Is the Assassination of JFK an "unsolved Civil Rights murder case from the 1960s"?

[Ed Jewett]

On a simple human level, this is tragic.

This ego thing just gets worse...Tragic is not the word that springs to my mind. From the above post I sincerely doubt that JB has actually read JFKU.

No"orginal research?" Your opinions are simply that, opinions not grounded in the slightest bit of fact.

Now I shall go back to not reading them. I am not tryng to be insulting but
your put downs are staggering to me. Only you have the answers, eh?

Talk among yourselves.

Dawn

This is consistent with my own reading of Douglass. About ten hours ago, I was in this thread and actually had the "reply" window open for some time trying to formulate an effective answer. I finally refrained, for several reasons:

1) There are people here, and in this thread who've done vastly more work, research, reading, etc. about the event(s) in Dealey Plaza [before, during and after] than I have, and I don't have a problem deferring to them or their opinion (while keeping my rights to myself to make up my own mind).

2) I couldn't get a grasp on what John B. (et al?) are saying, despite having spent some time reading through Google searches and elsewhere. My own sense is that Doiuglass' meticulous research and foot-noting puts to shame the efforts in supporting the theory espoused above. I also couldn't get a grasp because the style in what writing I have seen espousing this theory is slippery, greasy, and has the aura of other "hit pieces" and "debunking" I have read -- including the use of alliteration to the point that I would like to start a fund to buy a replacement "R" for John's keyboard.

I will continue to read Douglass' JFKU. I have watched two or three video interviews with him, read his history, read his book "Resistance and Contemplation", understand something of his viewpoint and the place where he is coming from (deep Catholicism and Christianity, involvement with Catholic Workers, readings of Merton, protest against nuclear war), and I think that the overall "take-away" from JFKU is likely to be the focus on the security state and its incessant drive -- alive today -- for nuclear supremacy to the point of effective "first-strike" capability. It is easy to bash an author when you are not in touch with where the author is coming from, or when one's reading" has been a glossed run-through. In addition, Douglass has explained how he came to do this research -- because he'd been asked to by a colleague and friend -- reluctantly, and with fresh eyes. (This is very similar to the history behind Dr. David Ray Griffin's work, another author coming in with unimpeachable academic and critical thinking credentials and from a theological perspective.)

I am familiar with the eugenics movement and theme and find it abhorrent; it is also an evil beast, alive and well today, interwoven to be sure in that eugenics has informed many of the same evil people in the world (e.g., Kissinger). I do not see the connection suggested in the $100,000,000 pay-off, and any number of effective functional hit teams could have been bought and paid in the 60's at several magnitudes lower. This theory smells like an attempt to throw the dogs off the hunt, and we have seen so many of these attempts on this and other similar deep politics events that it is getting easier to spot the parallels in them as it has become easier to spot the parallels in their execution. It adds confusion, not clarity.

I read JFKU in bits and pieces; it is essentially a bedside process at the moment, but I have discovered new research. I suspect I will add to the list noted 1-10 because the release of records in the late 90's has generated further material. Keep in mind, too, that the process of writing in general and specifically with JFKU takes time, including that of working with multiple publishers toward commitment and in the editing process; this is described, as well, in JFKU.

I think John's focus on being out of date with regard to "news" is consistent with the times and that he confuses "news" with evidence, clear thought and widely-disseminated and repeated disinformation.