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.”
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.
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.”