Donald Adams Lecture

[Peter Lemkin]

I finally get what the dichotomy is here: does the use of a term like "our side" (vs. "their side") imply some sort of moral equivalence or symmetrical nature between the "two sides"?

In WWII, you had "our side" which was US, UK, Russia, Canada, etc. vs "their side" which was Germany, Japan, Italy, Romania, Hungary, etc etc. Pretty symmetrical. Kind of like "our side" is the Packers, "their side" is the Bears.

I guess I am shocked to hear the JFK issue described as "our side" vs. "their side".

I had, unfortunately, basal cell carcinoma back in 2010. I did not view the cancer as "their side". This is kind of like the National Security State. They, like cancer, don't really have a side. Like a rotting tree trunk. The rot is not a "side".

Viewing the JFK case in terms of "our side" vs. "their side", to me, smacks of looking at it as a "liberal" vs. a "conservative" analysis. Unfortunately, there are some people who no doubt see it that way.

I also am fairly involved with Biblical studies. There you have the same thing--you have "isogesis" vs. "exegesis". With "isogesis", you decide what you want the passage to say or mean, then you manipulate (or falsify) the words and the translation to come out on "your side". Obviously, not a very useful approach if you want to learn things.

And when Robert J. Oppenheimer and Edward Teller were working on inventing the A-Bomb, they may have been working for a "side". In their case, they were on the side of democracy vs. totalitarianism. But the A-Bomb itself was not on a side. It didn't represent a side. It was just the A-Bomb. It would kill people on any and every side. It did not ask questions. End of discussion.

So somebody (or some people) murdered JFK. An honest person will admit the truth, that this is a factual situation. An honest person simply does not manipulate the facts to make things come out to one's liking. There can't be a "liberal" or "conservative" theory as to the identity of JFK's killers. To think that way is to admit to thinking of lying about things of great importance as being potentially useful. Some people would agree with this latter point, but then, of course, they are liars. And what they are saying is not, after all, the truth.

So we have this question: if the JFK research features some who are telling a true account of the facts, and others who are lying, do the liars deserve the dignity of being called a "side" ?

To consider the "lone gunman" theorists a "side" IMHO is to concede to them a level of respect which they don't really deserve regardless of their motivation.

James Lateer

This strikes me as argument for argument sake and unwarranted semantics you have indulged in. Of course, the only real 'sides' [positions] are the Truth vs. Untruth/Big Lie/Deception. Defining precisely the former position has not been an easy one over many decades - but I think great progress has been and is being made [by a shockingly small number of persons - aided by a trickle of witnesses and documents, etc.]! The other position is a gorgon with many heads - each with its own type of deception or false trail - but with the unifying idea of leading people astray from the reality of what actually happened. Personally, I'm more interested in working on fitting puzzle pieces into the ever more complete 1000000000 piece puzzle of the Truth of what happened, than in semantic/philosophical arguments for argument sake........ I do not believe anyone was making any of the arguments nor taking any of the positions you are attributing to others...... I for one do not plan to partake further in this pointless [IMHO] and off-topic theme.