Donald Adams Lecture

[Jim DiEugenio]

Did not know he did this, it appears to be from 2004.

One of the very few guys from the inside who told the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwyeOaZq...td_WbVv9hY

[Bill Fite]

Did not know he did this, it appears to be from 2004.

One of the very few guys from the inside who told the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwyeOaZq...td_WbVv9hY

Very interesting and well-presented..... thanks for pointing to this.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Adams is a really good witness for our side.

I think he is really credible. Too bad he has passed on.

[James Lateer]

"Adams is a really good witness for our side." What is "our side"? Is this implication that there are two sides and one of the sides is that Oswald was the lone gunman?

If this is the concept, then IMHO those who give credit to the "lone gunman" theory as being one of the sides is actually helping in the 56 year-old-cover-up.

Just because the mainstream media is still lying about the assassination doesn't mean one gives dignity to the lone gunman theory as a "side" of an argument, etc. IHMO.

That isn't a "side" to an argument since honest people should only be dealing in the truth. There are legitimate "sides" regarding the assassination, but they are such theories as (1) ex-Nazis did it vs (2) Southern segregationists did it. Apparently Don Adams is in the camp of blaming Joseph Milteer and Segregationists, Minutemen, and a complicit secret service.

But to present the JFK assassination argument as (1) Oswald did it alone vs (2) two or more people did it is to ignore all the research of 56 years (and to actually help the liars).

The lone gunmen theorists are not arguing, THEY ARE LYING. They shouldn't be given the dignity of being a side to any argument. Lies do not qualify as argument IMHO. They are lies, period.

James Lateer

[Peter Lemkin]

"Our side" I believe is the side that believes the 'official version/lie/false-flag' events of 11.22.63 were knowingly false, contrived both before, during and after the fact, part of a wide conspiracy involving many persons and groupings/interests.

Yes, from there 'our side' has many different camps/beliefs/viewpoints/conclusions - some of them accepting in part those of other camps - some not. Some of them alternate diversions from the Truth, as best as can now be discerned - either by faulty logic, bad research, and even a few inserted disinformation entities.

Adams doesn't believe what I or, I think, most of those who frequent this website believe were the central culprits in the assassination; however, he was an insider who clearly demonstrates that there were deceptions, secret information, hidden information, denied information, invented information, etc. within the FBI and other governmental entities to drive a false narrative - and that is important for 'our side'....even if we [I certainly] do not believe Milteer and his friends were central. I do believe they were peripherally involved, perhaps to provide a false trail - of which there were so many other persons and groups! Confusion and false trails, decoys and false sponsors were built into this plot from the beginning or soon after the beginning.

To say the case and the plot was not complex is insane. It is the most complex assassination conspiracy I have even seen presented [and also the one with the greatest effect and importance]. I think 'our side' is making great progress despite all the forces arrayed against us; the fog of covert war is clearing and the picture is becoming clearer. Even those who don't [in my opinion] hit a bulls eye can be helpful in convincing the public that the official version was wrong, designed to be wrong, knowingly wrong, involved and still involves a cover-up from the highest levels and the complicit media - and that the official version CAUSED and ALLOWED other events to happen afterward - and still causes and allows things to happen that are inimical to democracy and the rule of law. Exposing that [all of that] is our task and it will take much work and even evidence and research from those who IMHO don't see the entire picture clearly...or who are fixated on one part of the plot, which they incorrectly see as its entirety.

The most important first step is to disabuse all to realize the 'official version' was a complete out-and-out lie, with only the date and time and place of the assassination correct; almost EVERY OTHER detail an invented and knowing lie!...but done for a purpose...and not out of embarrassment nor incompetence. After that, there is a lot of educating to do in a VERY complex case. Slowly, we are accomplishing this, I believe. Most in the USA now do NOT believe the 'official version'...but they don't know what to think...and are confused....some also afraid to 'go there' to where this really leads...which necessitates 'growing up' and dismissing the myths about America and American government and its agencies etc. as always doing good, trying their best and being on the right side of truth and justice. It even IMO calls for a total restructuring of our form of government - something that terrifies the average person and is a call to war for the elites. So be it...there is no other way. You could not have had Vietnam, Iran-Contra, OKC, WTC first bombing, 9-11, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even , Nixon, GHWB, Reagan, Clinton, W nor Trump without the JFK assassination being done without the real reasons and perpetrators known. With economic and environmental collapse at hand, with the divide between those that have too much (stolen from the rest of us), and those who have too little and can not get again widening at an ever increasing rate - we either expose all the lies and bring down this deformed system of government - or we perish, IMO. That simple.

[James Lateer]

I finally get what the dichotomy is here: does the use of a term like "our side" (vs. "their side") imply some sort of moral equivalence or symmetrical nature between the "two sides"?

In WWII, you had "our side" which was US, UK, Russia, Canada, etc. vs "their side" which was Germany, Japan, Italy, Romania, Hungary, etc etc. Pretty symmetrical. Kind of like "our side" is the Packers, "their side" is the Bears.

I guess I am shocked to hear the JFK issue described as "our side" vs. "their side".

I had, unfortunately, basal cell carcinoma back in 2010. I did not view the cancer as "their side". This is kind of like the National Security State. They, like cancer, don't really have a side. Like a rotting tree trunk. The rot is not a "side".

Viewing the JFK case in terms of "our side" vs. "their side", to me, smacks of looking at it as a "liberal" vs. a "conservative" analysis. Unfortunately, there are some people who no doubt see it that way.

I also am fairly involved with Biblical studies. There you have the same thing--you have "isogesis" vs. "exegesis". With "isogesis", you decide what you want the passage to say or mean, then you manipulate (or falsify) the words and the translation to come out on "your side". Obviously, not a very useful approach if you want to learn things.

And when Robert J. Oppenheimer and Edward Teller were working on inventing the A-Bomb, they may have been working for a "side". In their case, they were on the side of democracy vs. totalitarianism. But the A-Bomb itself was not on a side. It didn't represent a side. It was just the A-Bomb. It would kill people on any and every side. It did not ask questions. End of discussion.

So somebody (or some people) murdered JFK. An honest person will admit the truth, that this is a factual situation. An honest person simply does not manipulate the facts to make things come out to one's liking. There can't be a "liberal" or "conservative" theory as to the identity of JFK's killers. To think that way is to admit to thinking of lying about things of great importance as being potentially useful. Some people would agree with this latter point, but then, of course, they are liars. And what they are saying is not, after all, the truth.

So we have this question: if the JFK research features some who are telling a true account of the facts, and others who are lying, do the liars deserve the dignity of being called a "side" ?

To consider the "lone gunman" theorists a "side" IMHO is to concede to them a level of respect which they don't really deserve regardless of their motivation.

James Lateer

[Peter Lemkin]

I finally get what the dichotomy is here: does the use of a term like "our side" (vs. "their side") imply some sort of moral equivalence or symmetrical nature between the "two sides"?

In WWII, you had "our side" which was US, UK, Russia, Canada, etc. vs "their side" which was Germany, Japan, Italy, Romania, Hungary, etc etc. Pretty symmetrical. Kind of like "our side" is the Packers, "their side" is the Bears.

I guess I am shocked to hear the JFK issue described as "our side" vs. "their side".

I had, unfortunately, basal cell carcinoma back in 2010. I did not view the cancer as "their side". This is kind of like the National Security State. They, like cancer, don't really have a side. Like a rotting tree trunk. The rot is not a "side".

Viewing the JFK case in terms of "our side" vs. "their side", to me, smacks of looking at it as a "liberal" vs. a "conservative" analysis. Unfortunately, there are some people who no doubt see it that way.

I also am fairly involved with Biblical studies. There you have the same thing--you have "isogesis" vs. "exegesis". With "isogesis", you decide what you want the passage to say or mean, then you manipulate (or falsify) the words and the translation to come out on "your side". Obviously, not a very useful approach if you want to learn things.

And when Robert J. Oppenheimer and Edward Teller were working on inventing the A-Bomb, they may have been working for a "side". In their case, they were on the side of democracy vs. totalitarianism. But the A-Bomb itself was not on a side. It didn't represent a side. It was just the A-Bomb. It would kill people on any and every side. It did not ask questions. End of discussion.

So somebody (or some people) murdered JFK. An honest person will admit the truth, that this is a factual situation. An honest person simply does not manipulate the facts to make things come out to one's liking. There can't be a "liberal" or "conservative" theory as to the identity of JFK's killers. To think that way is to admit to thinking of lying about things of great importance as being potentially useful. Some people would agree with this latter point, but then, of course, they are liars. And what they are saying is not, after all, the truth.

So we have this question: if the JFK research features some who are telling a true account of the facts, and others who are lying, do the liars deserve the dignity of being called a "side" ?

To consider the "lone gunman" theorists a "side" IMHO is to concede to them a level of respect which they don't really deserve regardless of their motivation.

James Lateer

This strikes me as argument for argument sake and unwarranted semantics you have indulged in. Of course, the only real 'sides' [positions] are the Truth vs. Untruth/Big Lie/Deception. Defining precisely the former position has not been an easy one over many decades - but I think great progress has been and is being made [by a shockingly small number of persons - aided by a trickle of witnesses and documents, etc.]! The other position is a gorgon with many heads - each with its own type of deception or false trail - but with the unifying idea of leading people astray from the reality of what actually happened. Personally, I'm more interested in working on fitting puzzle pieces into the ever more complete 1000000000 piece puzzle of the Truth of what happened, than in semantic/philosophical arguments for argument sake........ I do not believe anyone was making any of the arguments nor taking any of the positions you are attributing to others...... I for one do not plan to partake further in this pointless [IMHO] and off-topic theme.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Sorry to have set off another Ridgecrest tremor.

Its simple to understand I think.

There are not that many people who were involved with the actual investigating of the case who have spoken out against just how bad it was. To my knowledge, for example, not one of the lawyers involved with the WC ever recanted.

Adams is one of the few FBI agents who came out and said, hey this was a farce. That is why he is good for our side. Since the WC advocates main argument is to one of authority.

Well, this is a guy in authority who says, BS. I think that helps us.

[James Lateer]

Mr. DiEugenio--I think I'm getting your point---I interpret your comment to mean that there are precious few people who really are digging for JFK truths, so we need all people available to help us who are honest researchers. We want them on our side, especially people like Don Adams who are ex-FBI.

The discouraging thing to me is that there are enough people who believe in the lone gunman theory to represent a "side" to the argument in re JFK's murder. But that may be the harsh reality of it all.

It's a little too much like saying "let's hear the Mafia's side of the story." Let's face it, with the Godfather movies and such, there are probably people who privately admire the Godfathers of yore. But do they have any credible or worthwhile "side" to their life stories? Admittedly, their stories have sold a lot of movie tickets, so....

But the JFK murder was probably the second-worst criminal enterprise in US history, exceeded in evil only by the Lincoln assassination plot. It gripes me to no end that there is any "Oswald did it" side to the "argument" at all. Whatsoever. I guess I'll just have to stay pissed off about it.

James Lateer

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

Mr. DiEugenio--I think I'm getting your point---I interpret your comment to mean that there are precious few people who really are digging for JFK truths, so we need all people available to help us who are honest researchers. We want them on our side, especially people like Don Adams who are ex-FBI.

The discouraging thing to me is that there are enough people who believe in the lone gunman theory to represent a "side" to the argument in re JFK's murder. But that may be the harsh reality of it all.

It's a little too much like saying "let's hear the Mafia's side of the story." Let's face it, with the Godfather movies and such, there are probably people who privately admire the Godfathers of yore. But do they have any credible or worthwhile "side" to their life stories? Admittedly, their stories have sold a lot of movie tickets, so....

But the JFK murder was probably the second-worst criminal enterprise in US history, exceeded in evil only by the Lincoln assassination plot. It gripes me to no end that there is any "Oswald did it" side to the "argument" at all. Whatsoever. I guess I'll just have to stay pissed off about it.

James Lateer

Yes, I guess you will. Whatever.