12-02-2013, 01:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2013, 02:22 PM by Charles Drago.)
Kudos to Cliff and to Jim Hackett II for their affirmative responses.
And likewise, in advance, to Jim DiEugenio for what I'm anticipating will be his agreement in principle.
For what it's worth, I don't expect Messrs. Varnell and DiEugenio to establish a mutual admiration society. Have at each other -- in a way that distinguishes our community as one in which honest, robustly proffered differences of opinion are valued and, more often than not, lead to major insights and discoveries.
On a personal note, I am deeply gratified by the recently observable spread of the "JFK conspiracy as FACT" stance through our community. Vincent Salandria stands out among the few so-called First Generation of JFK assassination scholars who understood and taught the critical distinction between debate and presentation of fact and its importance to our shared cause.
Among the group I term Second Generation researchers, self-described "radical historian" George Michael Evica championed this approach most influentially.
Their examples inspired my own humble efforts, over the past 20 years, to drive home the strategic, tactical, and even moral implications of the following message:
Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
Now, as the 50th anniversary of the assassination looms, I must modify the statement thusly:
Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators -- including, at the highest level of Facilitators in the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model, civilian and military components of the international security state -- is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
By definition, if we debate the conspiracy/LN "controversy," we lose.
And likewise, in advance, to Jim DiEugenio for what I'm anticipating will be his agreement in principle.
For what it's worth, I don't expect Messrs. Varnell and DiEugenio to establish a mutual admiration society. Have at each other -- in a way that distinguishes our community as one in which honest, robustly proffered differences of opinion are valued and, more often than not, lead to major insights and discoveries.
On a personal note, I am deeply gratified by the recently observable spread of the "JFK conspiracy as FACT" stance through our community. Vincent Salandria stands out among the few so-called First Generation of JFK assassination scholars who understood and taught the critical distinction between debate and presentation of fact and its importance to our shared cause.
Among the group I term Second Generation researchers, self-described "radical historian" George Michael Evica championed this approach most influentially.
Their examples inspired my own humble efforts, over the past 20 years, to drive home the strategic, tactical, and even moral implications of the following message:
Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
Now, as the 50th anniversary of the assassination looms, I must modify the statement thusly:
Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators -- including, at the highest level of Facilitators in the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model, civilian and military components of the international security state -- is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
By definition, if we debate the conspiracy/LN "controversy," we lose.