: Are you among those who say that Kennedy would never have escalated in the way that
        Johnson did?
        RG: Well, of course it’s a hypothetical question. No one will ever know. Based on my
        exposure to the President’s views over that nearly three year period, I felt he was looking
        for an opportunity to pull back and it would have been very hard to convince him to
        reverse course. But what he would have done if he had been president at the time of the
        Gulf of
        Tonkin incident, if that had occurred, I don’t know. No one can say what he
        would have done, but my view is that consistent with everything he did do and said
        before his death, he would have been very reluctant to involve ourselves to the extent that
        the country did after President Johnson took over….

        Bill, why do you suppose you present so vehemently? Do the facts actually support your seeming anger to the point of bitterness? You comment on this topic almost exclusively. Do you believe further comment will achieve appreciable influence, do you still think you can change minds? Considering the sum of the evidence, why do you seem to think John Newman for example, is deliberately misleading, but those who interpret the evidence similarly to the way you do, are sincere, accurate?

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Tom S.
          May 18, 2016 at 6:23 pm

          “Bill, why do you suppose you present so vehemently? Do the facts actually support your seeming anger to the point of bitterness?”

          Don’t worry about it Tom. I was a bitter old man when I came here. I didn’t realize it showed up in my post so glaring so I’ll make a good effort to tame that down.

          “You comment on this topic almost exclusively.

          Because that is the only sub-subject of the assassination that I’m knowledgeable about. I follow many of the other subjects here but am not near as knowledgeable as so many here so I’m really not qualified to add my two cents to it. I also think it is a major cog in the “They killed Jack because he was withdrawing from Vietnam”. That and some of the ballistic and marksmanship. I have great respect for the work so many have done on the assassination. Amazing collection of work.

          “Do you believe further comment will achieve appreciable influence, do you still think you can change minds?

          Believe it or not, one commenters here told me that my determined argument had caused him to rethink his position on NSAM 263. He wasn’t all the way over but was in the middle of the creek.

          More importantly Tom, if you notice I am usually replying to a commenters. If I think they made a poor or untrue comment I think it my duty to add my two cents worth. That way 5 years from now some new guy reads the thread and at least knows there are two views on the subject.

          “Considering the sum of the evidence, why do you seem to think John Newman for example, is deliberately misleading, but those who interpret the evidence similarly to the way you do, are sincere, accurate?”

          Trust me, I am as sincere here as I can be. Until you show me where I’m not accurate I’ll keep believing that I am.

          I’m not sure Newman is deliberately misleading. I am sure he is wrong. He is probably a true believer in what he says. If I was the only one thinking this I would be worried. But some of the biggest hitters of Vietnam War history agree:The other historians I here refer to were Lloyd Gardner, William Duiker, John Prados, George Herring, William Gibbons, and Larry Berman (Ted Gittinger, LBJ Library).

          Tom, I thank you for your time and interest. And I’m sincere about it. I appreciate it.

      • “I invite consideration of Bill Clarke’s comment.”

        Alright then, begin with this oxymoron:

        “There is none and no reference in his book is listed in the book. No Kenny O’Donnell said Jack told him this, “~Bill Clarke

        To claim that there are no references for this assertion by Newman simply is not so. Yes the reference is to Kenneth O’Donnell pg. 327 ref #45 — backed up by, Mansfield – same page, ref #46
        Source JFK AND VIETNAM – hard cover chapter references for Chapter 16, titled “All Hell Breaks Loose”.
        \\][//

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Willy Whitten
          May 18, 2016 at 6:33 pm

          “I invite consideration of Bill Clarke’s comment.”

          Alright then, begin with this oxymoron:

          “There is none and no reference in his book is listed in the book. No Kenny O’Donnell said Jack told him this, “~Bill Clarke

          To claim that there are no references for this assertion by Newman simply is not so. Yes the reference is to Kenneth O’Donnell pg. 327 ref #45 — backed up by, Mansfield – same page, ref #46
          Source JFK AND VIETNAM – hard cover chapter references for Chapter 16, titled “All Hell Breaks Loose”.

          Willy Whitten
          May 18, 2016 at 6:33 pm

          “I invite consideration of Bill Clarke’s comment.”

          Alright then, begin with this oxymoron:

          “There is none and no reference in his book is listed in the book. No Kenny O’Donnell said Jack told him this, “~Bill Clarke

          To claim that there are no references for this assertion by Newman simply is not so. Yes the reference is to Kenneth O’Donnell pg. 327 ref #45 — backed up by, Mansfield – same page, ref #46
          Source JFK AND VIETNAM – hard cover chapter references for Chapter 16, titled “All Hell Breaks Loose”.

          I believe you have wandered off the reservation, here Willy. This is the statement by Newman that we were discussing. ”JFK and Vietnam” page322. This is the basis of the book.
          ________________________________________________
          “Kennedy decided to use Taylor’s and Harkin’ reports of battlefield success to justify the beginning of the withdrawal he was planning.” Italics by Newman.
          ________________________________________________

          You can’t find a reference for this statement by Newman. If you have one lets see it.

          You furnished a reference for O’Donnell from that Pulitzer Prize winning book, “Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye”. No bias here I’m sure.

          The reference you listed (45, chapter “All Hell Breaks Loose)has to do with a meeting between JFK and Mike Mansfield. Remember, “I got angry with Mike for disagreeing with our policy so completely, and I got angry with myself because I found myself agreeing with him #45 “JFK”. It does not support the Newman quote under question here.

          Mansfield isn’t named in your reference for #46. It has to do with Bowles and Mendenhall and had to do with the false reports coming from Vietnam.

          I don’t believe you understood the question here Willy.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        Tom S.
        May 18, 2016 at 6:14 pm
        “I invite consideration of Bill Clarke’s comment. Is it accurate?

        Gee Tom, you don’t need to keep treating me special. Just treat me like one of the guys. If accuracy is a prerequisite to get a comment approved over half of the comments here would not have been accepted. So start this new policy with me if you must, fine by me. I will say that if you or Willy can prove anything wrong that I’ve said here I’ll leave the group to make you two happy. Evidence required, not your opinions.

        “Why such vehemence, considering the following?”

        Because people that lie about history piss me off. Big time.

        “Should the comment remain visible (approved), be unapproved per a determination resulting from this facr checking process, stay approved but accompanied by a disclaimer, or left up as is?”

        We can’t have 50 moderators. That is your job. I must say I salute you for having the nerve to open this gate. Downright proud of you.

        “I’ll start with these competing considerations.”
        Here is the Martin interview with Bobby Kennedy that is in the JFK Library:
        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm
        ____________________________________________________
        Martin:
        There was never any consideration given to pulling out?
        Kennedy:
        No.
        Martin:
        But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .
        Kennedy:
        No . . .
        Martin:
        It’s generally true all over the world, whether it’s in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .
        Kennedy:
        Yes.
        Martin:
        . . . And couldn’t lose it.
        Kennedy:
        Yes.
        Martin:
        And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to?
        Kennedy:
        Well, we’d face that when we came to it.

        “As I have already mentioned, “it was worthwhile” in this context more likely meant “it was not worthwhile” (psychological and political reasons hardly justifying a war),”

        So what John said really meant the opposite of what he said. You sure you want to stick with that one? Now I’m sure not saying they “justify a war” but I can’t think of a war that wasn’t politically based.

        “Especially since we know, just as Robert knew, that President Kennedy had decided to terminate US military participation by the end of 1965….”

        Newman didn’t reference his statement suggesting the same. So we are back to believing O’Donnell and a few other wigwags. Hardly a stout defense. Can you reference this statement (not Newman and Prouty please)? Can you show me anything Jack signed or approved concerning this? I don’t believe you can but I’d love to see it if you have it.

  10. “We could go on but this should be enough.”~Bill Clarke

    Enough indeed.

    This issue was played out on its own thread not too long ago. Perhaps Tom can give the URL to that thread for any interested readers.
    \\][//

    Tom S. adds requested link – https://jfkfacts.org/21772/

  11. Avinash says:

    Too much Prayer Man phobia here.

  12. What does any of this have to do with the need for Congressional hearings on oversight of the JFK Act, and everyone’s opinion that the law should be enforced, all the records released and a determination made on what became of the missing records? BK

    • Well Tom,

      I think I recall referring to the exchange between Dulles and Baker several times in my exchanges with ‘George’.

      It is difficult to get Mr Parker and his comrades to adhere to the context of the testimonies that we discuss.
      \\][//

      • Tom S. says:

        Willy, I am reluctant to approve George’s comment because so far he seems to posture that he has corrected what was in your comment, but I’m not seeing his correction as distinct enough compared to what was in your comment, to actually be informative to readers.
        If my preliminary interpretation is indeed what is going on with this, it would be a deliberately misleading effort and should not be approved during this six day experiment?

        I’m offering readers an opportunity to look into the window of the submitted comment stream and possibly a sense of what I consider in reaction to reading all of it and deciding what is a contribution to a discussion and what might be something else, a provocation or a misleading effort presented as sunstantive.

        • George says:

          Yeah, well done. Everything taken out of context yet again.

          Willy was trying to tell me that Baker never saw Oswald until AFTER giving his affidavit.

          In among his ramblings was some comment about Baker being in a SEPARATE office (presumably to the one in which Oswald was in).

          I produced testimony clearly showing that ( a ) that Baker saw Oswald DURING the taking of his affidavit AND ( b ) that they were indeed in the same office.

          It is in the damn testimony. Get over it.

  13. Tom S. says:

    It would seem appropriate to react in this thread to the arguments in the comment pasted below.:

    https://jfkfacts.org/coming-soon-ebook-jfk-cia/#comment-877648
    Ramon F Herrera – 2016/05/21 at 1:55 pm

    In reply to Ronnie Wayne.

    [Ronnie:] “It would be great if a copy could be sent to every Senator and Congressman out there.”
    =================================

    Do you honestly expect a Republican-controlled Congress (the most incompetent in history) to go out of their way to give a Black guy the power and privilege to decide what information is released?

    Here’s a riddle:

    Q: Who killed Kennedy?
    A: His enemies (duh!)

    Q: Who were his enemies?
    A: The Far Right.

    The following main suspects:

    (a) CIA, FBI, SS, ONI
    (b) Mafia
    (c) Cuban Expatriates

    readily qualify as Far Right.

    Therefore, I will respectfully disagree with Bill Kelly, Greg Parker and Shane McBryde:

    “I don’t think this is a liberal v. conservative issue any more than the assassination itself.” – Bill Kelly

    https://jfkfacts.org/morley-v-cia-jfk-at-issue-in-federal-court-next-week/#comment-5548

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

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