JFK Assassination Forum

It seems obvious to me that the Congressional hearing should be exposed to a balanced amount of information (some from both sides of the argument). Sadly, so many of us get a start in this subject based only on the conspiracy advocate side, form opinions from only that one side of the argument, and close our minds to anything else. Those who don’t completely close their minds often convert from a CT mindset and accept that the evidence that we have for what it is. All the while keeping an open mind for any credible evidence of a conspiracy that might be found. The controversy will most likely never go away. But I do believe that everyone owes it to theirselves to try to get a balanced “diet” of information.

True, but we've seen over the years (decades, century?) how partisanship can take over these hearings. The bad drives out the good. It's gotten worse but it's always been there. I was recently re-reading a book on the famous Hiss/Chambers controversy (1949) and the Congressional hearings on that very important issue were often taken over by the true believers - those that knew Hiss was guilty versus those who knew he was a victim of right wing smears; those who wanted to get the Democrats/Truman and those who saw it only as an attempt to get them. Again, the bad drives out the good.

The problem here with this hearing is not really partisanship as much as a sort of ideological "horseshoe" alliance between the left wing conspiracy believers - Stone, Morley et al - with this new right wing MAGA conspiracy believers - Luna, Carlson, Beck et al. - movement who are convinced that "The deep state got JFK like they tried to get Trump!!". Nobody wants to defend the "deep state". Fred is regularly smeared as a CIA agent or apologist and other names by the left conspiracists. Things fall apart; the center can't hold.

It's still early yet; let's see if cooler heads emerge. Yeah, who am I kidding <g>.

Lance's childish approach to this debate is really disappointing.
I seem to have upset him somehow but he won't say what it is.
This rambling, rant of a post is impossible to engage with - it's a combination of lies, fantasy, misrepresentation and ignorance.

The only coherent argument he makes is that my "simple" theory is somehow too complex to be realistic (I think).
Like almost everything he posts, I find this really baffling.
There are very few moving parts to the theory I am proposing, it is as pared down as I can make it.
It involves a handful of people.
No CIA/FBI/KGB/Mafia/Cubans etc.
No multiple shooters.
Just one man firing a rifle from the Sniper's Nest.

Like all Nutters, Lance is convinced that the theory he believes in is a FACT, He believes that Oswald assassinating JFK is a FACT, when it is a theory.
He has so convinced himself it is a fact that he can't engage in any meaningful way with someone proposing an alternative theory.

Lance, if you can manage a calm, rational, adult debate I would be more than willing to engage.

You will be pleased to learn that this shall be my last response, ever, to anything you post. You are being consigned, along with the Harvey & Lee folks, to the Not Worth My Time bin. Even we Factoid Busters have our limits.

Your version of the Conspiratorial Tap Dance, much like theirs, is to feign obtuseness; deflect, deflect, deflect; and simply keep repeating the same nonsensical arguments ad nauseam.

A conspiracy theory is not “simple” merely because one declares it so. What could be simpler than “invisible aliens did it”? What could be simpler that “Angleton, Truly and a Mafia hit man did it”? These indeed have the virtue of being simple. They suffer from the same defects as yours: They are simple only if one ignores their utter implausibility and all the gaps in evidence and logic they blithely skip over. They are not merely “too” speculative – they are entirely speculative.

LBJ? He figures in virtually every conspiracy theory, so we’ll let it slide. Byrd? A right-wing Texas oil guy, so we’ll let it slide.

Cason? Now things start to unravel. OK, he was conservative and not a JFK fan. You have nothing in his entire life, before or after the JFKA, to suggest he would have been or was amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Byrd or would have selected Shelley as the point man.

Shelley? The theory goes poof. You have absolutely nothing in the life of Shelley, before or after the assassination, to suggest he was a fanatical ideologue or would have been amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Cason. Nor, if he was, can you account for his actions during the noon hour on 11-22-63, which do not mesh with your theory at all.

Assassination guy? Oh, dear. Wallace? You have nothing to suggest why Wallace would have been amenable to an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Shelley or Cason. Logically, Wallace would have required assurance LBJ was on board – there goes the entire “compartmentalization” aspect – and significant compensation.

Dougherty? Now we’re desperate. You have absolutely nothing, simple as that. You cannot even explain why he, the supposed gunman, bolstered the supposed patsy’s alibi.

Oswald? My little effort on “If I Had Planned the Conspiracy” was intended to be self-evidently comical. Yours suffers from precisely the same defects, but you fail to see the humor. Not extending your theory beyond Cason, Shelley and Wallace/Dougherty, explain how Oswald ever got on the patsy radar screen in the first place. Explain how the rifle got into the building. Explain why no one exercised any control over the supposed patsy during the assassination and how he was able to simply walk out of the building. Explain why he went home, got his pistol, killed Tippit, resisted arrest and was completely uncooperative in custody; explain how these are the actions of an innocent patsy.

In the unlikely event you actually attempt to explain these things, be sure to highlight those portions of your explanation, if any, that are not 100% raw, ad hoc speculation.

Done. Enjoy your time in the bin. Those H&L folks are a lot of fun, and they can tap dance with the best of ‘em.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jefferson-morley-s-congressional-nothingburger

Jefferson Morley's Congressional NothingBurger

Here is my take on the Congressional hearings yesterday. The Congresspeople were incredibly inept and there was precious little about documents. Various factoids were mentioned with little pushback.

It seems obvious to me that the Congressional hearing should be exposed to a balanced amount of information (some from both sides of the argument). Sadly, so many of us get a start in this subject based only on the conspiracy advocate side, form opinions from only that one side of the argument, and close our minds to anything else. Those who don’t completely close their minds often convert from a CT mindset and accept that the evidence that we have for what it is. All the while keeping an open mind for any credible evidence of a conspiracy that might be found. The controversy will most likely never go away. But I do believe that everyone owes it to theirselves to try to get a balanced “diet” of information.

If they are a low-level KGB informant married to her Handsome Prince Charming, I would think very credible.

Would you?

What if I had made it more obvious for you by writing, "Her Handsome Prince Charming" and "The Worker's Paradise" in scare quotes?

BTW, Deriabin said she had to be at least a low-level informant.

Maybe you missed that part.

The KGB said she was stupid, lazy, not a good Communist, and that the USSR was happy to get rid of her, yet she was a trained pharmacist, she'd recently been given a raise, and she was a dues-paying member of Komsomol.

It is interesting, isn't it, that she'd been a KGB "swallow" in Leningrad, she said she didn't know who her father was but she had a patronym ("Nikolayevna'), her uncle was an MVD colonel, and she spoke English a lot better than she let on?

Not too devoted to her work. She was not even living with him anymore.

How credible are KGB agents?