Sincere apologies to Allan Eaglesham

[Magda Hassan]

I was very patient with Eaglesham when this exchange began. I rebutted his every move. Yet he disregarded response after response. He has ignored the evidence from scratch. You may regard this a commendable, but I do not. I cannot imagine why you would not take to task--ever so politely, as you may--someone who is obfuscating and obscuring obvious evidence. My regard for JFK is such that I simply cannot abide those who continue to betray the search for truth. You apparently have a more tolerant attitude toward those who promote false beliefs about the assassination than do I. Why did you not observe that he was wrong? I was very patient in the beginning. Then it became obvious that he wasn't going to budge. That is inexcusable and I am not going to view it kindly. This is a moral issue, not a question of logic. Anyone can assess the weight of the evidence. Not anyone is going to continue to promote rubbish to deceive the public about such things.

Well, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. Speaking for myself, I don't feel that I am always in a position to know or make judgments on others and if they are or not ignoring or obfuscating the evidence. People certainly can have their blind spots. I don't particularly have a high regard for JFK as a man. He was unfaithful in his marriage, responsible for the deaths of many through his policies and had other serious short comings as a man and politician but I recognise he was almost a saint compared to some others around him and I also think he developed and grew as a person over his time in office. We never got to see what he could have done. Certainly, no human ever deserves to be murdered. It is not so much my regard for JFK but my regard for justice and the democratic choice of the US people (and all people everywhere) that I am involved here. You will certainly find many perhaps most all here who hold JFK in the same high esteem as yourself and we all seek the truth. But with JFK and many other political assassinations we already know the truth. The fact that one researcher sees a resemblance in one photo while another does not or sees another, ultimately, we may as well be debating how many angels can fit on the top of a pin. One photo in all the overwhelming other body of evidence is neither here nor there in the great scheme of things. That is a matter of logic. To accuse another researcher and member of 'promoting false beliefs' or to be one of 'those who continue to betray the search for truth' is not helpful in any way in reaching that truth. So, there is no agreement on this photo. In every other way you are as one. You divide your side. Make enemies of friends. There are certainly enemies but not here. I know it can be very frustrating to try and convince some of something that seems or is bleeding obvious to yourself and yet they remain blind to it. Attacking the man will not make him 'see' or even want to see your point. I am no photo expert and am in no position to pass judgment on this photo one way or the other. The only thing I commend is Allen's restraint under provocation and his generosity in sharing his work in the first place. Your passion for the truth is, well, passionate. Please don't let that passion blind you to other moral issues involved here. That Allan does not agree with you on this one photo does not make him an enemy. Nor yourself. Deal with the evidence. Put your case. As forcefully as you wish. We're up for robust debate of the evidence. But this can all be done with out resorting to ad homs. It is not a matter of promoting rubbish. We are trying to create a place all these things can be discussed in an environment which is free from the LNer idiocy. Put your best evidence forward. If others don't do the same deal with their evidence not them. We don't favor researchers only the evidence.