06-07-2014, 02:34 PM
That's good to know. The question then is who did Groden interview? If Groden got taken then it's his responsibility as a dedicated researcher to expose it before more people quote it. It's understandable to fall for a tempting story. It's less so to not expose it once it becomes questionable.
If this story is bogus it still has value because it shows the desperation of the conspirators to throw truth-seekers off their trail. If it was disinformation designed to discredit researchers Groden can still salvage the fact he was played by the guilty parties. He should then try to research how whoever he interviewed was induced to tell a false story. I personally would like to know more about who exactly Groden interviewed and what their agenda was. If Parker exposed a disinformation plot he didn't go far enough. There's still a story there.
From what I've seen of the Reopen The Kennedy Case site it appears to be a juvenile name-calling site. I cringe when I hear a conspiracy exposing author like DiEugenio refer positively to a site where a victim like Ralph Yates is denied by some real garbage arguments while they take credit for it and abuse people who stand up for him. The assassination community must be bored because a new sport has arisen where pecksniffs like Lee Farley and Martin Hay think they are going to gain fame by attacking the veracity of main assassination victims like Commander Pitzer and others. This has led to an ill-inspired momentum where authors like Peter Janney are put through the mill by overzealous researchers cynically questioning their material while missing the obvious. While selling themselves as pruners of bad branches they have lopped off some serious fruit-bearing limbs of assassination evidence. Those misguided researchers tend to not come back and argue the finer details.
If this story is bogus it still has value because it shows the desperation of the conspirators to throw truth-seekers off their trail. If it was disinformation designed to discredit researchers Groden can still salvage the fact he was played by the guilty parties. He should then try to research how whoever he interviewed was induced to tell a false story. I personally would like to know more about who exactly Groden interviewed and what their agenda was. If Parker exposed a disinformation plot he didn't go far enough. There's still a story there.
From what I've seen of the Reopen The Kennedy Case site it appears to be a juvenile name-calling site. I cringe when I hear a conspiracy exposing author like DiEugenio refer positively to a site where a victim like Ralph Yates is denied by some real garbage arguments while they take credit for it and abuse people who stand up for him. The assassination community must be bored because a new sport has arisen where pecksniffs like Lee Farley and Martin Hay think they are going to gain fame by attacking the veracity of main assassination victims like Commander Pitzer and others. This has led to an ill-inspired momentum where authors like Peter Janney are put through the mill by overzealous researchers cynically questioning their material while missing the obvious. While selling themselves as pruners of bad branches they have lopped off some serious fruit-bearing limbs of assassination evidence. Those misguided researchers tend to not come back and argue the finer details.