08-12-2018, 07:29 PM
On Ancestry.com, each member has his own version of his family tree. On FamilySearch.com which is run by the LDS Church, they assume there is only one true version of the ancestry of everybody and they strive to record and perfect that one true huge tree.
The search for the JFK plotters is somewhat analogous. We all know that there is only one true cast of characters in the murder of JFK. The problem is, no two people agree on precisely who is on the list.
Sadly, this leads to the unfortunate impression that there is a "democracy of theories" where everyone's list of JFK plotters deserves equal respect and should be recognized as equally credible.
In reality, there was only one organizational chart of the JFK assassination. There could not have been two unrelated groups, each of whom plotted the JFK hit independently and pulled the triggers independently at the same time at 12:30 pm on 11-22-63.
But the JFK experts both write about and use logic which implies that there are multiple theories and all of them can be true all at once. This is the operating principle used by Ancestry.com as a concession to reality, even though virtually everyone on Ancestry has at least a slighty erroneous tree. And if you combined all the trees on Ancestry by computer, you would never come up with just one tree.
Maybe the shooter in the JFK assassination had two heads. Or he was really Siamese twins with each brandishing his own gun.
That's kind of the drift of the "democracy of theories" put forth by the JFK research community. I don't think that the best writers "alter or suppress" evidence. Not in my opinion after reading of 200 books on the subject.
The Harvey and Lee approach is about the same as the "Secret Service Accident" theory. Sadly, the "just for fun" theories are put on the same stage as those which are much more credible.
Probably the best author, Dick Russell in The Man Who Knew Too Much just frankly laid out a smorgasboard of evidence, potential plotters and guilty entities. It will be someone in the future who nails the entire JFK assassination enterprise by standing on the shoulders of giants and using the smorgasboard of Russell and others.
But I'm not sure that those who purport to advocate multiple inconsistent theories as being equally valid are helping the cause. Some (including on this website) seem to be priortizing courtesy ahead of realism. Of course, multiple theories means multiple books, multiple speeches and multiple recognition.
But there were just a finite group who killed JFK. IMHO, this is a fact which can be discovered and at some point proven.
Maybe artificial intelligence can evolve to the level of solving crimes and in particular the JFK murder. Maybe some day we can ask Siri "who killed JFK?" and the true answer will be forthcoming. Or maybe not.
James Lateer
The search for the JFK plotters is somewhat analogous. We all know that there is only one true cast of characters in the murder of JFK. The problem is, no two people agree on precisely who is on the list.
Sadly, this leads to the unfortunate impression that there is a "democracy of theories" where everyone's list of JFK plotters deserves equal respect and should be recognized as equally credible.
In reality, there was only one organizational chart of the JFK assassination. There could not have been two unrelated groups, each of whom plotted the JFK hit independently and pulled the triggers independently at the same time at 12:30 pm on 11-22-63.
But the JFK experts both write about and use logic which implies that there are multiple theories and all of them can be true all at once. This is the operating principle used by Ancestry.com as a concession to reality, even though virtually everyone on Ancestry has at least a slighty erroneous tree. And if you combined all the trees on Ancestry by computer, you would never come up with just one tree.
Maybe the shooter in the JFK assassination had two heads. Or he was really Siamese twins with each brandishing his own gun.
That's kind of the drift of the "democracy of theories" put forth by the JFK research community. I don't think that the best writers "alter or suppress" evidence. Not in my opinion after reading of 200 books on the subject.
The Harvey and Lee approach is about the same as the "Secret Service Accident" theory. Sadly, the "just for fun" theories are put on the same stage as those which are much more credible.
Probably the best author, Dick Russell in The Man Who Knew Too Much just frankly laid out a smorgasboard of evidence, potential plotters and guilty entities. It will be someone in the future who nails the entire JFK assassination enterprise by standing on the shoulders of giants and using the smorgasboard of Russell and others.
But I'm not sure that those who purport to advocate multiple inconsistent theories as being equally valid are helping the cause. Some (including on this website) seem to be priortizing courtesy ahead of realism. Of course, multiple theories means multiple books, multiple speeches and multiple recognition.
But there were just a finite group who killed JFK. IMHO, this is a fact which can be discovered and at some point proven.
Maybe artificial intelligence can evolve to the level of solving crimes and in particular the JFK murder. Maybe some day we can ask Siri "who killed JFK?" and the true answer will be forthcoming. Or maybe not.
James Lateer