21-05-2012, 02:23 PM
Charles,
Exactly what have you done in the "war" you speak of that I haven't? My 2007 novel "The Unreals" included lots of JFK assassination stuff, all from a conspiracy standpoint. I'm finishing up a huge non-fiction work now that delves into the past fifty years of conspiracies and corruption. I post as much as I can, or am interested in, on forums like this and try to make intelligible points. I'm about as radical as they come, and about as "extreme" a conspiracy believer as there is. What else could I do?
The only thing any of us can really do at this point is post on forums like this, or hope to get our thoughts published to a wider audience. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, especially since I'm quite aware of how out of the mainstream much of my own thinking is. I know there was a huge conspiracy to kill JFK, and that the most powerful forces imaginable planned it. Clearly, the cover up was even bigger, and continues to this day. I don't share your virtual certainty that I "know" much beyond that.
Do you even entertain the possibility that people like Ralph Cinque, Jim Fetzer and others are simply wedded so strongly to their own theories that they can't be persuaded in another direction? I have a good friend and neighbor who I know is not a "disinfo" agent, but when I tried to talk to him about the JFK assassination, he simply wouldn't budge off the lone nutter nonsense. He'd read Posner, and is a typical conservative Republican, so I understand how hard it would be to reason with him about the subject. My own sister, who's heard me rant and rave about this subject for decades, was turned to lone nutterism by the ABC Peter Jennings crap. That's the power of the media.
If I can't make my own sister see the truth about a subject I'm a genuine expert on, I surely will not be able to persuade the Colbys and Lamsons. We know that Cass Sunstein has officially lobbied to make conspiracy "theories" illegal and advocates using undercover disinfo agents on forums like this to undermine the truth. I recognize that. I know there are people posting on JFK forums that have a dishonest agenda. However, there is a huge difference in being aware of that, and specifically accusing individuals of being a disinfo agent. You can't prove these kinds of accusations, and thus calling them names and intimating that you have some esoteric knowledge about them that others don't is really counterproductive.
I respect many posters here, including you. I wouldn't go on other forums and bash DPF. The EF is different from this forum, just as Lancer is different from both. Duncan's forum is different as well. They all serve a purpose. I didn't support banning Peter Lemkin, and tried hard to advocate for him. I don't own the forum, just like I don't this one. How would you feel if someone on the EF posted a comment about "burning down" DPF? Somehow, I think we'd see a post or two full of your acerbic criticism in response.
I try to be cordial to everyone, on every forum I frequent. If that makes me look weak or half-hearted, I don't apologize. That's my nature, and I believe I make my points just as well without resorting to name calling, snide put-downs and unprovable insinuations about individual characters. You've been following this case long enough to understand the personalities that gravitate to it. Far too many JFK researchers are pompous, arrogant and intolerant of other opinions. They each think they have "the" answer. As you've noted, anyone who's studied this case knows Oswald didn't do it. Period. Beyond that, the nature of the cover up proves there was a huge conspiracy involving powerful forces. Obviously, the forums illustrate what happens when these kinds of personalities interact with each other.
But to pretend that we know for certain the CIA was or wasn't the impetus, or that LBJ was or wasn't a willing participant, with absolute certainty, is simply ridiculous. I strongly disagree with those who think anti-Castro Cubans were important participants, for instance, or that "Cuba" was a fundamental reason behind the assassination. I believe that the whole Cuban connection was another smokescreen to deter attention away from powerful forces in the U.S. government. But I also realize that many well intentioned researchers, from Larry Hancock to Gil Jesus to Cliff Varnell, believe that the Cuban question was connected to the assassination. I don't dismiss them as idiots and ridicule their theories. Does that make sense?
I "supported" Ralph Cinque's right to speak, just as I'd support yours. When I disagree with what someone says, I feel even more compelled to argue against censoring them. Must be my early infatuation with Patrick Henry or something. My point was that the issue of who was in the doorway hasn't been settled, even if nearly everyone thinks Cinque and Fetzer's photo analysis has. Do you agree that there are serious questions about who was in the doorway in the Altgens' photograph?
Exactly what have you done in the "war" you speak of that I haven't? My 2007 novel "The Unreals" included lots of JFK assassination stuff, all from a conspiracy standpoint. I'm finishing up a huge non-fiction work now that delves into the past fifty years of conspiracies and corruption. I post as much as I can, or am interested in, on forums like this and try to make intelligible points. I'm about as radical as they come, and about as "extreme" a conspiracy believer as there is. What else could I do?
The only thing any of us can really do at this point is post on forums like this, or hope to get our thoughts published to a wider audience. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, especially since I'm quite aware of how out of the mainstream much of my own thinking is. I know there was a huge conspiracy to kill JFK, and that the most powerful forces imaginable planned it. Clearly, the cover up was even bigger, and continues to this day. I don't share your virtual certainty that I "know" much beyond that.
Do you even entertain the possibility that people like Ralph Cinque, Jim Fetzer and others are simply wedded so strongly to their own theories that they can't be persuaded in another direction? I have a good friend and neighbor who I know is not a "disinfo" agent, but when I tried to talk to him about the JFK assassination, he simply wouldn't budge off the lone nutter nonsense. He'd read Posner, and is a typical conservative Republican, so I understand how hard it would be to reason with him about the subject. My own sister, who's heard me rant and rave about this subject for decades, was turned to lone nutterism by the ABC Peter Jennings crap. That's the power of the media.
If I can't make my own sister see the truth about a subject I'm a genuine expert on, I surely will not be able to persuade the Colbys and Lamsons. We know that Cass Sunstein has officially lobbied to make conspiracy "theories" illegal and advocates using undercover disinfo agents on forums like this to undermine the truth. I recognize that. I know there are people posting on JFK forums that have a dishonest agenda. However, there is a huge difference in being aware of that, and specifically accusing individuals of being a disinfo agent. You can't prove these kinds of accusations, and thus calling them names and intimating that you have some esoteric knowledge about them that others don't is really counterproductive.
I respect many posters here, including you. I wouldn't go on other forums and bash DPF. The EF is different from this forum, just as Lancer is different from both. Duncan's forum is different as well. They all serve a purpose. I didn't support banning Peter Lemkin, and tried hard to advocate for him. I don't own the forum, just like I don't this one. How would you feel if someone on the EF posted a comment about "burning down" DPF? Somehow, I think we'd see a post or two full of your acerbic criticism in response.
I try to be cordial to everyone, on every forum I frequent. If that makes me look weak or half-hearted, I don't apologize. That's my nature, and I believe I make my points just as well without resorting to name calling, snide put-downs and unprovable insinuations about individual characters. You've been following this case long enough to understand the personalities that gravitate to it. Far too many JFK researchers are pompous, arrogant and intolerant of other opinions. They each think they have "the" answer. As you've noted, anyone who's studied this case knows Oswald didn't do it. Period. Beyond that, the nature of the cover up proves there was a huge conspiracy involving powerful forces. Obviously, the forums illustrate what happens when these kinds of personalities interact with each other.
But to pretend that we know for certain the CIA was or wasn't the impetus, or that LBJ was or wasn't a willing participant, with absolute certainty, is simply ridiculous. I strongly disagree with those who think anti-Castro Cubans were important participants, for instance, or that "Cuba" was a fundamental reason behind the assassination. I believe that the whole Cuban connection was another smokescreen to deter attention away from powerful forces in the U.S. government. But I also realize that many well intentioned researchers, from Larry Hancock to Gil Jesus to Cliff Varnell, believe that the Cuban question was connected to the assassination. I don't dismiss them as idiots and ridicule their theories. Does that make sense?
I "supported" Ralph Cinque's right to speak, just as I'd support yours. When I disagree with what someone says, I feel even more compelled to argue against censoring them. Must be my early infatuation with Patrick Henry or something. My point was that the issue of who was in the doorway hasn't been settled, even if nearly everyone thinks Cinque and Fetzer's photo analysis has. Do you agree that there are serious questions about who was in the doorway in the Altgens' photograph?