21-09-2013, 03:21 PM
Magda Hassan Wrote:I suppose it is the same in the JFK area. Some think there was another team on the South Knoll. Others don't. Some think there were 2 bodies, 2 autopsies etc. Others don't. Some think there were 2 or more Zapruder films. Or one intact one tampered. Others don't go for that. None of them need support the 'official' story. But there are differences of opinion on what did and did not happen. Same with 911. Some think there were middle eastern hijackers in control of the planes. Others think the planes were remotely controlled. Some think the buildings were a controlled demolition. Others think it was a natural progression. Or that it was a controlled demolition on 7 and maybe not in the towers. Just because thee is no unified theory in these events does not mean the official version is accepted. Just that there are difference on what did and did not happen.
Well argued, Magda.
As far as it goes.
But the devil is in the details.
Within the ostensible JFK research community we note the presence of agents provocateur who shout to the heavens their "belief" in conspiracy, only to attack the truth from within by, among other methods, espousing ludicrous theories (e.g. Masonic symbolism in wound locations; LBJ as "mastermind" of the conspiracy; Secret Service agents inept but none murderous in intent; etc.) and attempting to Balkanize researchers (e.g. the Oswald Innocence Project and its case officers).
Thus when you write, "Just that there are difference[s] on what did and did not happen," you make the grave mistake of assuming that all such differences of opinion within the research community are honest.
Are all JFK questions answered? Absolutely not.
Do far too many of those questions beg wholly naive and counterproductive yes/no or A/B answers? Absolutely.
Based on the complexity of an issue -- for example, Z-film alteration -- could those arguing apparently mutually exclusive conclusions both be right? Or wrong? Absolutely.
I don't know Orling other than by reputation and what he posts here. I don't have the training required to challenge his technical analyses and the conclusions that follow.
Other DPF posters do, however.
So how do I reach conclusions regarding Orling's mind and motives?
Simply by applying deep political analyses of his work here -- analyses that I am well qualified to conduct.
Here's the tipping point: Orling repeatedly assures us, directly and by implication, that his deep politics credentials are non-existent. Yet he continues to proffer analyses of a major deep political event.
What, he has asked more than once, does JFK have to do with 9-11?
What does JFK have to do with 9-11???
Feel free to respect Orling and to apply the benefit of the doubt to the workings of his mind.
Feel free to ignore indications of a Sunsteinian agenda (e.g. immediate, multiple, lengthy, seemingly prepared-in-advance responses to a single challenge, etc.) in his actions here.
Some of us shall do otherwise.
This war is fought on many, many fronts.