19-10-2015, 02:23 AM
Tom Scully Wrote:Brian,
According to some likeminded members of a site in "the Outback," they are what you are wishing for, a final arbiter.
Hi Tom - why don't we start simple? Nothing so ambitious as an "arbiter", just an organization of the evidence would be a step up from what exists today.
For instance - on the topic of the Tippit shells, there are several "theories" about what the markings mean, yes? So, you list them out - here's Theory #1 and here's the evidence that supports it, here's Theory # 2 and its evidence, and so on. Right now, there is no single place anyone can go for the "scope" of what this issue really is.
Quote:It doesn't work the way you are hoping it can. Have you accepted yet that there is a strong proclivity to either be in the "there is no tooth fairy or Easter Bunny" camp, vs. the "Oh, yes there is" camp?
Oh, sure - the old "LN vs CT" game.
Well, that game goes on in large part because of the disorganization of the evidence, IMO. When you look at the forums, you see a lot of bandwidth being expended rehashing the same old arguments over and over again. So fine - lay out the argument "plain and simple", so everyone can see what it is. For Joe Average who only cares about "debate", this is sufficient - but for the genuine researcher, this is essential. Wouldn't you say? I mean, don't each of us, as we're coming up to speed, do this exact thing? We all have to do this individually, and the truth is the evidence is so disorganized that any given person can go out on a limb at any given time, just following one trail or another. Example... Col Jose Rivera. Does he have anything to do with Crichton, Boise Smith, or John W Mayo? If you're starting from scratch, it takes you a year to even be able to ask that question. On the other hand, if you're looking at a page with the evidence neatly summarized, it only takes you a few minutes to understand the issue and what its "current state of research" is. And, on top of that, the historical trail is invaluable. Like, the history of the various theories and claims around the Odio incident - that would be a great one for an historical summary.
Quote:This pursuit is no different than persuading others that the Republican party is of no useful purpose, quite the opposite, in fact, or that "the Democrat party," is a leftist cabal bent on confiscating all wealth and expropriating all corporations. (Have you noticed that GW Bush began describing it as "Democrat party" and "Democrat leaders" and he and others in their party with their own always on point language have no influenced broadcast journalist to drop the "ic" from Democratic, even the name of the quadrennial nominating convention?)
Yeah. And in 1963 Dallas blacks were communists, the two were indistinguishable for some people. Have you read through the book of 112th MIG reports on racial unrest? It's literally a book, they wrote so many reports on it they fill an entire book.
Quote:Fact check everything everyone in this work posts or writes and you will get a sense of who is fact checking and who is repeating what they are impressed with.
Agreed. Sometimes it's hard for a n00b to tell the difference. How can I say this - the Mary Ferrell web site, has almost universal respect. Because, it's mostly "evidence only", outside of a few book reports and editorial pieces the majority of the site is "evidence". You have to lay out the evidence plain and simple, for the layman. Oswald was wearing a brown shirt, and there was someone who looked a lot like Oswald wearing a white shirt. Using this simple concept, you can reveal an astounding amount about the inaccuracies in the Warren Commission's Report and the manner in which the witnesses were railroaded and their testimonies were manipulated. Presented in that form, the evidence is neatly organized and it's hard to crack.
Quote:Here is more to chew on, as far as this thread. Bill Decker's dept. knew how to pick 'em, and don't get me started on Jay Bert Peck's wife, Dorothy, 28 years his junior and still living with her parents in Preston Hollow in the late 1950's, but she marries Peck because he has looks to die for and lives in a 900 sq. feet ranch house in Garland, where she goes, despite her millionaire father and being his only surviving heir, and stays in Peck's house after he is murdered or suicided there and even after Liggett burns the house with her in it......
Interesting. Thanks for that, Tom, I'll have to check into this one! (I'm still a n00b)...
