23-12-2009, 04:57 PM
There is no reason at all to suppose that evil doers in their wildest dreams would have though that the faces in the crowd would become such a topic of interest in research on the death of JFK--nor, of course, that it would become a kind of mini-industry among those who want to know the truth! There is also no reason at all to be bothered that sometimes there will be differences of opinion about matters of this kind, where critical exchange--advancing arguments for and against different positions--is among our most important tools in advancing our understanding of the case. Not all opinions are equal. Those that are better supported by logic and evidence are those more deserving of assent--even though new evidence and alternative interpretations may cause reconsideration. Allen Eaglesham advanced a bad argument and I called him on it. Each of us is going to notice different things. I spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, so I am going to notice inadequacies in argument. Jack spent a liftime analyzing photographs, so he is going to notice anomalies in them. Similarly for the rest of us. It is rational to be responsible to new arguments and there is no reason for concern if, now and then, we may cross swords over crucial issues. The assassination was an historic event--the biggest operation in the history of the agency--and many who knew what was about to happen wanted to be there. There is nothing surprising about that. Because James Richards and Allan Eaglesham, among others, have done such fine work on this in the past, we have an excellent idea of who they were and where they were standing. What surprises me is not that there might be an occasional dispute over one or another of these identifications, but that there would be any doubt that they would want to be there! They did; they were; and in a striking number of cases, we have been able to identify them. That, I think, is a nice confirmation of foreknowledge and of complicity in the death of our 35th president. And the odds that we are wrong about this, as Jack and Peter have observed, are virtually infinitesimal. Some of them, who were most deeply involved, wanted to be there and their presence was caught in photographs and on film. What is remarkable, all things considered, is not that they were there but that we discovered them. For that we have Richards and Eaglesham, especially, to thank. But We not likely to figure all this out if we disregard evidence--such as these photographs--or abuse logic in the process!