17-11-2013, 07:59 PM
Marc Ellis Wrote:Steve McChristian Wrote:I have not followed the assassination very closely since I read Anthony Summers some ages ago, but the case for conspiracy seems even stronger than it did back then. Kaplan, with his "buffs" and his "case closed" and his implied "exploding nerve" and his I saw it on TV so there, hardly needs debunkiing as he pretty much does that to himself. Home's presentation cited above, on the other hand, seems devastating to the LN theory. Has any genuinely credible researcher been able to undermine the evidence Home presents? For example, has anyone shown Mantik's analysis of the x-rays is less compelling than it seems? Has anyone shown why so many seemingly credible witnesses are willing to testify to a disappeared blow out in the back of President Kennedy's head? Seriously, Kaplan's case is so weak and Home's so strong, it's hard to even imagine a debate between the two.
There was no debate. I just happened to read Kaplan's dreck the same day I saw Horne's devastating deconstruction of the autopsy. And Kaplan just happened to have written the laziest article on the topic I've ever read. BTW, I never was much interested in the assassination until this 50th anniversary year. I hadn't even seen JFK the movie until this year.
Had read your links and was aware there wasn't a real debate. Simply trying to express my surprise at how weak Kaplan's case was in comparison to Home's. Reading DiEugenio's and Mantik's review of parts of Home's book (from links at Mary Ferrell) makes me think one challenge facing those who support a conspiracy is the nearly overwhelming complexity of the case (five volumes in the case of Home) versus the seeming simplicy of that of the LN theorists: Oswald did it, so stop thinking.