view:  full / summary

Political Wrangling

Posted by Terry Martin on March 12, 2016 at 1:25 PM Comments comments (5)




In the Political Ideology thread at EdForum, I have trouble following the rather vague definitions bandied about for "right" and "left" and the blending or melding of the same in the political landscape.


Bottom line, I cannot understand how Jim Di equates what Bernie is saying with the ROKC's stance on H&L. It seems a comment completely out of left field. If there was a connection, it is lost on me.


Plus, in my opinion, none of them seem to have a firm grasp of the politics in 1960. Especially in Texas.


The Republicans in Texas had a deep abiding distrust for Kennedy primarily because he was from a wealthy New England family with Mafia ties. It was known that the Mafia bankrolled his campaign.


To top it off, he selected LBJ as his running mate and we already thought the fellow was tarnished by the Billy Sol Estes dealings and other scandals.


As far as being non-conspiracy theorists, I was weaned on CT by the feminine side of my family who were Republican and rabid conspiracists.


Only nine at the time of the election, I was leader of the young Republican caucus at my school and we were solidly behind Nixon and were sad when Kennedy beat him.


When the Bay of Pigs happened, it was just more politics. When the Cuban Missile Crisis took us to the brink of WW III (and we thought it was imminent). it was just more of the same old politics as we were used to.


The turning point for me was the U. S. Steel crisis. Most people today do not even see it on the map but at the time, it was monumental to many of us.


Suddenly, the son of wealth and corporate power was battling against corporate greed. It was unheard of.


Perhaps there was more politics behind it than my young mind could absorb but it was the first glimmering of something resembling hope.


Looking closer, I saw Kennedy also empowering his brother to go after the Mafia, the same group that supposedly put him in power. Who bites the hands that feed him? Not an intelligent man, one would assume, but perhaps one with a lot more savvy than most gave him credit for.


By the time of the assassination, I had seen Kennedy begin to open relations with Russia, start to turn around diplomatic relations in Africa, and try to enthuse the populace with the idea that we did matter and we could go anywhere we wanted, like to the Moon within the decade.


It was unlike any other Presidency I had ever studied.


But then it ended.


We felt a glimmer of its return when Bobby announced his candidacy but again the magic was so quickly snuffed out.


The naysayers can talk of policy and numbers but in history it really is the intangibles that matter more than a hill of beans. The earnest wellspring of hope that seemed to come into its own before JFK was assassinated repeatedly and his legacy tarnished.


I lived through it and remember the bright future dashed into darkness for all time.


Talk of right and left is really meaningless within the context of world-changers and John Kennedy was precisely that. That is why, when after a mere thousand days on the world stage, every nation in the world cried out in anguish at his passing and every one of those nations issued postage stamps in an effort to remember what he had given.


And here we can only speak of his time with us in terms of politics.




Irving Wallace was researching a novel while Kennedy was in office and he had the opportunity to stay at the White House for a time to do his research. With Kennedy's death, Wallace had to move on and spent a vast amount of time re-writing his novel.


It was published as THE MAN. It did not deal with Kennedy or his policies but it did show in glaring light the way the government works, the balancing of powers between the branches and the undue influence the CIA exerts over the Executive and how mundane practices can become weaponized.


The novel draws heavily on Kennedy's volume PROFILES IN COURAGE, directly and indirectly, and seems a bit of a tongue-in-cheek analysis of what they did to Kennedy.


That may just be my own personal opinion of the work - not Wallace's - but it does seem to answer a few questions.


I am no prophet. I cannot say what the present would have been had JFK lived, but I cannot think it would be the same world we see today. Once the hawks had their way over his corpse, they have continued to hold such sway. Had such advantage not been gained thereby, they would not be the power-mongers we see today with the elements of the CIA ruining nations around the world.


Perhaps some of the doubters are right and the present would only have been delayed by a dozen years - once both Kennedys had moved on from the Presidency - but that is to disregard the intangibles of Kennedy's legacy. The soil that grows such rabid weeds would not have existed.


But of course, JFK did not live and neither did RFK. The cycle that brought this present world into being was already working in 1963 (and before) and both Kennedys' deaths were a matter of course.


They were considered nothing more than weeds in the cultivators' fields already planning the continual wars of the twenty-first century. An anomalous rose or two among the crap that merely needed to be snipped in the bud.


Roses of any number of names.



Response to post #131 by Richard Gilbride - Posted 26 January 2016 - 10:47 PM

Posted by Terry Martin on February 3, 2016 at 9:05 AM Comments comments (1)

(quoted from the Ed Forum thread "One Last Thing Before Xmas Eve: 2nd Floor Lunch Room Encounter"; post 131 is in black, my comments are in red)



"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived, and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

-John F. Kennedy, commencement address to Yale University, June 11, 1962


It is an odd quote to use to preface his defense of the Warren Commission's contrived myth of the Second Floor encounter. He does little more than subject all the facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations (that of the WC) and cherry picks the evidence to support his case - yes, just as he accuses everyone who opposes his (the WC's) theory. The theory put forth by Greg and Sean does the opposite.


Greg Parker, post #96- "In short, [Oswald] followed his natural route of going up and buying a coke and coming back down to have it with his lunch IN THE DOMINO room. The purchase of the coke happened BEFORE the assassination - and that is when he was seen by Reid.

"...they brought Baker's encounter down to the 2nd floor lunchroom and claimed it was Oswald and they changed Reid's sighting from a pre-assassination one to a post-assassination one. Voila! Mission accomplished! This was the whole reason for the confusion about the coke."

The confusion about the coke is also resolved by postulating that Oswald purchased two cokes - one for his domino-room lunch and one just after being confronted by Baker. (Sure, you could postulate that Oswald bought two cokes but you need to show how often he did such in the past. If it was an occurrence multiple times in the week you might find some agreement. Absence of any corroboration or support diminishes this postulate.) But Greg's scenario shanghais Reid into the lunchroom-hoax mini-conspiracy, and by extension Leavelle & Belin & who-knows-who-else, as he turns her affidavit topsy-turvy in order to make the hoax hypothesis work. (Since we are discussing an incident wherein most investigators suspect a conspiracy, why should one not hypothesize certain people having been involved? If there is substantive evidence that one or more persons could not have been involved, please produce them. Otherwise we can posit they might have been involved. You cannot have a conspiracy with no one involved and cannot discount someone merely on a person's claim that they were a "right good copper" or any other opinion. Reason dictates that many people involved in conspiracy are usually pretty good at hiding the fact, otherwise the conspiracy would fall apart rather quickly.)

These shenanigans stink of artificiality (opinion), and they service a hypothesis that yields ephemeral results (opinion), which have no empirical substantiation (opinion, but then neither does yours have any empirical substantiation). Even if one discards Tan Jacket Man and Ira Trantham as laughable, Baker's confusion (opinion) ("3rd or 4th floor") does not automatically transmutate into an encounter with a flesh-and-blood person there (discounting testimony because it does not fit your theory, Richard, is called "cherry picking"). Nor is there even a hint from film or circumstances that Baker & Prayerman had any interaction on the front landing. (Nor is there any film evidence that they did not. The fact is equivocal; saying it backs your preference is "cherry picking". As far as circumstances, there are certainly hints given that they DID in fact interact. But that would be the very event that is proposed was levitated to the second floor. From the vestibule to the doorway of the lunchroom. Oswald had already claimed to be in the lunchroom so they simply moved it to the other lunchroom.)

Yet Greg holds onto the lunchroom-hoax the way Norman Bates shows devotion to his mother in Psycho. Neither rhyme nor reason can shake his tenacious determination that her Aussified remains must live on. (paragraph is an ad hominem attack, only and should be ignored)

Consider when I point out that:

1) every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a mundane explanation that supports the incident's reality, no answer is given. (Specificity would best be served in this item - on the face of it, you imply everything supports your theory when in fact it does not. Your claim of every single item needs some clarification as Lee, Sean, and Greg have presented much evidence that does NOT support the reality.)

2) the Sept. 23rd affidavit shows Baker's continuing confusion with the TSBD floor layout, and cannot be construed as supportive of a hoax, and no answer is given. (Nor can it be construed as supporting the second floor encounter. In case you did not know this, confusion is like that. It is a little too messy to support any opinion.)

3) the 1964 filmed interview shows Baker as a modest man with integrity (opinion). His fellow officers called him "MommaSon" and referred to him as "dopey". Yet Greg wants to paint him as a coverup monster (slight hyperbole, what?), more clever than any professional actors of the day (opinion), telling a whopper about the lunchroom with a complete deadpan delivery (opinion).

4) the will-call counter bump, a superfluous incident that serves no ostensible purpose in a contrived hoax narrative, is a telltale indicator that other points of correspondence (at the elevator & in the lunchroom) in the Baker/Truly testimonies actually happened (opinion - interesting how most superfluous items that Greg mentions are swept aside but this one item seems to sew-up the whole case for you.). But because this detail did not come out until the testimonies (which were preceded by 2 re-enactments), Greg ignores its pertinence (and that pertinence is…?). Neglecting that numerous other details about the elevator area & lunchroom were refreshed with the help of the re-enactments. Neglecting that numerous other details about Baker's time in the Depository weren't elaborated on until the testimonies. Greg would have us discount any detail that doesn't fit into his conception of a hoax-supportive deadline. (Yes, just as you would have us do for you, Richard. The details discounted weigh as heavily on your premise - more so I should think because your premise supports the WC which is demonstrably a fiction.)

5) the Biffle story has not one whit of corroboration (opinion), nothing that substantiates it as supporting a hoax, and no answer is given. (Cherry-picking again, Richard.)

6) the Stroud document, coupled with a fact-based understanding of their timelines, places Adams & Styles on the stairs during the same timeframe that Truly & Baker are ascending the stairs from the elevator area. And the men had to have been in the lunchroom (opinion - with the length of time required for this already destroyed by Lee Farley and the fact that the door was not "sound-proof" as you assume, and as your theory requires...) when the ladies passed. Yet Greg mis-reads (opinion) Truly's vestibule-area testimony so as to maintain that this is impossible and thereby enable the hoax. (opinion)

Greg Parker's obstinacy in the face of a cascade of reasoned criticism (I haven't seen much of that is this treatise) does not bode well for his grip on reality (ad hominem) as regards other JFK matters. His is an immature hypothesis supported only by wishful thinking (opinion), sophistic spinning (opinion) and ad hominum [sic] attacks. He and Sean Murphy co-founded and co-advertised this misbegotten (opinion) school of thought and they have an enormous emotional investment in pretending (ad hominem) that it is true. And their efforts have involved recruiting new followers to "get on board" and thereby help confirm the validity of this fruitless, regressive way of thinking. Because they do not have the courage of their convictions (presumption unfounded and ad hominem) and this insecurity requires sycophants. (This entire passage is opinion and devoid of substance. Anyone supporting the Warren Commission account is what we normally call "Lone Nutters". I suppose we should probably start putting you in that category from here on out, huh?)

The result has been a collective dementia (opinion) that favors mullarkey over hard-nosed logical connections. (oh, like the WC?) That favors sophistry, and barroom bulls***, over answers that will sustain. ("...answers that sustain"?? I haven't seen anything in your presentation, Richard, which sustains anything but the LN party line.)

The hoax hypothesis doesn't hold up to scrutiny (opinion). Its adherents are forced to ignore the uncomfortable fact that all of the pertinent evidence (As in your statement #1 above, it is far from ALL the evidence - perhaps all of your cherry-picked evidence does but then that is precisely what you accuse others of as well.) can be interpreted as supportive of the lunchroom incident's reality. And they are forced to ignore that for 5 items - an aggregate of evidence (a Bugliosian pronouncement, for certain) - the clarity is so well-defined that only a contortion of common sense (opinion) allows any interpretation supporting a hoax (opinion).

Were there only one item, they might have a case. But there are 5. And probability theory tells us the hoaxers' chances of being correct are infinitesmal, ultramicroscopic. Their position is a demonstrable falsehood. (Your comprehension of probability theory should be a little better than that, Richard. Bugliosi's 52 items stand a much better statistical chance than your five measly items, and he is dead wrong on all 52. You better check the math again. Even if your five items are correct (and the jury is still out on that) the probabilities are not as astronomical as you seem to think.)

To presume the people supporting your theory were the truth-sayers of Dallas and all others were the liars seems remarkably naive. This event was a conspiracy. People involved even marginally are apt to lie their asses off to save their skin - even if the danger to them is imaginary or merely threatened - as we have seen throughout most of history. Threat of pain, torture, and death can make even the meekest choir boys into very convincing con men.

All evidence must be considered tainted. And logic dictates that the pronouncements by the WC should be considered fiction. Failing to do so merely continues drawing water from the fifty-year poisoned well.

To your health!


Swallowing the BS Hook, Line, and Sinker From any Number of Crooked Lying Stinkers

Posted by Terry Martin on February 1, 2016 at 10:05 PM Comments comments (3)


Swallowing the BS Hook, Line, and Sinker

From any Number of Crooked Lying Stinkers



Many people are in awe of those with degrees. You know, that glorious trail of letters after a person's name, or just preceding it. A lot of people think an education - especially a "good" one - makes the person more intelligent.


That is a fallacy.


An education gives a person knowledge and the greater the education, the greater the wealth of knowledge that person has, barring injury to the brain or disabilities brought on by Alzheimer's and the like.


This knowledge comes from the acquisition of data. In no way should it be confused with intelligence. There are a great number of people who can study computer programming for years and become quite fluent in writing code, debugging scripts, and troubleshooting systems.


Very few of these people are talented enough to create groundbreaking new software. That is something that goes beyond data... it requires intelligence.


Intelligence, unlike data, cannot be absorbed into the brain by study. Intelligence comes from experience, the action of trying and failing repeatedly, and learning from these events.


We see many people around us who keep trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. They have not learned. Nor are they gaining intelligence.




The defenders of the Warren Commission have sung the same tune for fifty years, never varying the tune, the lyric, nor even attempting any harmony.


No learning has occurred. They are stuck in their beliefs and believe them so firmly that no amount of argument can shake that faith.


We see this quite often during discussions of religion as well and a dogmatic belief-system it is to those people.


We also see this in the presentations at JFK forums by supposed "conspiracy theorists". Some latch onto one version of the explanation of the evidence and are incapable of adjusting or changing that deeply religious belief regardless of the evidence uncovered or discovered in the case that might cause an intelligent person to drop that one tenet of their beliefs and assimilate a new understanding.


By refusing to advance or revise our thinking on the case as new developments are made is to play into the hands of the deceivers who would wish the "discussion" would go on for eternity rather than moving the case forward.


Intelligent people can see through the BS. For some it might take a bit longer than others but the intelligent ones are constantly altering their worldview as new information is made available.


The point when the evolving of the case should cease is when the case has been completely resolved.


Anyone who tells you we are already to that stage is casting a line of BS.


Enough of the Fictions

Posted by Terry Martin on February 1, 2016 at 9:20 PM Comments comments (3)




As a publisher, I know the value of a good piece of fiction and I know how to assist in making poor fiction better.


In the realm of non-fiction - say, in the investigation of a crime - fiction needs to be ignored. Hypotheses can be put forward, theories can run rampant if maintained within the framework of the evidence.


After fifty-plus years, I would have thought that it would have been fairly obvious among those of us who have actually done research on this JFK assassination that the Warren Commission and its marvelous volumes of testimony are nothing more than fiction. Start to finish - and everything in between - it has been proven time and again to be a fiction with regards to the "damning evidence" brought forth that there was no conspiracy. In very many cases, the volumes are internally contradictive.


Once it is understood that all the framework of the case is nothing but a fiction, why would anyone still be thinking that the case as outlined by that fictional framework is anything like the case that we should be investigating.


This is not to say the WC volumes should be ignored as it does contain a wealth of evidence in the volumes. Not about the case under investigation, assuredly, but about the conspiracy by the government to cover-up the case. On occasion, one can also find tiny jewels in testimony that contradicts the fiction and hints at the truth hidden beneath.


What fictions am I talking about?


The fiction that Oswald was an angry young man trying to make a name for himself. Why then would he say "I'm a patsy" rather than "Yes, I did it!"?


The fiction that Oswald was living apart from his wife and family during his employment at the TSBD. The Beckley fiction has no evidence of his residency.


The fiction that Oswald shot Tippit. There is no evidence that he was the killer and more than enough to show this was accomplished by another one or two persons. This event is tied into the fiction that he lived at Beckley (thus giving him proximity) and the resulting police chase into the Texas Theater.


The fiction that Oswald pulled a pistol on the arresting officers in the Texas Theater and tried to fire it at one or more. Duplicate and confusing testimony by the arresting officers as well as their failure to interview the other patrons (or even take a list of their names) is another nail in this one's coffin.


The fiction that Oswald was seen in the Altgens 6 photograph. This was cleared up 52 years ago and has no standing.


The fiction that Marina took photographs of Oswald in the back yard while living at a Neeley Street apartment. This photos have been proven - using elementary physics - to be faked. His ownership of the rifle and the pistol are both fictions.


The fiction that Oswald went to Mexico City (to try and go back into the Communist world) before arriving in Dallas. This has been proven to be false.


The fiction that anyone fired shots from the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest. There simply was not enough time in the overlapping movements of the employees to allow anyone time to fire a weapon from that very difficult firing position. Especially anyone not a trained sniper.


The fiction of the so-called Second Floor Encounter. The earliest testimonies of those involved do not include the incident nor does the movements of other people in the building allow the time for such an event to have occurred.


Each one of these points were created from whole cloth by the Commission just like the unbelievable fiction that is the Magic Bullet.


Trying to reach a complete understanding of the case at hand is doomed to failure if any one of these events is accepted as a real, factual occurrence requiring some form of understanding. Once it is grasped that these are merely fictions, like everything else in the Warren Commission investigation, one can begin to investigate the real case at hand.


It is never easy to cast aside fairy tales and beliefs one once assumed were truth. Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy have all gone from our lives with a clearer understanding of the reality behind their supposed existence.


Now is the time for all of us to send the Warren Commission investigation off with a similar farewell.


Fifty years of the fiction is enough.


The Ministry of Truth (or It Has Always Been 1984)

Posted by Terry Martin on January 19, 2016 at 6:45 AM Comments comments (3)

In the classic novel, Winston Smith worked at the Ministry of Truth and knew firsthand how truth was manipulated, changed into a reality that never existed (i.e. fiction).


Orwell predicted such would be the case in his mythical year of 1984 but such has been the case for centuries. There have been secret police and fear and oppression since humans invented this thing called politics. Such a thing, driven by egos, naturally involves secret agendas. It seems to be part of human nature that we want certain things but know it is better to not let others know of those desires. It's a survival instinct. And like many survival instincts, it has a darker, perverse side.


In many murder cases, especially those which garner a lot of media coverage, the information released to the public may change over the course of days, weeks, and even months as the investigation moves forward. What a case looks like on the first day may be very different a week or two later.


The tabloid coverage of the JonBenet murder is a marvelous example of leading and misleading news coverage. Agent K may have called it the best investigative reporting on the planet but it fell short on this case. Every week they had a blockbuster story of who dunnit, and the perp changed weekly. They kept this up for over a year.


In the JFK assassination case, there is ample evidence of twisted, altered, suborned, truncated, deleted, and missing testimony. When I see "researchers" questioning whether or not the people on the TSBD steps could have possibly lied to the Feds about Oswald being there, I laugh. And usually laugh so hard I fall off my chair. Where do people come up with such ideas? I mean, really!


The most powerful person in the country has been killed. Anyone near the nexus of that event is naturally going to distance themselves as far as they can from the event, or anyone even remotely connected to the case. Add to this mix the fact that the DPD was not known to be the sharpest group of investigators on the face of the planet (or the most trustworthy) and had been known to be very creative with evidence and persons of interest. And one must recall that the DPD (like the Boulder PD in the JonBenet killing) had no experience with a crime of this magnitude. But few departments did.


The researchers' claim that the people involved in the case "would not have lied" is ridiculous. First off, when you have two conflicting accounts, it is obvious someone has lied. We know from several accounts that some affidavits are missing or, even worse, were altered. There is so much lying at the core of this case, the claims of "no one would have lied" is the equivalent of sticking one's head in the sand. It is gross ignorance of the obvious.


Most people, finding their testimony has been changed, especially if they have been threatened in any manner by the people in authority, are likely to let the sleeping dogs lie. Self-preservation is important to many.


Bill Kelly supports the Second Floor encounter because he feels Marion Baker was "a right good copper" who would not have lied. Yet one need only see the changes in his testimony over the years to know that somewhere in all that confusion he has lied. All the different versions he gave cannot have been truth. To still claim that he did not lie is lacking fundamentally intelligent observation skills. And claims that people selectively lied tells us more about the researcher than the evidence.


Many of us have questioned the Beckley address as Oswald's residence. Too many holes in that story made it appear to be a hastily concocted bit of flim-flam. The DPD pushed it forward primarily to convict Oswald in the killing of Tippit. A vast majority of researchers today still consider Oswald guilty of killing Tippit even if he did not shoot Kennedy. Since this event is tied to the Beckley rooming house and the "rushing home to change shirt/pants/jacket/murder weapon" (take your choice, please) these same researchers have to blindly accept this piece of fiction as well.


It has long been this writer's contention that Oswald had been in a room in Dallas while looking for work and, when employment had been achieved, he lived with his wife at Ruth Paine's house. After all, she was in the later stages of pregnancy and needed all the help and support she could get. And, supposedly, she didn't speak the local language too well and would need someone to talk to.


Mick Purdy's thread about Givens' less-than-famous line to Frazier "Where's your rider?" should have made it obvious to all that the Beckley room was a fiction. Many had already understood this through Lee Farley's earlier thread (at the old forum) on "the Beckley house".


Rather than examining the case from this fresh vantage - the removal of the Beckley house, the Tippit killing, the Mexico adventure, and the Second Floor encounter, among other facets - the majority of the researchers seem to be stuck on the same hamster treadmill as has been used for fifty-two years: the fiction created by the Warren Commission (aka the Ministry of Truth).


It is time to actually move forward on this case. Wipe away the fog of what you think you know about the Kennedy assassination, drop the preconceptions or previously held convictions about which person or document has the truth, and re-examine the case rather than the fiction created by the Warren Commission.


Otherwise we will forever be stuck in this version of 1984, always fearing and bowing to Big Brother.


Prayer Man is a Threat

Posted by Stan Dane on October 22, 2015 at 11:55 AM Comments comments (1)

"You're just a gd troll." – Lauren Johnson, Deep Politics Forum, speaking to Albert Doyle on 10-17-2015


Indeed he is.


Albert (Brian) Doyle is a virus that up until now has flourished in the "culture dish" environment that is Deep Foo Foo. But the man from Sanibel appears to have worn out his welcome and has now moved over to Amazon to infect every comment he disapproves of.




Because Prayer Man is a threat. Prayer Man is a threat to lone nutters. Prayer Man is a threat to the Doorman faithful. Prayer Man is a threat to the church of the Second Floor Lunchroom. Prayer Man is a threat to any pet conspiracy theory that's considered more precious than the truth.


Doyle/Yates has posted ANOTHER 1-Star review of Prayer Man (you go girl!), this one issuing a challenge to me and Greg. I responded early this morning. My response was measured and factual, something he couldn't refute. So he was successful in having the comment deleted.


I anticipated that because I am familiar with cowards and how they operate, so I saved the text of my response. Here it is – and always remember – Prayer Man is a threat:



The "researcher" you cite is no expert anything. Whatever he would offer as evidence is suspect. He routinely alters the posts of others on his forum, especially if they say things he objects to. I have ample screenshot evidence to prove this. Certain people who have linked to JFK assassination-related images on his website have found those URLs changed/altered to show pictures he considers to be funny substitutes.


The first time I ever heard of this "expert" in 2013, he was confidently telling everyone the Prayer Man image was from the Malcolm Couch film, not the Jimmy Darnell film. Sean Murphy soon corrected him. I found it odd that a supposed photographic expert could mess up something so basic. That was my first red flag with this "expert."


I have the same Darnell source image as he or anyone else has. I find that I can produce all kinds of special effects if I play around with the image contrast, brightness, sharpness, etc. I even came up with a combination that made Prayer Man resemble Richard Nixon a few weeks ago. The jowls and the whole nine yards! (There's a line of inquiry for you "Albert"—see if PM is Tricky Dick.)


If your contention that Prayer Man is a woman wearing a coat with big white buttons is as strong and "scientific" as you say it is, then produce some independent corroboration please. Because I can produce several people who have publicly disagreed with you (members from ROKC are excluded because of your bias). Their last names include: Josephs, Healy, Davidson, and Clark, to name a few. Who are your supporters? They certainly are not from Deep Politics, your home forum. The moderator there just called you a "g-d troll" for pushing your Four-Buttons "science."


A suggestion: since you ostensibly believe you are onto something here, why not write a book? Team up with your photo "expert" and lay it all out, step by step. Make it simple so that a layman can understand your expertise, keen insights and wisdom. Who knows, it could even be the book of the year. I tell you this: if you do write it and put it up on Amazon, unlike you with mine, I will buy your book and actually read it! And I'll give you a fair review.


And I won't review your book using multiple Amazon names/accounts like you have with mine using Ralph Yates and Albert Doyle. Because anyone familiar with basic syntax, diction and paragraphing can tell that Ralph Yates and Albert Doyle are the same person.


Actually, I’ve got to hand it to you. You didn't buy my book yet you succeeded in posting TWO 1-Star reviews! And in the process, all of your comments associated with this book currently total over 12,600 mostly redundant words. And there's undoubtedly more still to come!





Yes, the Evidence IS the Conspiracy - So What?

Posted by Terry Martin on September 21, 2015 at 11:55 AM Comments comments (2)




David Josephs has a new mantra and he's beating the drum far and wide: The evidence IS the conspiracy. He shouts it from the rooftops and posts it on billboards at the various forums.


Yes, David, and there is a Santa Claus as well.


That the evidence we have been given on this case is tainted, everyone who has spent any time researching it will agree. The patterns in the evidence are so very obviously planted and therefore in need of close reexamination.


So, yes, the evidence is the conspiracy. So what? This has been widely known to a great many researchers for years and one of the primary reasons ALL evidence is looked on with a jaundiced eye.


That is why many researchers choose the evidence they reference with great care, trying to stay away from the parts that simply scream planted or tampered with. And a primary reason why I say to disregard all evidence in the case.


I think it goes far beyond the evidence being the conspiracy.


My belief is that the "conspiracy" is the conspiracy.


Let me rephrase that - the idea that there is a conspiracy IS the conspiracy.


There is no "conspiracy" as most people envision it. No layers of players and managers and associates, no coordinators with differing government agencies, no directorate or puppet-masters to direct the behemoth bureaucracy in grinding the petty little truth-seekers beneath their wheels of progress.


That sort of misdirection IS the conspiracy. And it has worked like a charm for fifty years. Like a neo-con beacon shining on the horizon it has attracted the CT lemmings for ages over the cliff and down the mazes of CIA infested droppings strewn for the rats to devour.


In fifty years of searching, I have yet to see one person define with any clarity the WHO behind this CONSPIRACY and a MOTIVE that makes any goddamned sense. The idea that they are hidden behind "layers of secrecy" BS is long overused. The "hidden agenda" malarkey is BS as well. From the agenda we have seen evidenced by the government and the wealthy for the last fifty years, I don't see anything there that is hidden. The rich just keep getting richer (faster) and the rest of us are losing our freedoms.


So what?


It's not like any of this should come as a surprise, some melodramatic cheek-slapping face-palming OMG moment. It has been coming incrementally for centuries. It's not news. And it is definitely not any "hidden" agenda.


The idea of some great conspiracy IS what keeps the idea of the conspiracy alive. As long as we keep chasing the IDEA of a conspiracy, the plotters have won. Because we are not even looking for them. They are flying under the radar.


And it is almost a certainty that all or most of them are already dead.


The search for the conspiracy has taken a life all its own and will continue ravaging the countryside until we grab the cur about the collar and put it down like the mad dog that it is. It is rabid to the extreme.


So, yes, David, continue on your campaign that the evidence is the conspiracy as you delve deeper into the evidence that proves the Harvey and Lee premise...


Even though you cannot see it, most will notice that you are using that conspiratorial evidence to back up your take on the conspiracy.


Both that and the spinning wheels for fifty years in this hamster cage exemplify the definition of insanity.


We need to think of this as a murder.




Public Service Announcement

Posted by Terry Martin on September 18, 2015 at 7:25 PM Comments comments (8)

for All Who Hate Rudeness and Foul-Mouthed Posts...



Many among the membership of various JFK forums have held this forum and its membership up to scorn as the brutish and boorish research crowd.


They smile, arms spread wide and claim that their forums are clean and pure, family-oriented sites. Ones that you would be proud to see your own children visit.


True, their sites are much cleaner and purer than the driven snow than one finds here and if that sort of political correctness is vitally important to you, by all means go elsewhere and find research companions who do not ruffle others' feathers, nor do they dig too deeply into the mire for fear of appearing rude or boorish to others. There, only political correct conspiracies are considered, with clinically approved theories.


But be advised, the cleanliness and purity comes at a cost. They cut and nip and use plastic surgical techniques to arrive at the cleanliness of their posts, the genteel-behaviors displayed, and the patented gosh-darn meighborlyness. Certain subjects must be ignored and certain channels refrained from inspection. Only the cleanest mud gets tossed about. Other disgusting things are carefully hidden, swept under the rugs through intimidation, hiding posts, locking threads, or excising memberships.


And then you might ask yourself, what else do they think needs to be hidden? Surely - one may rightfully assume - some evidence becomes a little too volatile for forum consumption. Such things best be set aside, ignored... there are plenty of other portions of the case left to discuss and - though discussed thoroughly for fifty years - surely we can cover that ground again. And peacefully, too.


How many lies will you accept in your "truth"?


Everything Gone Pear-Shaped

Posted by Terry Martin on September 6, 2015 at 8:55 AM Comments comments (1)





Too many times during the time researching the Kennedy assassination, when trails of evidence lead down one rabbit-hole or another, I get an eerie feeling. It seems everything has gone pear-shaped and I have to shake my head very hard to clear my thinking and return to reality.


This happened so many times while trying to reconcile the case as presented by the Warren Commission with the actual facts in the case. Except for the names and a few of the locations, they may as well be describing two entirely different cases rather than just the one.


And usually when it happens I have to step back away from the case and let the dust settle.



A Feeling of Disreality


Years ago, I was researching the "matter of Britain", the stuff of the legends surrounding the historiocity of King Arthur. It's a fascinating subject and has kept my attention for a great many years.


One book I came across on the subject - though only tangentially - was Brigantia - A Mysteriography by Guy Ragland Phillips published in 1976. While reading about the myths of the Northumbrian region of Roman Britain, a different view of the world was awakened... and everything went pear-shaped. It disturbed me enough that I had to set the book aside and return to it some time later. The effect repeated.


Last year, after almost forty years since I first read the book, I purchased a copy and read it again. The universe did not morph as much as it had in the first reading but I think that is because my view of reality has been altered in some respects since 1976. Much of it was probably due in part to my first encounter with the volume.



The Markham / Hamilton Rabbit Hole


I returned to the book because I kept encountering the same morphing vista when I looked at the Kennedy case. More specifically by following the trail Lee Farley outlined on the Markham family and their tenuous connection to the Clyde Barrow gang. Even Lee admitted that it twisted his mind as well. It perhaps did the same number it did to mine.


When I read the legendary exploits of Frank Hamer - the heroic Texas Ranger who finally tracked them down, supposedly - it happened again. Mr. Hamer had many remarkable victories as a ranger and went on afterward to a brilliant career as a strike-buster.


A strike-buster, yes, one of those who helped the wealthy exploit the little man. I had to stop and ask myself, what sort of "hero" were we looking at here? He sounded more like the muscle for "the Man".


It was a bit of a mind-warper.



A Short History of "Law Enforcement"


In the middle ages, the office of sheriff (originally shire-reeve) was created as a fiscal position. He was the collector of the taxes for the county and his cadre of enforcers (strong-arms) were deputy sheriffs. This continues today as that branch of authority that protects the interest of owners of property against those who might do harm or dispossess them of such. This brings to mind a line from Woody Guthrie's song "This Land Is Your Land" where he talks about the sign saying "private property", and notes that the other side is blank.


It seems the position has not really changed that much over the centuries. Even though the actual tax-collection is done by another department, the sheriff still enforces the right of the authority to collect the tax.


This is only a slight adjustment to the normal view of law enforcement in the country and many would not see it as any different at all.


Then we recall that the Secret Service is attached to the Treasury Department. Their protection of the Executive came much later in our history. Originally all the "secret" service did was go after those who committed crimes against banks and the wealthy: robbery, embezzlement, and forgery, the latter being their primary focus.


And, yes, they had a branch that investigated banking crimes of an international nature as well. This was long before that particular branch got moved to State, and then to CIA.


Even the FBI was formed primarily to handle crimes involving money matters which is why their agents had to have accounting degrees. One might wonder why so many differing organizations were needed to protect the wealth of the landed class. Well, perhaps there are just too many poor folk that are greedy, huh? (I'll let you deal with the irony therein.)



Back to the Hero of the Piece


When the Texas Ranger and his five companions finally caught up to Bonnie and Clyde and shot them and their stolen vehicle up, they finished the massacre by looting the vehicle and removing everything of value for themselves. A suitcase supposedly filled with money disappeared.


Although much has been made of Ranger Hamer's tracking abilities, the last survivor of the massacre, DPD Officer Ted Hinton, told the tale that they found Bonnie and Clyde only through the assistance of Ivy Methvin. Ivy offered to sell out the gang in exchange for his son's full pardon. His son, Henry Methvin had escaped from Eastham prison in January 1934 when Clyde attacked the facility and freed several prisoners including Ray Hamilton. Clyde offered membership in the gang to all of them but most declined and went their separate ways.


Ivy made the offer to Hamer in order to protect his son and he got it. And Hinton did not mention any of the sleuth's remarkable tracking abilities in the mix. Without the elder Methvin's assistance they may never have "tracked" the gang down.



Clyde Barrow and Eastham Prison


Clyde had earlier been in Eastham prison himself with a Ralph Fults. Fults was later a member of the gang but was captured in 1932 and missed the final act. After getting back together with Ray Hamilton, he was jailed again in 1935. He was paroled in 1944 and went on to form a group that helped ex-convicts rejoin society. There was even a television show - widely syndicated out of Dallas - on which he made his case.


He did not mention this part on the show, but Fults claimed his mission was what Clyde Barrow had been about. He saw Clyde enter the prison as a schoolboy but was more like a rattlesnake when he left. Apparently his mistreatment while incarcerated ignited the mission. Who knows? We do know that he killed a man while in the prison because the man had repeatedly raped him. Perhaps Clyde had been on a crusade that got lost somewhere along the way, although he did keep his word about busting people out of Eastham.



Further Weirdness


Though the detectives got the kudos and advanced their careers, the Methvins - father and son - had a rather strange ending. In 1948, the younger Methvin apparently drove drunk onto a railroad track and was killed. Sixteen months later, his father did the same exact thing.


Retribution? I don't think anyone ever thought so. Although it does fit the timetable for Fults' incarceration and release.


To make this weirdness even worse, Clyde Barrow met Ray Hamilton in the area they grew up with Bonnie Parker: the slums around the Oak Cliff viaduct in Dallas. Yes, the same Oak Cliff where Officer Tippit was later killed. That same area of Dallas that the local authorities would have preferred the camera crews and amateur detectives would have steered clear of. There seems to be a different world in the shadows of Oak Cliff that we are not permitted view.


Many will nod idly and think this is all very interesting but it really has nothing to do with the case.


But does it?


If the Markhams were involved in a decades-old crime community in Oak Cliff (not to be confused in any way with the Mafia organization) might the Tippit killing be looked on in a new light? Not related to Oswald and the assassination but something a little different.


Many on the force seem to have been very close to Ruby and the dealings of the Mafia in the area. Any local crime organization - especially among the poor riff-raff - would probably have been ignored.


If Tippit had been making a hard time for certain members of that community... perhaps in some way related to his extramarital activities... and the word was out that, because of the assassination, a great number of the law enforcement officers had left the region. Tippit was left virtually hung out to dry. Alone.


If the Tippit killing were closely related to the assassination, it would not surprise me, but neither am I married to the notion that is simply has to be like many claimed. Some seem to think this thing is the key to the entire set of shenanigans going on that day in Dallas which to me seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog.


It could just as easily have been a happenstance, a bit of serendipity playing out in the shadowy streets of Dallas that someone could twist to use to their advantage. Most say it is because it was a cop who was killed, but what if it had been a nun? A schoolteacher? The assistant mayor?


What if they simply took whatever was presented and framed it in their best interests?


If it turns out it was connected? It wouldn't freak me out because I am not fixated on any one scenario. Until the entire case is solved and laid bare, I leave all options open.


Including the ones that seem a bit of a long shot at the moment.



What Does This So-Called "Pear-Shape" Have to Do With Anything?


Just as in my earlier reading of the Brigantia book, my version of reality was brought into question.


Some people may laugh and say what's this about a version of reality - there is only one! Well, not specifically. People attach different value judgments about the things around them and they use these to build onto their personal construct of reality.


To some people, there has to be a logical and systematic version of reality. To others, they require a spiritual slant on everything. One thinks all men are basically good while another thinks all men are evil creatures. They each have evidence that they use to build up this world view and I doubt either would accept any "evidence" the other offers as anything real.


Using different filters, we each decide what data is important (and add to our reality) and which is garbage, stuff that we need not concern ourselves with.


Most of this differentiation of realities does not have any effect on the way we live our daily lives or our interactions with others. Unless, of course, the conversation turns to religion, politics, global warming, or Tim Tebow.


The pear-shape comes in when some data is thrust upon us that questions the foundations of our reality. This is any not minor tidbit as we get them all the time and generally ignore them.


Our personal reality (or view of same) is built on certain foundations, things we hold to be self-evident. When something comes along that challenges that structure, that definition of reality, it is a bit frightening. Like trying to wrap your mind around the concept that there is no such thing as gravity. Or like losing - or finding - faith in a deity, a problem encountered by many with that frame of mind.



Different Reality or Only an "Overlay"


When something comes along that gives us a hint, the tiniest of clues, that there is something other... well, we have to step back and reframe our reality. Some see these things as "parallel" universes or dimensions or such. I do not see them that way but more as an overlay on top of reality.


Many times people seem to lose something - keys, money, grocery list, whatever - and range all over the house looking for it. They look twice at everything, everyplace, then someone else steps into the room and picks up the item off the table or counter where it has been sitting.


One person this happened to said they saw the other lean down and reach over to an empty spot on the counter and as the keys were picked up they suddenly appeared out of nowhere. I don't know if anyone else has seen such. When it has happened to me, I can see it as they bend over to grab it even though I had not seen it before.


That's an overlay. My mind was not seeing what was there, only what it had remembered from before.


Most people encounter this effect in traveling. When they drive to a new place, either for a trip or even something as mundane as going the first time to a new job, the journey seems to take a long time. Subsequent trips take less time and, sometimes, the journey seems to take no time at all.


This is because time is processed in our minds by input. Seeing new things along the way when taking a new path requires our mind to process completely new data… and that takes time. On subsequent journeys, the data is only updated as needed. (Of course, if the traffic is especially bad our mind might register the journey as "taking forever"!)


Frequent viewing of the same things causes our minds to default to the archived copy or some such thing. When we look around a room - for missing keys or such - we may merely be reviewing the archived files rather than searching the current reality. Or perhaps our memory has simply pictured the keys in a different location and since its current location does not match the reality, it does not even register.


This may seem like we've drifted away from the focus of this paper but this really is the same subject. Even if it looks a little different.


And that is what we're talking about.



Another Thing is Seeing How Others View Reality


Trying to wrap our mind around how this could happen to us, rational people in a completely rational world (if that's what you see) you can try trying to see the world from differing viewpoints.


Not simply looking East rather than West but seeing the same thing but through a different lens. An example would be trying to see the world as viewed by the Native Americans who know one cannot own land; we belong to the land, not vice versa.


An old joke I used to tell:


The colonists walked away from the meeting with the natives at Manhattan Island chuckling amongst themselves that they had been able to purchase the whole of the island for a small pile of glass beads. "Silly natives. They gave up all this for a few beads."


What's not mentioned is the Natives' take on it. As they walked away from the meeting, they were chuckling among themselves. "Silly, palefaces. They think they can actually own land! But we got some pretty cool beads from them, huh?"


Being able to see different realities is vital in understanding how yours works.



Being Able to Conceptualize


Many people wouldn't know a concept if it jumped up and bit them. All they understand is cold hard facts. This was quite evident when we had to deal with Carmine. He may be sharp as a tack but it is a very slowly moving tack at that.


People with that rigid sort of mind-set, wedded to cold, hard facts, probably never have a pear-shaped moment. They are able to hold firm to their personal worldview and nothing can shake it. If something contradictory comes along, they simply shrug it off or - better yet - ignore it and refuse to address its existence as in the "lost keys" example above. This explains a lot of what is behind DVP and his ilk. When an argument is brought to bear on what he holds dear, he will pick out one small part of the post to respond to. The other points raised are nothing more than meaningless chatter.


Other people are not so rigid in their thinking. Their worldview is fluid and generally alters - however slightly - all the time as new data is gathered. Still, there are fundamentals they cling to, the stuff on which their reality is built.


We see this in the Kennedy case as well. Bill Kelly's inability to relinquish the second floor encounter as well as many others' inability to alter their view of the Tippit killing. Some even regard Oswald as PM and yet still believe he went home to Beckley and then ran into Tippit, killing him when he feared for his own life.


PM changes everything. As Lee Farley and Greg Parker pointed out: once you wrap your mind around Oswald on the steps, it changes practically all the logistics for the rest of the case. It really is the game changer.


People with rigid views may understand the importance of PM but cannot see that it changes anything else substantially. Conceptual thinkers will be able to adjust the worldview to fit the new reality. Some do it slower than others, depending on the depth and interconnectedness this thing has with their foundations of reality.



Conceptualizing in 3-D


Years ago, the first time I took an IQ test, I thought all the questions concerning how an object would look if it was rotated 90 degrees to the right (or such) was ridiculous. You simply visualize the 3-Dimensional construct and rotate it in your head!! I couldn't believe that's what they were depending on the determine intelligence.


Much later, I found out that many people cannot do that sort of thing: think conceptually in three dimensions. This was displayed quite interestingly on the Bravo Network show "Project Runway". Some people who were quite capable at design seemed to have some difficulty in building their fashions. Many would have to make patterns and test them out, then tweak them before starting their piece.


On the sixth season, IIRC, a character named Christian came along. In the time it took any other contestant to make a simple dress, he had made a dress, hat, jacket, handbag and a shawl, and all unique enough to win the round. Come to think of it, I believe he won practically every week of the show. He had a very firm grasp of the three-dimensionality of fabric and how it applied to the human form.



So, Back to Things Going Pear-Shaped


It is a very uncomfortable feeling but what is happening is the foundations of your reality are either crumbling or being very badly twisted.


When this happens, most people have to step back and try to regain some sanity. I think there are some people who can hop on these things fairly easily, but that would not be me. Usually, though, knowing where the shapes start morphing, I can approach it again "a little better prepared".


Some people handle the morphing a bit differently. Some get explosive like Richard Gilbride at the old forum when discussing the second floor encounter or Linda Z when recently challenged concerning her claim of the camera in Prayer Man's hands. Others get angry, or sulk, some get defensive, confused, and others simply leave the room. They cannot see the viewpoint the other is coming from; it does not mesh with their reality.


Knowing where the shapes start morphing… What this means, of course, is that I have already begun to adjust my thinking to allow for the absorption of this knew concept. Concepts are more fluid that data-bits and far more easy to re-shape, re-think, reconceptualize.


That said, it certainly does not make the vertigo and nausea go away or become any easier when it happens. It just means that I know where to look to remove the vertigo.




The Puzzle Pieces That Don't Fit


I know a few mathematicians who are involved in formulating the Grand Unified Theory, or "Theory of Everything".


When I asked them about including the anomalies in their GUT, they responded that the anomalies were too few and far between to bother with.


That is erroneous thinking to my mind as the anomalies, however few in number, are as much a part of reality as everything else. Why not include them from the start? In that way the GUT designed will actually explain the whole universe and not just the tiny portion you consider important.


None that I talked to could even comprehend what I was talking about.


The GUT - if ever completed - will be useless at the outset in describing the real universe, where such anomalies do exist.


And to my mind, understanding the anomalies may actually be more important to understanding the whole picture than those parts we find at every other turn. They, at least, tend to stick out like a sore thumb for some reason.


An example of this occurred in 1950 with the release of a book called Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky. I suppose most general readers did not have enough background data on the subjects dealt with and became enamored with the theoretical study. Others, physicists, astronomers, and historians primarily, were outraged.


These people steadfastly refused to allow anything to disturb the foundations of the disciplines they had studied for decades. Others, however, newer to the disciplines in question, looked closer as this novel theory seemed to answer quite a few of the niggling questions they had. Their firmament was not as concrete as those elder scholars. I enjoyed reading it, primarily, because it did force a review of my reality regardless of the correctness of his theory.



Other Things Morphing Reality


When dealing with concepts - the fundamental ways we view things - we either accept everything at face value (general consensus) or we question authority.


I grew up in the peace-loving, flower-power, and very volatile '60's and we were warned by Hoffman and others to "question authority". Perhaps I have carried it a bit too far but I have learned to question everything, especially those things that "everybody knows".


Perhaps that is why I have delved into the writings of Uspensky, Gurdjieff, and Velikovsky - to name a few - to try and gain a wider view of what constitutes reality. That's why I look at objects, seeing the colors they are, understanding that the color is merely the light being reflected by the object (being rejected by the object) and wonder what color the object is in reality by the light it absorbs.


Yes, I have a bit of a screw loose.


Most scientific types today extol the virtues of science over the dogma of religion and bless the scientists of the renaissance who broke away from the evils of religious doctrine.


I take a bit of a different view. Science today seems to be nothing more than a religious outreach of the Catholic Church. Many of the great discoveries were made by churchmen, monks, and so forth, and even the marvelous Big Bang Theory was formulated by a Jesuit priest specifically to show mathematically how the moment of Creation occurred in the book of Genesis.


It does not appear to me that science has really fallen too far from the tree, does it? And let's not forget that the mathematics called calculus was created by Sir Isaac in order to prove God's existence and how we can better understand His creation.


No, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. They both are after the same goals. Most people do not see it that way, though. I guess their conceptual foundations are a bit different than mine.



Vivé la Difference


A continuing problem I see with our society is in their attempt to gain a voice for themselves, women frame themselves in a very male fashion.


This started years ago with a movement for Herstory, as opposed to History, and tried to rewrite history from a female perspective. The rather poor attempts (at least from my perspective) showed a complete lack of understanding what history is or was designed for*. If one were looking for a more feminine take on the past, one should write poetry in the manner of the bards of old.


History is a male-patterned construct. Attempting to fashion a feminine version is simply not possible. The attempt would be no more than an academic-crossdresser, with poor taste in color and texture, I'd assume. The same is true with the recent book for women to become more successful in the business world. Leaning In is a book about how women should act and think more like men in order to "get ahead" in the world of business.


In other words, in both of these ventures, they want women to frame themselves as men. It sounds like some male conspiracy to remove feminism from the planet! But then, perhaps that is just my conspiratorial thinking, huh?



What "Thinking Outside the Box" Is


Whatever we come across that questions our view of the cosmos - and specifically this case ruled by smoke and mirrors - is a good thing.


The pear-shaped-ness comes about when two varying realities collide. We see something new to consider but when it tries to enter our mind and memory, it does not fit with the available mental structure... something is wrong and it does not fit.


And that is when we must re-examine our fundamental understandings to see whether the new data is wrong or the data we have long held to is wrong. Finding out where the disharmony lies is the beginning to unraveling the mystery.


The idea that the pear-shaped thingy is "bad" or something to fear is erroneous. It is rather something to embrace. It either challenges the fundamentals of our universe and strengthens them or it causes mountains to shift.


It is through this questioning of the fundamentals that we can cause a shift in our understanding - one way or the other - but also allows us to sense a different way to view reality. Viewing reality differently allows us to get outside the "box" we have built and to create solutions from a different vector than we had considered before.



Our Foundations Need to Be More Fluid


Frank Lloyd Wright built large imposing structures that were earthquake proof. This came in very handy when some movement or force came along that would shake our world, in his case: shifting crustal plates.


We need the same flexibility in our own constructs. If our foundations do not have some built-in flexibility we are likely to be badly shaken over and over in our researches into the shadowy world created by the masters of deception: Dulles and Angleton.


If "up" can only be up and "down" can only be down you are going to be left in the wilderness that is this investigation. Most of the facts we encounter in this case do not have a single vector. This quite often leads to people disagreeing over the resulting purpose of the fact rather than treating like it should: false leads.


In the normal course of events, most things occur with a single vector in mind. It happens for one particular reason, not two or more. So, finding events with multiple vectors should automatically tell the viewer that something is fishy.


Most people, instead, cast another line into the pond.



As This Applies to the Kennedy Research Community


I have long contended that the case as presented by the Warren Commission needs to be ignored yet I know most people still want to frame the case and their understanding of the conspiracy (whichever one they view) within that framework. Trying to assemble anything within that framework is destined to error because the framework is false. It was a fiction created whole-cloth out of thin air.


The players are not who they tell us they were, the facts are not what they claim, and the chronology is created out of thin air. Bits and pieces have morphed over time to fit rather jaggedly into the Warren jigsaw puzzle version of reality.


Using the WC to frame the case is an error.



It is really quite simple - I think...


When you are looking at a series of events or problems, knowing how data is connected and how events are chained, you think you can anticipate the next step in the sequence but suddenly it is nothing like what you anticipated.


Nothing! Not in the same county, and often not even on the same planet.


It is like when Lee was researching the Markhams. Petty theft, breaking and entering, grand theft auto were about what he expected to find and maybe some connection a fencing group or some small time hoodlums. But to suddenly discover the Markhams were related to Ray Hamilton of the Bonnie and Clyde gang was like discovering the crown jewels hidden in a flower pot.


It goes so far beyond what the expectations were that it had not even been considered.


And when researching the Clyde Barrow gang and find out their story was not quite what was portrayed... (Yeah, like we are supposed to believe everything the mainstream media and the FBI tell us, right?)


I believe a little of the history of that era of the FBI was revealed a couple of decades ago. Melvin Purvis - famed for tracking down Dillinger - was contacted by a man who claimed to be Dillinger. He had gone into hiding after his supposed "ambush" and had lived a long life.


Nearing his end, he contacted the likewise elderly Purvis and let him in on the secret.


Did Purvis go public and claim the man was an imposter? No. He committed suicide.


After that, word came out that the FBI had overstated the culprits they labeled "public enemies". They did this in order to get themselves some notoriety and better funding but also to keep them safe from legislative oversight. Hoover wanted no one poking around with his baby. This was also why he and Robert Kennedy did not get along. RFK thought that - being the AG - that Hoover was his junior.


Hoover had never been anyone's junior. At least not in anyone's living memory.


And after Hoover's death, even more dirt came out on the marvelous FBI. Not only had they "padded the numbers a bit over the years" but they had also broken many state and federal regulations in compiling "dirt" files on public officials, entertainers, and leaders in various fields. Sounds a little like how Henry Wade ran the District Attorney's office in Dallas, and the record of the Dallas Police Department, doesn't it?


But that was not known at the time of the Warren Commission.


Yet, and this is what most LNs do not seem to get, that taint discovered some years later applied to the period in question. Yes, the very same taint that has since been discovered about the DPD and everything DA Wade touched as well as much of what the FBI was about. They did not just research the evidence, no, these boys created evidence.


One would think - if logic ruled in the matter - that the high degree of stench attached to the two evidentiary supports of the Warren Commission would necessitate re-examination of the case. Practically every other case touched by Wade and the FBI have been under recent re-examination.


What is the vacuum that surrounds the Kennedy assassination that no legal body wants to touch it?


I think it is because of the Conspiracy Theorists.


Not because of what they may or may not do about the re-investigation but what they already claim: the perps were in the highest levels of the government. Who in their right mind would want to go against "the really big guns"? You'd see the investigators dropping like flies!!


But what if that weren't so?



Who does the chatter of a coup d'étàt protect?


Who gains the most from such noise? If it was the guys at the top who supposedly ran the coup, why wouldn't they squelch that noise? History shows they are not invulnerable.


History runs long and far with the public rising up and tossing out governments no matter how powerful or how corrupt. No one is beyond the reach of the panicked mob. If they were really behind it wouldn't they stop that noise?


Talk of massive conspiracies and Evica/Draco - just as with the other gatekeepers in the research community - help the perps continue to hide.


And that is why we have got to stop what we've been doing for 50+ years.


We have to look at the case differently. Or we'll never find them.


We have to welcome the pear-shape thingy to lead us.



On a Different Matrix


When I was growing up, I heard about a fellow in our town who could "get things done". Over the course of several years, I gathered some information about him that never made much sense to me.


People could come to him with their problems and he would usually give them some advice on how to handle the situation or he would say, "Let me see what I can do." Those were the "magic" words and usually, soon enough, the situation was resolved.


I don't recall most of the situations people came to him with - I was young and did not know the ins-and-outs of the legal system at the time - but most of them seemed to deal with the legal system in some way; traffic tickets, pending arrests, and the like.


Unlike the godfather of book and film, this guy never asked for favors in return. If he could be a help, he helped. If not, he would offer advice. As far as I knew, he was not an influential person in the city and did not seem to have a lot of money. He was old when I knew him and usually spent his days sitting out on his front porch.


I have since wondered if there was not another network - unseen by most people - of people in low places who could get things done. Could there be social structures in place that either paralleled or superseded systems we are trained to see?



Envisioning Other Realities


Trying to wrap one's mind around the idea of this separate structure is a bit of a mind bender. I have a series of books that entertains such a structure. I call it the Wains Society.


It uses an ancient idea based on the structure of the constellation we call the Big Dipper, or the Great Bear (ursus major). In some ancient societies it was known as the ceorl's wain (or churl's wagon), that is "the conveyance of the common man".


This proposed "secret society" has no officers, no secret handshake, no passwords, and no members' roster. I like to term it "the society so secret its members don't know it exists".


It began in my mind with a rather strange set of circumstances, most of existence only in my mind. I had read stories about Stephen Foster, Edgar Allan Poe, and John Wilkes Booth when I was younger. In some ways, seeing their pictures, I thought Booth and Poe were related. At least, I was certain, they all knew each other and probably worked together since they were all involved in the arts.


Boy, was I wrong!


Poe died in 1849. Foster was 23 at that time and might have had some dealings with the poet but Booth was only 11 and was not yet the actor that he was to become.


Discovering this discrepancy in ages and dates created a pear-shaped moment for me even though the reality I had clung to was something entirely of my own creation. It did not have to be real for it to create that feeling of discontinuity.


Then came another pear-shaped moment: years later I was studying Charles Dickens, that world famous British author and social activist. The sort of character one might assume would be involved in some sort of secret society of do-gooders. At one point during his active years, there was a train wreck which almost took his life. I don't think anyone seriously thought it was an attempt on the man's life but… Well, I am a conspiracist so I usually "go there".


Dickens came to America twice. First time he met the author Poe and they discussed ways to try and stop the theft of each of their works across the pond. Poe was famous in France** though he made not a penny for those sales and Dickens was a giant in America but so nothing of the wealth himself.


On his later trip to America, he stayed at the house of an old friend from England, Junius Booth the actor, near Baltimore. He stayed several weeks getting to know the actor's family, including his young son, John Wilkes. While in the area, Dickens went into Baltimore to give some money to Poe's destitute mother.


His speaking trip took him to New York and westward through Pennsylvania and Ohio. At some point in the westward portion of his trip, he fell ill. A local family took him in and nursed him back to health. He spent some time in recuperation getting to know the family. Their name was Foster and their son was Stephen.


Again, I was treated to a pear-forced reshaping in my mind. The three - miraculously - were connected again; Poe, Foster, and Booth. And all three through acts of assistance to help the guy who was trying to help the lower classes… Is this sounding in the least bit familiar?


Perhaps Dickens was the unheralded leader of an unknown society loosely bound together by the term "Wains", recruiting members - unwittingly - none of whom even knew they were members of the society.


Again, what is reality?


No, I mean, really: what IS reality?



Coming Closer in Time and Space


Many may see the mention of Booth (an assassin) as a little odd in connection with the famous writers, Dickens, Poe, and Foster. But he was a bit of a social activist in his day and I, for one, do not see him as an assassin. (Sorry, you'll have to read my book to see why.)


In trying to understand the Kennedy case, I turned to the other assassination in our recent history that seemed to, in many ways, parallel the Kennedy case. I first looked at the shootings of Garfield and McKinley but neither of them seemed to have any similarities.


So, I entered the fray that was 1865 and spent some time reviewing the government's case against the accused. Then I got down to the nitty-gritty of sifting through the evidence.


The pear afflicted me again!


Sure, the testimony and the government account supported each other but there were more than just a few problems with the evidence matching either of them. After a lot of digging and comparing, it became sorely evident that the two cases bore very little comparison: the government account did not match the reality of the evidence.


Something had been falsified and I was certain it was the government's case.



Application to the Case at Hand


I won't bore anyone with the details of the discovery as the minutiae has little bearing on the present case. Fresh from the venture, however, I was capable of seeing the case in Dallas with a new perspective. And the first thing I did was toss out the case as presented by the Warren Commission. I made myself open to wherever the facts and evidence would lead me.


Unburdened by previously held sacred touchstones on the case, one of the earliest things I encountered was the Prayer Man thread and Sean Murphy's examinations. It was logically revealed and answered a lot of questions.


Some people's insistence that it fit into the second floor encounter notwithstanding, it answered questions and posed a few more. Portions of the case generally assumed were brought into question and - rather than toss out PM - it became easier to toss out any competing scenario.


When Richard Gilbride offered to nail down the second floor encounter and prove Sean was wrong about it, I was anxious to see what he had to offer. When it turned out to be nothing more than the usual supports, I quickly lost interest. Nothing to see here, folks, move along.


I am particularly interested in the things that Greg and Lee bring to the table because - more often than not - they rend the fabric stretched into place by the WC. I like going down those rabbit holes, even if nothing concrete is found.


Anything that shows the WC reality to be a complete illusion seems good.



Others Questioning Reality


Some may wonder why I do not subscribe to the H&L scenario as it is also at some variance with the WC. It is what I call theory-lite, a theory that seems to have substance but is very slimming on evidence. It often takes two opposing testimonies and opts for the one that supports their theory on no other grounds than that it supports their theory. It accepts documents from any source apparently based on that same criteria.


I suppose a theory that contains one or two of such low-caloric additives might seem okay but a large construct built up entirely of such dishes leaves me wanting more. I prefer a little more meat to a theory, something that really satisfies.


The tome about Mary Meyer's death is interesting but peripheral to the case. I discounted it at the start because it paints JFK in an erroneous light, as least to my mind. A president taking drugs in the White House? Janney's attempt at character assassination was a bit weak, conjecturally.


And James Files' confession to delivering the killing shot? His story was far too funny to be taken seriously. I mean, really!


And Judyth Baker's romantic trysts with Oswald seemed a bit over-the-top to me and, even if true, seem to have little bearing on the case. To me it seemed another case of character assassination like Janney's, only this time abusing the character of the alleged assassin.


Rabbit holes and that pear-shaped feeling are an indicator that something truly new and different has been found. It means your fundamental ideas are being tested. And that is a good thing even if it may feel a bit like vertigo at first.


All these other theories did for me was a shake of the head and a good chuckle. None morphed any portion of my universe.



Attempting a Different View of the World


Having a firm foundation in any investigation is required. It has to hold together in all particulars - save for personal testimonies which might be misremembered, suborned, or so forth - without regard for extraneous things like motive. The facts, ma'am, just the facts.


It is far simpler to investigate the case without carrying along the preconceptions proffered by the WC and its "Report". One should also ignore the hysteria surrounding Communism, Cuba, the Mafia, and all the other boogey-men who seemed in the forefront of the minds of the public in 1963 (thanks to the media and the FBI) and concentrate on the links actually seen. Theorizing should take a back seat to putting the pieces of evidence together.


It is not just the world of the JFK community where this happens. The blinders-on attitude can also be found in other fields, like science. In the history of that field, theories have come and gone, some being embraced whole-heartedly - and backed-up with all the mathematical supports one can imagine - only to be tossed out later as being erroneous.


Even today, we have people creating Atomic Theories that seem to fit better than the model we are taught in schools. Theories in opposition to the Big Bang and the latest craze, Anthropic Global Warming, abound.


As I mentioned earlier, an author named Immanuel Velikovsky warped a lot of people's minds by advancing a theory of the past involving both history and physics that is still marginalized and yet still has a vast number of supporters. Associates of his have advanced other theories expanding on his work. These are still mostly ignored by main-stream science. The basis of Velikovsky's work is now termed catastrophism. Mainstream science adheres to the idea of uniform gradual change.


The fact that the scientific community-at-large supports only one of these theories is really quite meaningless. Other theories have as much evidentiary support as the others. Deciding which is correct is no different than what the WC did.


And we know that the WC is wrong. Like Agent K said in Men In Black, "imagine what you'll know tomorrow."


Imagine how much else that we assume to be real is, in fact, another fiction, another pipe-dream, another agreed-upon fallacy.


Embrace the things that challenge our fundamental understanding of the case, the world, and reality itself. Sure, some of them will lead nowhere, or be found to be false-leads, dead-ends, but none should be considered a waste of time. They can all help us reframe our view of reality and perhaps gain a sense of truth along the way, if such is even vaguely possible.


Reality should be questioned. Beliefs untested are no more than dogmatism.


Embrace the pear-shaped moment as an opportunity to expand your understanding.



Differing Definitions of Proof


One of the problems we had with Carmine was his inability to re-frame his definition of "evidence". To him the word meant "proof".


Looking back over the "No Shots Fired from TSBD" thread, I have to shake my head.


One person contended that the dictabelt recording was some sort of "proof". If it was anything like "proof" why are there so many experts in the field disagreeing with the stated results. I am not saying anyone is wrong in his personal conception of the dictabelt being proof, it's just that I don't see it proving anything about where the shots came from. That's the interesting thing about science (and I come from a family of scientists so I know a little about this) is that there is rarely 100% proof of anything.


If one doubts this fact, just read through some scientific journals. One fellow presents mathematical proofs of a theory that another tears apart as proving nothing. It is just the believer's own singular concept of proof. There is never any rock-solid proof in that arena. Math works with potentialities and statistics. Plus, I have seen mathematical proofs that 2+2 do not equal four and proof that bumble-bees cannot fly.


I am entirely with Lee on this one. The "scientific" elements of the case are a waste of time. And that includes ballistics, medical, audionic, and bunched jacket evidence. It's all a rabbit hole.


It sounds just like Bill Kelly and Richard Gilbride clinging desperately to the Second Floor Encounter as "proof" of anything. If that's all these fellows have then they got dick.


Verifiabillty in this case boils down to just three verifiable facts: 1) Kennedy was killed, 2) Connolly was shot, 3) in happened in Dealey Plaza. And perhaps a 4th) the Sun was shining. Beyond that, we have conflicting testimonies, contending experts, and bollocks.


That's why I got excited over Prayer Man: finally, another piece of real hard evidence! Although Sean's work makes it clear to many, I am afraid a lot of people out there cannot wrap their mind around the logical portions of the presentation, no matter how basically they are stated. Many people can only see a fuzzy picture. All the discourse in the world will mean nothing to them. But if we can get the better scan…


All the other contentions are feasibly shit.


I grow weary.



Morphing Down Another Rabbit Hole


Stan has a new book coming out and one reviewer had a problem with the subtitle: "Why the Identity of Prayer Man is the Key to Solving the Assassination of John F. Kennedy". It has subsequently been changed to "The Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald".


Which brings up an interesting point: once Oswald is removed from the picture, what will the playing field look like?


At first, I can imagine it will appear like I showed in the "Note From the Future" at the old forum but after that, what? What will the future hold for people like DVP? What portions of the WC will he still try and cling to, if any?


I would imagine that the H&L lot will have a field day, proving that Harvey did it... or was it the "real" Lee? I can never keep that shit straight!


And I should imagine there will be a great festival in Dealey Plaza - they'll need that much space - as the Evica/Drago crowd comes together with 7.3 million Dragos to build the newly revised conspiracy construct.


So, it will not solve the case, but what will the case look like afterward?


Yeah, I know, you're thinking "and how can I get in on the ground floor?"


Once Oswald and all the "evidence" from the TSBD is gone, all those witnesses who pointed in the direction of LHO, and the crap that was meant to incriminate him are gone... really, what are we left with? What is the case going to look like?


And is it going to suddenly become easier to solve?


What would the case look like if everything - and I do mean everything - built up to condemn Oswald is removed?


What will we have left?


I can almost sense another book in the works... But not by me!




Many would say the entire 26 volumes of the WC can simply be tossed but I think it would be best to use it as documented proof of the suborning of testimony and obstruction of justice by the committee itself. It'd be nice to see the tables turned and see someone else squirm for awhile.


I also wonder if Frazier would then have the guts to come forward and admit that it was Ozzie there - as if that corroboration would be needed! - but I can easily see him ending it all: what this would mean would be to open a whole spanking new can of Frazier worms and though he might finally "remember" Oswald was standing right there, the other parts of the case (planted evidence, the bag, the trip that morning, and all the other bogus BS) would take up a new roost over Wes' head and he might not like the types of questions people are going to ask. If nothing else, he would now become a prime suspect in the case to frame Oswald... and one would wonder at his motives, and connections. This might be a little more than the good ol' country boy can take.


And all this brings me back to the pear-shaped thingy and Lee's revelations about Oak Cliff. Do we really need to go there? Does it really have anything to do with the killing of JFK?


Somehow, I think it does.


Perhaps not Bonnie and Clyde directly, but there's a stench there that keeps calling me back and I don't know why.



Rebuilding the Foundations


When I returned to the Kennedy case after a two-years hiatus researching and writing about the Lincoln assassination, I certainly had a new outlook on the case.


I was not some doey-eyed teen at his first soiree, I have been at this dance since Rush to Judgment came out fifty years ago. I may not have read every single book on the subject but I have read most of them, good, bad, or indifferent; CT and LN alike. And when the internet came along, I continued the research there.


It was not that I was hot on anyone's trail but it was an enduring mystery and I am a big fan of such. I read all of Rex Stout's stuff and everything Agatha Christie wrote as well. And I have researched quite a few historical mysteries as well: the Killing of William Rufus, What Gunpowder Plot Was, the Guy Fawkes story, and anything to do with the matter of Britain.


So, when I came back to the case, I was familiar with most the evidence and most of the arguments. I was most interested in the current stuff - where the research community was at the present moment.


Sad to say, most of it was the same ol same ol rehash of things I had read about decades ago. Most of the new and interesting things I saw come out of the ARRB wasn't really that new. Sure some of the stuff "proved" things that had been taken as granted for years but I did not really see much in the way of ground-shaking stuff.


Sure it was nice to have photographic proof that Oswald wasn't in Mexico but most of the really good researchers seemed to already discern that fact even without the "hard evidence" to seal the deal. Yes, some really clever people can use clues to come away with logical deductions others cannot even guess at... until they get a photo or something. It's math... and so very much more. I think it has to do with an ability to "reason".


Getting into the nitty gritty of the movements of the people in and around the TSBD on the 22nd, I kept coming across a bit of a problem: there seemed to be no window of opportunity for anyone - not even Oswald - to assemble the Sniper's Nest, assemble the rifle, and get into position before the motorcade came by. I'm not saying the time was tight, I am saying the time was non-existent. From all the testimonies brought forward, no one could have been on the sixth floor shooting at the President.


It was a pear-shaped moment. It took a while for the ramifications to set in and I began to look at the sequences radiating outward from that realization... what else was changed just by this one simple (or rather major, actually) reassessment?


First-off, I realized the second-floor encounter was a wash. I knew that many held to it because it "exonerated Oswald" though it did no such thing in the WCR. Next, I realized the racing home to the rooming house was bogus. I doubted if that was even his place at all - which then brought in the question if he didn't live there, then where? And, naturally, if Wes his neighbor could drive him in on Monday, why not every day of the week?


The thing snow-balled just because I realized no one was shooting from the TSBD. It changes simply everything about the case.

It also reframes what Wes was doing, what was really going on at the TSBD and why they wanted to be rid of Oswald...


So, I went looking for people who saw the case in that new light.


And here I am.


I found a thread on the old forum discussing the Beckley house. Lee and Greg were implying that they thought Oswald roomed in Irving. I asked them if they had any evidence but even testimony of the neighbors (at least that which is in the record) did not clear up the confusion. The first "evidence" for the ruse came from Mick Purdy, referring to a rather casual comment Givens made to Frazier on that Friday morning. To me, that clinched it.


It is amazing what one change can do to the overall outlook one takes in this case. Making one's foundations a little more fluid, earth-shattering revelations are exciting and not something to be feared. Clinging to any vestige of the WC finds you still locked into that madhouse of mirrors. To get beyond the fabric of lies, you have to question a portion of the case and wait for the world to go pear-shaped.


It really is a game-changer.



The Bizarre Little World of Oak Cliff


A search through the undercurrents of Oak Cliff may yet yield more interesting threads and tidbits in the case. And not just surrounding the Beckley House and the killing of Tippit.


And what was happening at the library over there in Oak Cliff that afternoon?


Was Marie Tippit reading Doris Bream's poem "Hickory's Dockery Dick" or perhaps excerpts from the H. G. Wells' classic science fiction pornography "The Shape of Things That Come" or what? When Marie finished her reading, she probably turned to the children and asked, "Now, who among you can say the word 'philanderer'?"


How was she ever to guess that JD was going to be worth a lot more dead than he had ever been when alive? On top of the insurance money (minimal, I assume) she got over half-a-million dollars in support from pious well-wishers.


Perhaps there had been some really strange waters coming out of the Oak Cliff Viaduct in the twenties or so and the population there was an experiment being overseen by certain groups... ?


Perhaps it is where the doppelganger experiments started? Or perhaps it was an alien reclamation project? All of it sounds rather tame to me.


Whether pear-shaped or not, we will have to be able to wrap our minds around a new paradigm, a totally new construct. And it will have to include such insanity as what I have mentioned as well as the preposterous Oxnard call and so very much more.


Perhaps then we will know why, with such a wide variety of places to live, why did Lee always seem to choose a location in Oak Cliff?


And then I have to ask myself the rather strange question: was Lee's removal primarily the mechanism chosen to neutralize Marina?



A Parting Shot


Many have stated there exists a "shadow world" and imagine it populated by the illuminati, the One-Worlders, and such, spooks one and all. But what if that one is the "real world" and what we see day-to-day is nothing but the shadow, a fiction created by the spin-makers, the myth-creators, and sustained through the media and the educational system to convince us that the illusion is the reality.


It's enough to warp one's mind.










* history -


I don't know if I should go into this here or not. It might divert the discussion and it could, in and of itself, be an entirely separate volume. I will say that history tends to be authoritarian and legalistic. As a youth I could not understand why it spent so much time on the wars and the treaties and the rulers. It does that because it is a legal form of assigning ownership and legal precedence to all things. People own this and such because they conquered and the treaty gave it to them.


History talks about the rich, powerful, important people as if those are the primary things of importance in our world. It forces our minds to think of the past, the world, and the future in this way to the exclusion of all else. History claims that these things are important and everything else can be ignored.


In the past, histories of tribes were carried along by their bards who composed songs of heroes and great adventures. There was no mention of ownership, treaties, and so forth.



** Poe famous in France -


This was verified lately when I was talking to a co-worker who was born in Russia in 1969 and immigrated in 1999. She was asking me if I had been to Baltimore and if I knew anything about it.


I mentioned a lot of town on the west side seemed to be boarded up and I heard they were going to tear down a lot of the old tenements, including the home of Edgar Allan Poe.


She was taken aback. "Poe? The horror writer?"


"Yes. He wrote horror and detective stories and quite a bit of poetry. You've heard of him?"


"Yes, I read a lot of his stuff when I was a teenager. I loved it! It was translated into Russian directly from the French. How did he get to America?"


I chuckled. And she had her own pear-shaped moment.



Start with Who before Why

Posted by Stan Dane on May 15, 2015 at 3:50 PM Comments comments (2)

Herr Burnham said today in his "A Dynamic Model" post: "I think that we do ourselves a disservice when we treat this crime as a 'simple' homicide instead of viewing it as a political assassination." He has another post: "Start with: 'Why?'"


I beg to differ.


The first thing that screams for an answer is "Who killed John F. Kennedy?" You put the cart before the horse if you sidestep this question.


Bertrand Russell pointed out the obvious in 1964 when he said:

At the outset the Commission appointed six panels through which it would conduct its enquiry. They considered:

  • What did Oswald do on November 22, 1963?
  • What was Oswald’s background?
  • What did Oswald do in the U.S. Marine Corps, and in the Soviet Union?
  • How did Ruby kill Oswald?
  • What is Ruby’s background?
  • What efforts were taken to protect the President on November 22?

This raises my fourth question: Why did the Warren Commission not establish a panel to deal with the question of who killed President Kennedy?


The Warren Commission established a template of sorts for lone nutters and many conspiracists by focusing on peripheral questions, none of which solve the crime. It's something most all do now.


Herr Burnham started a thread at ED: "In pursuit of one's own tale..." In this he appeals to emotion or some kind of human response that would, in his mind, validate his statesman-like leadership role in the research community as a seeker of the truth. He was taken aback by the lack of reaction to his presentation. Burnham even chided one member for having seen his name logged in at ED and remaining "mute." Obviously hurt by this indifference, he whined:


Casting myself in the role of a "leader" was not intended as a glorification of my position…

I think that it is a slippery slope for me to require any member to respond to my presentation as though they are filling out a template.


[The fact that you would even mention requiring any member to do anything is most telling, Herr Burnham.]


His followers then stepped in to soothe his ego. They talked of the strong emotions and feelings his presentation brought out.


Strong feelings, emotions, and building big, elaborate models don't solve crimes. Strong feelings, emotions, and building big, elaborate models don't uncover facts and evidence.


Investigation and research solves crimes. Hard analytical questioning attitudes solve crimes. Logic solves crimes.


Solve the simple crime of the murder of JFK first and then start chasing the whys.



Oops! This site has expired.

If you are the site owner, please renew your premium subscription or contact support.