Lisa Pease replies to “My Three JFK Theories”:
Pease: “It’s a cop out because the facts showing Oswald couldn’t have done it are simple, clear, and scientific. That you don’t know that makes you a dabbler, a theorist. That I do understand this makes me a researcher, a realist. It’s not a conspiracy theory if it’s a conspiracy fact.”
My comment:
The facts may be simple, clear and scientific to you and me. But what if they are not “simple, clear and scientific” to someone else? How do you propose talking to these people? By dismissing them as mere “dabblers,” incapable of recognizing your version of the truth? That seems an unpromising way to persuade someone.
And:
Pease: “The approach that is failing, Jeff, is your approach – pretending this IS open to debate. If we all would stick to the facts that matter instead of wading into unproductive waters, more people would know – not believe but know – that this was a conspiracy. People like you, not me, are the problem.”
Is it really “pretending” to say the JFK assassination is open to debate? What goes on every day at this site, if not a debate? How else can we describe the coming blizzard of JFK books and movies, most of which have different interpretations of November 22, 1963, if not as a debate?
You may not like the fact that there is a debate about something you feel so certain about. You may regard people who disagree with you as “dabblers” or “CIA shills” or idiots — and you will doubtless be right in some cases. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a real debate about the causes of JFK’s death. There is. We’re having it right here. To say otherwise seems kind of unreal.
Unlike Pease I don’t personalize this debate. And I don’t think she is “the problem.” And, after 30 years of writing about JFK, and 10 years of suing the CIA for JFK records, I somehow doubt that I am “the problem.”
“To speak of a conspiracy without the ability to confidently identify conspirators strikes me as a mistake.”
This is ludicrous. So best not to speak of the completely overwhelming evidence that exonerates Oswald because you can’t say 100% who pulled the trigger? It does not follow that you must prove all the guilty parties in order to prove innocence of another, not legally, not logically. I understand that you mean it in a conversational sense with a “newbie” to the case, but you will never win a motivated public majority to act on this case 50+ years later anyway. Certainly not by not speaking of conspiracy.
The public needs to understand how special operations work in order to understand the world they live in. The media is set up to prevent that knowledge from being learned.
The number of shooters is entirely irrelevant to the question of conspiracy. There might be 1 shooter and accomplices who encouraged him, did not report him etc, and on the other hand several unconnected shooters. The point is in connecting the accomplices, not counting shooters!
think it over!
Ran
Jeff,
One possible answer to the question of “Who is the Problem” is explained to us in the President Kennedy quote noted below … as “those anxious”. The irony of his observation provides determination to press forward and uncover the remaining facts.
***************
Posted on JFKfacts – April 27, 2013
“…The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it….And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment….”
President John F. Kennedy’s speech at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, April 27, 1961
Of course that didn’t prevent JFK from keeping his Cuban Missile Crisis speech to the nation secret from his own Press Secretary.
The motives, integrity, honesty, and so on, of most of the posters above, and many others, who believe there is still a “debate” is not the question. The fact that some geologists think the earth is six thousand years old does not constitute material for a debate. It isn’t, period. In *exactly* the same sense, the debate about whether JFK was killed by Oswald acting alone is no longer open. Not every single fact about the JFK assassination is known, thanks mostly to the CIA and other Government agencies still concealing the most damning evidence (how do I know that? Because they’re concealing it!). There is no “debate” worth the name about whether JFK was assassinated. It’s a fact, just as it’s a fact that Ruby had no personal motive for killing Oswald, or that Commander Humes was lying when he said he didn’t know he should look for and probe a throat wound. It really *is* that simple.
Bill, you do know that the President’s personal physician directed the pathologists at autopsy to limit dissection of the neck- probably because he thought there was going to be an open coffin. As he was an active duty Rear Admiral in the Medical Corps it makes sense. That the pathologists would follow his instructions. Of course that physician could have been part of the conspiracy . But then would he have advised the ER docs in Parkland to give JFK stress doses of Solu- Cortef? Since nobody knew that JFK was adrenallly insufficient he could have kept quiet and ilet him die. Of course the head wound was fatal, but in a steroid dependent patient like JFK the neck wound would likely have been fatal anyway – without stress dose steroids.
Photon, I’m not familiar with the all of the medical terminology you’re using, but I’m sure that if Humes had told the truth, that he had tipped off to look for a wound of entry enlarged by the tracheostomy, he would have at least mentioned that. The point is, he didn’t say “I was told not to probe the neck”. He said, “I didn’t know that there was anything but a tracheostomy there”. That’s a lie, that’s a cover-up, obviously ordered by JFK’s physician. Now whether *he* understood what was going on is unclear. But someone who did know gave the order, and the “open coffin” was just an excuse. There was already a gaping hole in the neck. Exploring it would not have made things much worse.
Then why did Humes have a conversation with Malcolm Perry the next day about the procedure Perry performed.
Are you implying that the President’s personal physician was part of a conspiracy to kill the President?
Key word is “the next day”. It was too late “the next day”. Humes could then say that he didn’t know *until later*. The *same* day was the only one that mattered – the *same* day was the one on which Dr. Robert Livingston alerted Humes before the autopsy to look for a wound of entry in the throat, a warning that Humes said he never got. I did not *say* Bulkeley was a *knowing* part of the conspiracy. It doesn’t matter — most of those who aided the cover-up were unwitting tools, “just following orders”, deceived about what was really going on, threatened, or convinced that they needed to do or not do something “in the interests of national security” or “not alarming the public” or “preventing a nuclear war” or God knows what. The cover-up was manipulated high above the levels of most of those who carried out specific tasks. It is a waste of time to try to determine the exact level of knowledge of most of the individual tools.
Why would a board certified pathologist need a neurologist to tell him how to do an autopsy? If Humes never got the message why did Livingston claim that he had an 8-10 minute conversation with him? Why has there never been an independent confirmation of Livingstone’s claim? When exactly was it made public that the autopsy was going to be done at Bethesda?
Bulkeley was the senior medical officer present. It has been clearly documented by multiple sources that he limited aspects of the autopsy, principally dissection of the neck. As such if you claim that the patient had a limited autopsy you have to accept that that was because of the President’s personal physician. If there was a nefarious reason for that you must include RADM Burkeley as part of the conspiracy. And frankly, that is absolutely crazy.
ARRB Exhibit-Robert B.Livingston depostion in Crenshaw vs. Sutherland.
(questioning by Mr. Kizzia to Mr. Livingston):
“Q. Based upon your conversation with Commander Humes, Dr. Livingston, do you have any doubt that before the autopsy he knew about the existence of the wound (bullet) to President Kennedy’s throat?
A. Well, I told him quite plainly, and I know he understood that.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=605&relPageId=5
Thanks for your info, Dusty. To Photon: I’m sure that Dr. Livingston did not know how incompetent Dr. Humes was, and merely intended to tip him to look for a wouund under the trach. No doubt he reasoned that there would be a lot of pressure doing an autopsy on the President. He wasn’t giving advice, he was passing on some information that Humes might not have. As of “independent confirmation”, how could there be any of a phone talk? The FBI guys who broke it up might have been able to enlighten us – I wonder they didn’t come forward? I guess Humes could have confirmed it, but for some reason he didn’t seem to want to (heh). As for Livingston’s knowing that the autopsy would be at Bethesda, he says he heard it on the news. Why shouldn’t he have? Burkley did not have to know *why* he was given orders to manage the autopsy the way he did. He was given orders, and he carried them out. See, that’s how it works in the Navy. And he wasn’t the President’s personal physician anyway. The President was not president any more. He was dead. That probably influenced Burkley’s thinking, if he had any doubts about what he was being told to do – and not to do.
Could you cite your claim that it was Burkley who directed Dr. Fink to not track the neck wound?
I think he would have stated that on the stand at the Clay Shaw trial. Instead, he avoided answering the question as long as he could.
Finck himself in his Warren Report testimony stated that there were restrictions placed by ” family ” . Burkley was the senior medical officer present and could overrule any family restrictions on the autopsy but chose not to do so.
This aspect of the autopsy has been documented in many sources.
So your claim that Burkley personally limited the autopsy is conjecture, as are most of your “facts”.
Dr. Finck was not asked about the limitations of the autopsy by the WC and made no mention of it. He made no mention of the family interference via Burkley at the Shaw Trial either – while under oath and pressed for a good reason not to track the wound. He didn’t mention it until his HSCA testimony where he finally remembered it was Dr. Burkley that limited the autopsy. At that point RFK was dead and probably unable to give his perspective. Dr. Burkley never testified concerning the assassination and aftermath. I think that just leaves us with the word of a couple of JFK’s military aides?
And if seems hard to believe that the Kennedy’s could be so worried about JFK’s neck and how it would look at a funeral if they already had word that the top right of his skull had been blown off. I’d think the that back of his neck would lie unseen in the coffin, and the front could be pretty obscured by a suit, shirt and tie. As to RFK being in a hurry to leave Bethesda with the body and Jackie, you’d think he could be convinced to allow a necessary procedure for understanding the nature of a wound that could have killed his brother.
On the other hand, I do realize that RFK could be a royal pain.
Jeffc’s,please read Mitchell’s post.
The Kennedy family expressed, in writing, that there should be no restrictions for the autopsy. That’s an established fact. Burkley sent word to the HSCA that he wished to testify before them, stating that he had important clarifying information. He was never called. Tracking wounds at a forensic autopsy is a necessity, and the failure to do so is one of the most inexplicable failings in this entire case.
jeffc, please clarify your claim of a written directory from the family placing no restriction on the autopsy. I see no evidence that any written instructions were given, nor that they would be necessary.
“Reference copy, JFK Collection: HSCA (RG 233)
AFFIDAVIT
I, VICE ADMIRAL GEORGE G. BURKLEY (M.C.) (Ret.) living in Los Angeles, California, being duly sworn make oath as follows: I was interviewed in January, 1978 by T. Mark Flanagan, Jr. and Donald A. Purdy, Jr. of the staff of the Select Committee on Assassinations. During the interview I set forth the substance of the information which follows. At this time I reaffirm that this information is accurate and truthful to the best of my knowledge. This statement is made freely, voluntarily, and with out threats, promises, assurance, or remuneration from any source.”
“5. I had ordered the United States Naval Hospital to be prepared for performing an autopsy on the body of John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, the permission having been granted by Mrs. Kennedy while enroute. It was to be a complete autopsy with no limitations and no curtailment in time necessary for completion.”
That’s not to say that things didn’t change at Bethesda. Since this is as late as the HSCA, wouldn’t you think by this point Burkley could admit RFK was in a hurry or wanted an open casket, or JFK had Addison’s? If you’re right, Photon, why no mention of Burkley or the Kennedy’s limiting the autopsy?
I have seen multiple lies about supposed acts or statements by the Kennedy’s since their deaths and would therefore like to see more evidence that RFK limited the autopsy.
In the law, you don’t have to prove who DID do a crime to prove who did NOT do a crime. Oswald did not kill Kennedy. The facts are solid on that. But you don’t have to have all the answers as to who did it, why, and how, to start there.
We do have solid clues, of course, given how much the CIA lied their eyes out to every investigation that followed, and how the CIA lied about Oswald (describing him as fat and balding) other other agencies of the government just six weeks before the assassination. There’s so much more, of course, but that isn’t the point.
The point is, you CAN cry “conspiracy” without naming actual conspirators. It is, in fact, the only responsible thing to do.
Question for Lisa: when you write that “Oswald did not kill Kennedy” are you stating that Oswald did *not* fire at all at Kennedy? Also, of course you can cry ‘conspiracy’ without naming actual conspirators: isn’t that what the entire, decades long debate is all about?
What Lisa says is exactly correct: One CAN cry “conspiracy” without knowing who did the crime. This is what Morley is saying, which is that we can’t prove yet who exactly was responsible for killing JFK. I would add that we CAN make some pretty good assumptions, hypotheses as to who was responsible, by looking at the cover up. The Watergate incident was unveiled in this way, and the HSCA was attempting to look into this (you can read about it in Gaeton Fonzi’s excellent book, ‘The Last Investigation’). A good and honest investigation is necessary, without all the political BS getting in the way. People who defend the Warren Commission as if it proved that Oswald shot Kennedy all alone cherry pick around all of the flaws that the WC either didn’t properly investigate or got wrong. There’s a REASON why the HSCA tried to reopen the case in the seventies. People were not satisfied with the WC findings. Where the HSCA got off track however was when they let Joannides act as their access man to CIA files. It looks like he carefully screened the subcommittee members from data that CIA didn’t want dug up, so again we got an incomplete and failed investigation. Knee-jerk defenders of the Warren Report are like people who knee jerk argued that Nixon couldn’t have done anything wrong when he was president, and that The Washington Post and Woodward & Bernstein should just “shut up” and quit digging where nothing was there. I remember that period when the Nixon defenders slammed anyone who dared to say that Nixon was guilty of illegal wiretapping and break-in. It reminds me of the slamming against “JFK Conspiracy buffs” today. They just want us to “shut up” and stop thinking that CIA (just as NSA has been found recently) could be guilty of a criminal act.
The tag “Conspiracy Theorist” gets tossed around a lot, as a way to label people in a snide way. But it’s a legitimate way to theorize, otherwise how else to explain the Lincoln assassination, except by a conspiracy of Booth, Paine, others, in 1865?
Jeff I love your site. Since I discovered it last summer I check it almost erery day. It’s been very helpful and expanded knowledge of the assassination and I’m very thankful for that but I agree with Lisa. The conspiracy is a fact.
Thanks Terry. I don’t dispute thatthere’s a strong case that there was a conspiracy to kill the president. The crime scene evidence points to multiple shooters, as John McCone told Bobby Kennedy. There’s more damage to Kennedy, Connally and Tague, the limousine and the curb than can be accounted for by three bullets. The CIA’s cover up of the CI’s staff tracking of Oswald from 1959 to 1963 undermines the “lone nut” theory by showing he wasn’t very “lone.” The impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City highlights intense interest of U.S. intelligence operatives in his movements. The FBI’s destruction of Oswald’s note after the assassination virtually corroborates guilty knowledge. The suppression of the Zapruder film indicates fear of the commonsense interpretation of it: that Kennedy was hit by a shot from the front.
The problem lies in identifying participants.
The fact remains that Oswald remains the single most plausible participant in an effort to kill the president. Whether or not he fired a gun that day, his actions suggest guilty knowledge. As a politically involved person who cared about Kennedy’s policies, why wasn’t he in the crowd watching the motorcade? Why leave the crime scene and go home and retrieve a pistol?
To speak of a conspiracy without the ability to confidently identify conspirators strikes me as a mistake. To Lisa, this is a sign that I–and anybody who disagrees with her–is a “coward.” That’s arrogant and no way to treat your audience, which is inevitably going to include people who disagree with you.
>>The problem lies in identifying participants.<<
Good point! From an analytical perspective, I appreciate this being pointed out.
I've been hooked on this blog since its inception, and for the record, I don't nor have I ever made a DIME off any of my conspiracy / criticism of the Warren Report ideas or writings. It's all in the interest of patriotism and love of history and of my country. Like Robert Kennedy said the night he was shot: "It's a great country." I just want it to live up to its potential as a great country. I think I can handle the truth, no matter how inconvenient, just as Americans who woke up on December 8, 1941 had to deal with difficult facts. Thank you, Jeff, for this blog.
Who suppressed the Zapruder film? Didn’t Life magazine own it originally? Was Life iin cahoots with the CIA? It certainly hasn’t been suppressed in the last 30 years.
What is the basis for your statement that there is more damage than can be accounted for by three bullets? Don’t we have expert testimony within 12 hours of the assassination that the person with the most wounds was hit by only one bullet? As Tague didn’t know he was wounded until somebody told him he had blood on his cheek the damage was minimal.
And he did fire a gun that day. Even if you disregard the evidence that Oswald shot JFK, even if you disregard the overwhelming evidence that he shot Tippit , you have to accept that in the Texas Theater he pulled a loaded weapon on a Dallas police officer in plain view of multiple witnesses and pulled the trigger- which was stopped from sending a bullet Into the cop only by the skin of the officer’s hand blocking the hammer.
How does tracking the sociopathic Oswald rule out him being a ” lone nut”?
if there were multiple shooters why did all of the shots that hit come from the rear?
Where is the concrete evidence? Your conclusions have more holes than a used textbook from Dinkeytown.
Yes, Time-Life was in cahoots with the CIA.
Sure they were. That is why Life published a full article of stills from the Zapruder film, including an uncensored full page print of frame 313. I have a copy of the article.
Carl Bernstein, one of the Watergate investigators who found corruption and dirt in the Nixon White House, seems to think so:
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
Life did not show the film, Photon. It did not get out until Jim Garrison subpoenaed it and allowed someone to make a bootleg copy. Life bought the film and kept it in a safe.
Their higher ups (Henry Luce, Clair Booth Luce and C.D. Jackson) involved themselves and the company with the CIA for propagandistic purposes and to allow “cover” for CIA agents.
Whether or not all shots were fired from the rear is not relevant. I think they all may have been, but they line up better with the Dal Tex building.
Your point that LHO at least tried to shoot a police officer in the theatre was addressed by Mr. Morley – namely, that LHO did seem to be acting guilty of something. But that does not preclude a conspiracy, in fact it is probably what we would expect if this were a set up that would leave LHO holding the bag.
One of the big mysteries, and it will probably always be so, is why Oswald went to his rooming house, apparently retrieved a pistol, and then went to the Texas Theater, where witnesses say he moved around and sat directly beside several people. Trying to meet a contact? Who would be the contact?
But the conspirators can also be revealed by the cover-up – which includes the curtailed flawed autopsy (military), skewed investigation (FBI), and the mechanics of the Warren Commission (appointed by LBJ, very active participation by Allen Dulles).
The housekeeper at the rooming house, Earlene Roberts, testified to the Warren Commission that a Dallas police vehicle with two officers in it pulled up to the curb in front of the rooming house while Oswald was in his room. The police vehicle twitted its horn twice, which she said appeared to be a signal, then drove away. The Warren Report ignored this testimony.
Jeff, “The fact remains that Oswald remains the single most plausible participant in an effort to kill the president”.
I have to disagree, you call this fact, but that is not true. There is another individual who’s behavior the day of the assassination is equally suspect. A person who was in the right location, at the right time, on the right day, to shoot JFK. This person’s identity has not been made publically known in general. But, this persons identity is discoverable if one knows where to look. Hunt’s hint provides the clue to this mans identity.
“his (Oswalds) actions suggest guilty knowledge.”
-Oswalds note to “Hunt” also suggests he new something was going on, but he didn’t know what his involvement was supposed to be. In other words, he was being kept in the dark, but being manipulated.
That said, put yourself in Oswalds position under those circumstances. JFK had just been shot, Oswald suddenly realizes he’s been played. What would be his state of mind? Would he be fearful, panicky, not know who to trust? Would he try to get away from possible danger? Try to protect himself? In fear for his life? Would he be uncertain as to what was going on and try to make contact with those he had been associated with to figure out what was going on?
Jeff, I think your work is a significant contribution to the JFK assassination subject. But, I also know that the identity of this second suspect exists.
Oswald’s note to “Hunt” is widely believed to be a forgery, even by individuals who are convinced there was a conspiracy to kill the President.
If you are referring to E. Howard Hunt’s “hint”, I wouldn’t take him too seriously either. He was a spook – he lied for a living.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/sr-dusty-rohde/jfk-et-gaudet-the-cia-french-connection/1382020972031562
Jeff, I also think it likely Oswald was impersonated in MC. I also agree the CIA had interest in his activities there. But what do you mean when you say the impersonation shows their interest?
“The impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City highlights intense interest of U.S. intelligence operatives in his movements.”
I found this to be a curious comment as well; in fact, why couldn’t it have been that Oswald was impersonating the other individual rather than the other way around; how did they know that Oswald was the one to be watched rather than the impersonator; they have a file on the impersonator? It’s a convoluted proposition, but no more than arguing that Oswald was the only person of interest at the time, unless as you say … they had more information about him than has been released, which brings the discussion full circle I suppose.
Dan, I really appreciate your recent activity on this site. I think it’s imperative that you continue to provide your opinions to public. If this is where you feel comfortable, great.
I’m with Jeff here. Assassination researchers are more persuasive when they focus on the physical evidence that points to a Conspiracy and avoid speculating on who the conspirators were and how they did it.
Facts are always more persuasive than speculation. Jeff has the right approach.
People generally agree that it’s probable that there was a conspiracy. The disagreements and doubts begin when we try to speculate on who the conspirators were. In a case like this where almost every person of interest is connected in some way with Oswald or Jack Ruby, speculation often leads us astray and away from the big picture.
I agree 100 per cent with Lisa Pease. Example: debating over fairy tales like CE 399 or speculating on bullet trajectories ad infinitum is just “busy work” to keep people in the dark and moving on to find truth in this still open murder case. Who ordered his death, who benefitted from his death, who has had the power to cover it up the last fifty years? These are matters that are more important than endless “debate” over whether LHO acted alone or with someone else. BTW, LHO shot NO ONE! He was what he said he was: a patsy! Also, if you’re into conspiracy “theory,” try reading the Warren Commission. You’ll find it in the Fiction section of your local library.
I may be wrong but I like approaching this as science and I think that is what Jeff is doing. Unfortunately astronomers and other scientists don’t have to deal with a physical universe that is intentionally hiding something or putting out disinformation. We don’t get clean data open to honest interpretation, we get tons of noise, both random and intentionally misleading.
I guess I just contradicted myself. It’s not an ideal world and we also need crusaders like Lisa to open people’s minds through passion and move them emotionally as well as intellectually to a new place.
Thanks to Jeff and Lisa, you are both doing a fantastic job.
The point re debate is this: We should be debating how to get the real history of what happened into the media, into textbooks. The only reason there’s a debate at all as to what happened is that a lot of people lied to us and polluted the historical record. When one person lies and one tells the truth, how can there be a legitimate debate? A debate is over something hypothetical. But we have facts. A debate doesn’t resolve facts – it reduces them to hypotheticals.
Fact. Oswald had no nitrate on his cheek.
Fact. FBI agents fired the same rifle and got nitrate on their cheek in all but one case.
Fact. The one case where an FBI agent did NOT get nitrate on his cheek was when another agent cleaned the gun between shots.
Conclusion: Oswald didn’t fire a rifle.
Which means: Oswald was set up for a crime he didn’t commit.
Which means: A sophisticated intelligence operation took out our president.
Fact: CIA people in a position to know the truth about Oswald lied to the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the media. The CIA even lied to other agencies of the government about Oswald a month before the events took place.
Fact: The establishment – the richest people in America – had total control over American foreign policy for eight years through John Foster Dulles at State and Allen Dulles at CIA. Eisenhower all but abdicated his role as president to these two. When Eisenhower’s aides warned him, with reports filled with facts, that the CIA was out of control, Eisenhower refused to rein it in. Kennedy, however, learned in his first 100 days how duplicitous and underhanded the CIA was through The Bay of Pigs. He set out to take covert operations away from them and put them under strict military control by creating the DIA. FACT: CIA people saw this not only as a threat to their existence.
Fact: The CIA only told JFK about the plots to kill Castro that had already happened, not the ones that were continuing.
Fact: The CIA, in their own Inspector General report, admitted they had NO executive authority for these plots.
Fact: Most authors on Kennedy say he ordered the Castro plots.
Fact: Most authors got this info from Sam Halperin, who interpreted a comment Bissell said to mean this.
Fact: Most authors are mistaken, as the CIA made it clear they had neither sought nor obtained permission from Kennedy to kill Castro.
There are lots of facts that matter. There are facts that do not matter (how many shots, from which angle).
What matters is that history is wrong, we’ve been lied to, and we should stop saying “if” a conspiracy happened and talk about the results of it, how to recognize conspiracies in real time, and how to find a deterrent that would keep people from taking out another president.
The last guy I talked to said “Well, my theory is …” and after I listened to him for a while I said fine. I’ve heard your theory. Would you like to hear some facts? He did. His mind was changed.
Another guy I talked to recently gave me his theory about how Giancana had killed Kennedy. I heard him out, and then asked a simple question. “Giancana is dead, so who is running the cover-up now?”
He thought for a moment, and said he wanted to change his answer to who was behind this to “the government.” That’s progress.
Debates aren’t helping. Facts are. The right questions help people understand. But pretending there are two sides when they aren’t isn’t helpful. It’s actually a kind of lie that I just can’t participate in.
Lisa and Dan are absolutely correct here, except perhaps in calling JM a ‘dabbler.’ If I may speculate, JM must know that his false equivalency between the ‘sides’ is bogus, but to come out and say so would be anathema to his chosen profession. Maybe he thinks that he is staying within the realm of acceptable opinion and that by doing so he can make his middling position more acceptable and he can open minds that way. Or he just wants to stay respectable among his peers for reasons relating to career and prestige. Only Jeff knows, unless he doesn’t because he is in denial. We do know that the assassination could not have happened the way that we were told. The way in which the impossible version of events was foisted upon us was so deliberate that it belies any benign explanation. The continuing cover-up makes it all the more obvious. Everything points to the very seat of power.
Or maybe nitrate tests are not very reliable.. Apparently you never realized that it was almost 10 hours after the assassination before Oswald wad tested. Almost 10 hours of walking ,fighting with cops,making two transfers in temps of 68 degrees in the shade on a sunny day. Do you suppose he sweated -just a little? If he was a patsy the sweat should have been dripping off his face-right?
What was the accuracy of the paraffin test in 1963 after 8 hours? You don’t seem to want to address that.
The tests that were done on Oswald’s paraffin cheek cast were the most sensitive. They would have detected nitrate even if he had scrubbed his face. That’s why Redlich wrote Dulles that there was “no basis” for claiming Oswald fired a rifle. That’s why FBI agent Courtland Cunningham came up with a ridiculous two-man scenario to create a false negative. One agent cleaned the gun and handed it to the other between shots. That’s the lengths they went to. Oh, and Cunningham also just lied. He said Oswald’s gun chamber was sealed so nitrate couldn’t escape. The reason we know that’s a lie is that the FBI agents ran the tests with Oswald’s rifle – not a similar one but the same exact rifle – and consistently got nitrate on their cheek. It was so bad they actually got nitrate on BOTH cheeks! See Gerald McKnight’s book Breach of Trust for a lot of details re that, if you’re interested.
So the paraffin test was 100% accurate and had no false negative rate?
Let’s not forget that Oswald was supposed to have fired not one gun but TWO. Not two rifles either, a rifle and a hand gun. But, by another miracle, or maybe the same “magic” from that magic bullet, no nitrates were detected.
Actually he had a positive result on his hands. Of course nobody wants to admit that the test was totally unreliable with multiple false negative results documented in the Warren Report.
Actually the paraffin test was susceptible to false positive results, not false negative. Your efforts to downplay the paraffin test match the gymnastics of the official story, but we now know that the FBI exerted tremendous efforts trying to understand how their alleged assassin had no nitrates on his cheek.
Dan’s comment is spot on! 1) Intel agencies and there assets are exactly the reason the truth has not been acknowledged. 2) The case for conspiracy is clear – it’s only the disinformationists and the cowardly who claim that it is not. (The cowards are the ones afraid to defend that a conspiracy took place.) 3) This is no longer a discussion about what happened but a battle for the historical truth to make it into text books. Who controls the past controls the future. The disinformation is about control, and those who succumb to it are part of the problem, not the solution. Dan is right. We should focus on who did this, why, and how we can prevent it from happening again.
Jeff, I have a lot of discussions every week about this case. After 20 years, I have a lot of data on what conversations work on people and what don’t. People have been persuaded by the crapaganda when it’s all they know. When they hear the other side, most people realize that there was a conspiracy. There are the few who truly don’t want to believe that and reject all other information. There are the even fewer who are paid not to believe that. But most people, when you lay the truth out for them, put the facts together in the proper way. Not all conspiracies are theories. This one sure as heck is not.
“2) The case for conspiracy is clear – it’s only the disinformationists and the cowardly who claim that it is not. (The cowards are the ones afraid to defend that a conspiracy took place.)”
Firstly, cowards? I don’t understand how this approach is helping your case. How can you claim to be a serious researcher on the one hand, and then on the other hand dismiss anyone with a contrary viewpoint using such derogatory language? It just sounds so unbalanced. I have a great deal of trouble taking you seriously based on the way you approach the discussion. I’m interested in hearing the viewpoints of researchers, but I don’t want to be beaten over the head with them.
Secondly, who are these disinformationists? Can you provide some names, examples and evidence? What is their motivation and what are their methods? Is it just a few individuals, or is it a large group of people? Are they organised in some way? If so, by who?
“After 20 years, I have a lot of data on what conversations work on people and what don’t.”
That sounds like something you’d find in a telemarketing manual.
“People have been persuaded by the crapaganda when it’s all they know.”
Crapaganda? I don’t quite follow what you’re saying here because it’s clear from opinion polls (a link to one was posted on this site recently) that a very substantial number of people have doubts about what you might describe as the “official version” of events. Have a look at the comments section for any JFK assassination related news story in the media. Persuading people to question the “official version” doesn’t really seem to be a major problem.
I’d suggest that the problem you actually do have is persuading people outside JFK assassination research circles that you’ve developed a valid, robust and well supported alternative explanation to replace the official version.
There is still debate over the cause of the Reichstag fire in 1933 that led to Nazi Germany. Was the confused young Dutch Communist arrested at the scene part of a Communist plot, or was the fire arranged by the Nazi leadership as a “false flag” operation? There are partisans of each point of view. Allen Dulles wrote that the Nazi leadership organized the fire, based on OSS reporting.
I don’t agree with Lisa on this at all. If our society was such that no avenue was open for a convicted person’s arrest, charges, trial, evidence presented, witnesses testimony used against the accused, jury conduct & new evidence developments & assessment to be reviewed & considered (all of which could result in a new trial) then no one would ever get a 2nd chance after being convicted of a crime in the USA. No one would ever get out of jail, Lisa.
A constant & continued examination & discussion of everything known and unknown is essential to this case. Jeff Morley is performing a good service to the global community in his efforts for JFK related CIA transparency & allowing avenues for free discussion about the case here.
The other side of Lisa’s coin are the John McAdams, Vince Bugliosi’s, Dale Myers, Gus Russo’s & countless others who taunt & chastise those who don’t believe their view of the assassination (Oswald did it, alone).
No matter what side appears after the coin is tossed the result is the same.
It would be very helpful to general readers if someone could tell them how to distinguish the propaganda assault from the genuine debate in the coming blizzard. Establishing some criteria in that regard in advance could provide some clarity as to what should be taken seriously and what can be easily dismissed. I mean, come on, it is well established that intelligence agencies have disinformation sections as a major operational part of their structure. Why should we think that the disinformation efforts stopped with the issuance of the Warren Report?
And, while I am at it, I note that one of the most common features of a disinformation cover is the creation of fall-back positions. So, if an initial cover story starts to fall apart, there is a back up explanation in place that still protects the operation’s plausible deniability. I fear that your “theory”, Jeff, that all the Agency is trying to hide is their “negligence” in not properly monitoring Oswald may well be just such a back-up story, whether developed in advance planning or, more likely, as the previous positions have fallen apart. Why would you advance their story?
I have been in this position before where I’ve been told, you cannot investigate who the conspirators are until you can prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. I think most reasonable people today, who have seen or examined the evidence, have to agree that there is at least proof by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a conspiracy. From an intelligence operational standpoint, the evidence is even more solid. So, shouldn’t the debate be concentrated not on the next fall-back position, but on actually trying to investigate the conspiracy and the conspirators.
Then, again, maybe what we have here is the recognition that after 50 years, the possibility of a real investigation is behind us and we are fighting about the creation of the history of the event. And, like the HSCA report, that is built largely on the documents available. So, he who controls the documents, controls the history. And the victors always write the history.
Of course there is a debate going on.
And this debate will continue because new generations like myself will become interested in the assassination and surf the internet looking for reasoned debate and people we can trust to genuinely pursue the truth.
I have respect for researchers like Lisa Pease and the fact that they have passionate and honest views regarding the assassination, but I do feel that they have to realise that their certainty and the way they address others who may have a different opinion can be a turn off for others.
To describe Mr Morley as a “dabbler”, after his work on, for example, George Joannides, seems to be a little off the mark.
I feel that the posts from people over the last few days show that, for the most part, people seem to like Mr Morleys approach.
Although I believe in a conspiracy, I accept that none of us can be totally sure of what exactly happened. We need a reasoned, genuine and open approach to pursue the truth, and I feel that this is what Jeff brings to the table.
Two serious and credible researchers disagreeing about “facts”, research,debate, and dabbling. Hardly unique to the long-lived JFK assassination dialogue. I’m a bit confused by the definition of “these people”, but I do know that many “dabblers” out there are questionable, and that debates like this one ultimately go nowhere, leaving readers either more entrenched, confused, or grasping fluid, ever-evolving arguments.
Careful readers will note I NEVER used the word “dabblers.” That was Jeff’s word.
Well, you used the word ‘dabbler,’thus opening the door widely, and, nonetheless, there are a lot of ‘dabblers’ out there… however, I still think this so-called debate is a continuation of this trend to engage in pointless polemics that really go nowhere and contribute nothing toward better, deeper research. There is ample room for disagreement, debate, doubt, and varying opinions and ‘theories’ on the JFK assassination.Indeed,we are at a point today where nearly every ‘fact’ is called into question and sometimes mocked.For example, insisting that the CIA killed JFK is an argument that at least half the ‘conspiracy community’ would disagree with…