I amended the thread title to introduce the core question this OP is framed around. The DPD and FBI, even before Oswald was killed by Ruby, concluded they "had their man," and instead of conducting a broader, fact finding investigation, devoted their effort to confirming their bias against Oswald.
How is your approach to learning and weighing the facts all that different, whether you lean toward Oswald did it, likely acting alone, Oswald was a patsy, may have had some foreknowledge or role, but did not fire a weapon on 22 November?
If you take a dim view of how the FBI approached pursuit of truth from 22 November on, wouldn't you want your own approach
to not be mostly attempting to confirm your bias?
No JFK Assassination researcher or other student of "the case" can claim to be free of bias except by fooling themselves.
However, can you make an argument that you can support with examples that "your way" is results oriented from a research standpoint?
IOW, is your predisposition
welcoming to emerging, verifiable facts or disqualifying of them? Are you
actually wasting your time, as a consequence of your theorizing?
This approach, for example, allows for no consideration that the Klein's alleged "money order that paid for the assassination rifle" was actually legitimate.
How does this advance our knowledge or even help the thinking of anyone, in any way?
Is it reasonable to argue that embracing the "magic bullet" conclusion is in a similar "roadblock to truthseeking"? Is it possible your belief system about "the case" is keeping you from considering what new, verifiable facts actually indicate?
......
I had stumbled into and presented an evidence heavy, reasonable explanation of all Klein's postal money order Armstrong "outliers" and Lance had found the purpose for the numbers string (138....etc.) inked onto the front of the $21.45 money order.:
A "third" way is unappreciated and unwelcome.
MWT Graves had suggested Jim let up on Lance, in an Ed Forum post.
James DiEugenio - Posted November 19, 2015 (edited)
Tommy (Graves):
If you don't have anything of substance to say, then don't say anything. Just read and maybe you will pick up something. First it was a unified field conspiracy theory and now its deep breathing exercises. Whew. Almost makes me wish Trejo was here. :help
DVP's last is more of his patented sophistry.
This is a fact. Pure and simple: The rifle that the WC says Oswald ordered is not the rifle in evidence. Its the wrong rifle. Period. He can fulminate and stomp his feet and fall on the floor about it and throw his usual John Barrymore tantrums a la Bugliosi. He's been doing it for years, decades actually.
None of that will erase this fact. Its the wrong rifle by length, weight and classification.
And there is no credible evidence Oswald ever picked it up. And in fact, he could not have picked it up by postal regs. So the WC lied about this. And they used Harry Holmes to do so. For a very succinct treatment of this see Stewart Galanor's book called, appropriately enough, Cover Up. He deals with it in about four pages, and half of them are primary documents he got from writing the Postmaster General.
Harry Holmes' testimony contradicted that evidence. Either that or Galanor forged the letter he wrote and the documents he was sent. (Incredible the way these anti conspiracy guys end up embracing these fantastic solutions to their evidentiary problems.)
Now, my general point is this: how can an attorney (Lance) isolate one tiny part of this transaction and say its valid, based on that one point. When, in fact, everything about it--from A to Z-- is dubious. And the guy who started the whole MO mess is Holmes! Who he ignores.
By doing so, is he not then guilty of doing the thing he says is true about the people he criticizes?
