12-11-2013, 08:53 PM
Jim mentioned Paul Hoch- you can certainly add him to the "neo-con" list. I believe he was once one of those dreaded "conspiracy theorists," wasn't he? Like all the others, what changed him?
Greg Jaynes is another notable researcher who converted inexplicably to a lone nutter. Jaynes was very helpful working with Mark Oakes, as he was publicizing the valuable Patsy Paschall film for the first time. Oakes described him as a friend that "went from conspiracy to lone nut overnight" right after they first saw the Pascall film. There are still solid articles by him on the internet, much as there are still good articles from Reitzes out there, from their pre-conversion days.
We see this "neo-con" trend clearly in the new "consensus" that there wasn't a hole in the limousine windshield, the Umbrella Man was harmless Steven Witt, none of the witness deaths were suspicious, the limo never stopped, Oswald was the gunman in the Walker shooting attempt, the backyard photos were legitimate, and so many more aspects of this case that were once considered bellwether grounds for conspiracy in the assassination.
If one reads some of the best early works on the subject, and sees how far much of the research community has drifted towards this "neo-con" view, one invariably asks 'why?" If anything, the notion that these were strong indicators of conspiracy should have solidified over the years. No "evidence" of any kind has been brought forth to discredit them, and yet we have so many "respectable" researchers who simply discard them for no reason now. I have often asked these people just what their evidence is for doubting the official story, if they reject all these things which were once rock sold foundations of those who postulated conspiracy.
Greg Jaynes is another notable researcher who converted inexplicably to a lone nutter. Jaynes was very helpful working with Mark Oakes, as he was publicizing the valuable Patsy Paschall film for the first time. Oakes described him as a friend that "went from conspiracy to lone nut overnight" right after they first saw the Pascall film. There are still solid articles by him on the internet, much as there are still good articles from Reitzes out there, from their pre-conversion days.
We see this "neo-con" trend clearly in the new "consensus" that there wasn't a hole in the limousine windshield, the Umbrella Man was harmless Steven Witt, none of the witness deaths were suspicious, the limo never stopped, Oswald was the gunman in the Walker shooting attempt, the backyard photos were legitimate, and so many more aspects of this case that were once considered bellwether grounds for conspiracy in the assassination.
If one reads some of the best early works on the subject, and sees how far much of the research community has drifted towards this "neo-con" view, one invariably asks 'why?" If anything, the notion that these were strong indicators of conspiracy should have solidified over the years. No "evidence" of any kind has been brought forth to discredit them, and yet we have so many "respectable" researchers who simply discard them for no reason now. I have often asked these people just what their evidence is for doubting the official story, if they reject all these things which were once rock sold foundations of those who postulated conspiracy.