Thread 7—Following the evidence will convict the criminals

      Thread 7 consisted of seven messages between H, KR, and L. Its theme, put forward by H, was that today’s conspiracists and nonconspiracists are seeking only the evidence that supports their preconceived positions. A new breed of researcher, a third group, that follows the evidence wherever it leads, is beginning to arise. Only this group has a hope of catching the real criminals.
      H began with the first message, in which he asked me to stick to science and then propounded his “third force” idea. In order to justify the need for this third group, he had to put down both conspiracists and nonconspiracists by claiming that nonconspiracists shouldn’t always be trying to find Oswald’s psychological motive and conspiracists shouldn’t be “pawning off” the assassination on the mob or the CIA.

JM, we are pretty familiar with KR’s theories, but wish he would stick to the scientific stuff - like get some physics students to do what scientists are suppose to do, and replicate the HSCA Acoustical experiments, but he won’t do it. He would rather philosophize about the assassination and muddy the waters.

His "Conference" on the assassination allowed “both” sides of the argument, LN and CT, but as I tried to explain to him, there isn’t two sides to the assassination, it only happened ONE way, and the way to determine that is not to be a LN and try to give Ozzie a personal pscyh motive, or CT and try to pawn it off on the mob or CIA, but there is a THIRD FORCE - people who keep an open mind and follow the evidence where-ever it leads. And that evidence shouldn't be used to win an internet debate, but rather will be presented to a grand jury so those responsible for crimes related to the assassination can be indicted according to the laws of the land.

And then the debate will be over.

In response to some pretty strong charges in this message, I used the second message to request specifics from him:

   It seems that characterizations are flying fast and maybe loose in your message. Could you kindly clear up the following points?

   (1) When you say "we" "wish he would stick to the scientific stuff..." who is "we"? Be specific.
   (2) Your phrase "philosophize about the assassination" seems to imply talk that can never go anywhere. Please be specific.
   (3) In what specific way do you suggest that I am "muddying the waters"? I thought I was sticking to the evidence and trying to clarify it.
   (4) Your reference to our "Conference" of last spring suggests that you think it was something less than that. Please tell us how you define "conference" and how our meeting in Providence did not meet that standard.
   (5) You imply that all nonconspiracists give Oswald a psychological motive. Please back up that assertion.
   (6) Please cite a single instance where I and my course at URI are not following the evidence wherever it leads. And please relate your answer to the modified scientific method explained in detail at http://karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC482G/Spring2000/Critical_thinking/Sci_method_and_the_JFK_as.html.

   Thanks in advance.

      H addressed these points in the third message:

Point 1: KR, I have been trying for years to get some scientific outfit - like the Woods Hole acoustics center up by you, to drop the sonor and military s*** for a little while and try to replicate and confirm or refute the HSCA acoustics experiments. Now you take a scientific track and are a teacher, and they say that any regular university physics lab has the hardware to duplicate those studies, and nobody will do it. I'm not a physics guy, a photo guy, or a medical-autopsy guy, I leave those areas to those specialists who supposidly know what they are talking about and are interested in this case. You are a scientist and teacher interested in this case - among the many "we."

Point 2: Well, you can talk about what you want to forever, and what's the point? Objective, subjective, Conspiracy theories, Lone Nuters, let's have a debate, you take one side, I'll take the other, use logic and reason, don't shout, be specific,....

Point 3: There aren't just Lone Nuters and Conspiracy Theorists. I am looking for people to keep an open mind, follow the evidence, finish the investigation that didn't take place yet, don't just calarify it, and teach students how to debate logically, but teach them to become independent resarchers, know everything published about some aspect of any case, and take it to another level, find a new witness, id a rare document, but don't just take sides.

Point 4: At first I thought it might be interesting, and I know others that were there and contributed, and I think that it was great that you published most of it right on the internet, complete transcripts of abstracts and email exchanges with anybody who loged on - that was a first, and I'll recognize you for instigating that. Most other conferences, even COPA and LANCER, videotape the presentations and make you buy the tape. So you are one up on the others there. But any conference that encourages debate rather than research is to me, a waste of time. Also See: Vincent Salandria's "False Mystery" for more on this line of thinking.

Point 5: I don't know all the nonconspiracists, though I know most of them, and for anyone to claim that Oswald acted alone, must come up with a motive and then they start looking into Oswald's psych, and whether he was lonely, or got laid the night before, or something about his mother...

Do you know any nonconspiracists who don't try to give Oswald a psychological motive? I know a psychiatrist who is studying the mentality of those who belive in the Lone Nut hypothesis - which hasn't been proved, so it too is not a theory.

Point 6: Other than the acoustic evidence, okay, I'll check it out and get back to you Ken, though I have already checked out your site and got some good feedback last year when I posted some stuff there.

I'll also give you my series of hypothesis that, if you follow them, will lead you to who killed JFK.

In spite of H’s lengthy reply, it was clear that he had not answered my questions. I responded so in the third message:

KR: (1) When you say "we" "wish he would stick to the scientific stuff..."who is "we"? Be specific.

H: KR, I have been trying for years to get some scientific outfit - like the Woods Hole acoustics center up by you, to drop the sonor and military s*** for a little while and try to replicate and confirm or refute the HSCA acoustics experiments. Now you take a scientific track and are a teacher, and they say that any regular university physics lab has the hardware to duplicate those studies, and nobody will do it. I'm not a physics guy, a photo guy, or a medical-autopsy guy, I leave those areas to those specialists who supposidly know what they are talking about and are interested in this case. You are a scientist and teacher interested in this case - among the many "we."

KR: Doesn't really answer the question, but more important stuff below.

*****

KR: (2) Your phrase “philosophize about the assassination” seems to imply talk that can never go anywhere. Please be specific.

H: Well, you can talk about what you want to forever, and what's the point? Objective, subjective, Conspiracy theories, Lone Nuters, let's have a debate, you take one side, I'll take the other, use logic and reason, don't shout, be specific,....

KR: I'm disappointed that you think that discussions about reasoning and evidence are all just "talk." They are much more than that. I give examples of "the point" below.

*****

KR: (3) In what specific way do you suggest that I am "muddying the waters"? I thought I was sticking to the evidence and trying to clarify it.

H: There aren't just Lone Nuters and Conspiracy Theorists. I am looking for people to keep an open mind, follow the evidence, finish the investigation that didn't take place yet, don't just calarify it, and teach students how to debate logically, but teach them to become independent resarchers, know everything published about some aspect of any case, and take it to another level, find a new witness, id a rare document, but don't just take sides.

KR: Now we get to some meat. One of the virtues of critical thinking is that it identifies hidden assumptions. You have several in your answer. One of them is that we don’t have to clarify the existing evidence before we go out and try to get more of it. A second is that we need to "take it to another level, find a new witness," etc. The first is self-evidently false, and I strongly dispute the second one. Had you been in my class this semester, you would have seen how unbelievably strong the web of physical evidence is. Few people have grasped this important concept. (A polite way of saying that most JFK researchers have not taken the necessary time to grasp the real implications of this evidence.) You would also have gotten a new perspective on how unlikely it is that anything significantly new will be found. (But I don't disparage anyone for trying, just for not knowing the full situation before they start.) It's all there on the web for anyone to see. But it takes time to assimilate it all--typically months. For example, A says he has read it, but shows in the next breath that he hasn't understood it.

*****

KR: (4) Your reference to our “Conference” of last spring suggests that you think it was something less than that. Please tell us how you define "conference" and how our meeting in Providence did not meet that standard.

H: At first I thought it might be interesting, and I know others that were there and contributed, and I think that it was great that you published email exchanges with anybody who loged on - that was a first, and I'll recognize you for instigating that. Most other conferences, even COPA and LANCER, videotape the presentations and make you buy the tape. So you are one up on the others there. But any conference that encourages debate rather than research is to me, a waste of time. Also See: Vincent Salandria's “False Mystery” for more on this line of thinking.

KR: I am again disappointed that you think of heavy discussions of technique and evidence as “debating.” They are an essential first step in research, if not more. Research means getting the story straight before you hit the pavement.

*****

KR: (5) You imply that all nonconspiracists give Oswald a psychological motive. Please back up that assertion.

H: I don’t know all the nonconspiracists, though I know most of them, and for anyone to claim that Oswald acted alone, must come up with a motive and then they start looking into Oswald’s psych, and whether he was lonely, or got laid the night before, or something about his mother...

Do you know any nonconspiracists who don’t try to give Oswald a psychological motive? I know a psychiatrist who is studying the mentality of those who belive in the Lone Nut hypothesis - which hasn't been proved, so it too is not a theory.

KR: More hidden assumptions here. One is that you can’t find the doer until you have the motive. Patently false. The old rubric of “motive, means, and opportunity” has done more to hurt real research into the JFK assassination than almost anything else I know of. A better sequence is facts first, doer second, and everything else third.

*****

KR: (6) Please cite a single instance where I and my course at URI are not following the evidence wherever it leads. And please relate your answer to the modified scientific method explained in detail at

H: Other than the acoustic evidence, okay, I’ll check it out and get back to you KR, though I have already checked out your site and got some good feedback last year when I posted some stuff there.

KR: Not the right answer. You don't run out for more acoustics tests until you understand the first set and its context. The whole acoustics episode was a rushed deal that went off track early and stayed off. The evidence that they generated, even if you don’t consider it repudiated, is not strong enough to conclude anything meaningful from. Clicks, pops, and rifles and gunmen that leave no trace don’t do it for me!

*****

H: I'll also give you my series of hypothesis that, if you follow them, will lead you to who killed JFK.

KR: You're on! Let's hear them.

In response to all this, H then stated in the fifth message that he thought I was out of touch with the latest JFK research:

KR, I don't think you are up to date on the what the state-of-the- research actually is.
- For instance, do you know that ONI is investigating the mysterious death of the Autopsy room photographer?
- Are you familiar with Adele Edisen’s ARRB testimony and the files we are reviewing on Dr./Col. Jose Rivera, who knew Oswald’s Magazine Street, New Orleans phone number two weeks before Oswald himself knew what it would be?
- Have you seen any of John Armstrong's work on Oswald’s early life and the Harvey and Lee theory he is working on?
- Have you checked in with JFKresearch and follow some of the threads there on Jack Ruby and the Air Force One tapes, that we have traced to Collins Radio in an attempt to locate the complete undedited tapes?
-Have you read the Final Report of the Assassinations Record Review Board and noticed all of the agencies and departments that did not comly with the JFK Act, under penalty of perjury?
-Do you know about Steve Kennan, the “Quaker from Philadelphia” who rode Oswald around Mexico City on the back of his motorcycle, and the attempts to locate him?

There are hundreds of independent researchers out there working on various angles of this case, and we are closer now than ever of “breaking the case wide open,” and it's going to happen, and then you can check and see if we recognize “evidence” when we see it. Because the purpose of all this isn’t to win an internet debate but solve the goddamn mystery in our lifetime, and it’s going to happen.

My hypothesis comming your way soon.  All the best, and thanks for your continuing interest in this case.

At this point, L jumped into the thread, with a sixth message that challenged H:

And exactly what would you present to a grand jury? In order to have an indictment, you need at least two things: -- a suspect, and – enough evidence to justify holding a trial.

The buffs have neither. It is not enough to say “they” or “the government” or even “the CIA” did it. You can’t indict “they.” And there is no evidence which points to a single invidivual which would legitimize an indictment.

Surely you don’t think someone should be indicted just to satisfy the buffs? That sounds like Jim Garrison.

And the fact is, without a suspect or sufficient evidence, there is no conspiracy.

L’s comments were right on point until the last one, which should have read “there is no proven conspiracy.” Lack of evidence for conspiracy is not necessarily the same as lack of conspiracy.
      The seventh and last message of this thread was from H. In response to L’s charge that H had neither evidence nor suspects for a conspiracy, H responded with five paragraph that say essentially, “We have both, but I’m not going to tell you who or what”:

Hi L, but I'm not a buff, nor a Conspiracy Theorists, I'm an independent researcher and freelance journalist. And you are absolutely correct in that you can't indict the CIA, and only individuals can be held accountable, but you are totally wrong that there is no evidence and no suspects. There are both.

Now I'm not going to present what I have to you just to convince you as a newsgrouper, but there are preceidents now for such indictments – the assassin of Medgar Evers was indicted and successfully prosecuted 30 years after the murder, the civl trials of OJ and MLK provide a means of activating civil proceedings if only to obtain more testimony and place evidence on the record in a court of law, and the recent indictments of the Birmingham bombers indicates that there is a change of attitute within the Department of Justice about such cases.

In addition, there are many other crimes realted to the assassination other than those responsible for blowing JFK's head open - destruction of evidence - Connally's clothes, the limo, SS files etc., obstruction of Justice, and the crime for agency directors not complying with the JFK Act is perjury - and certainly if we can charge the pres with perjury, we can indict the head of the NSA, Secret Service and other agencies that failed to comply with the act.

How can you say there's no evidence? There’s not only evidence from the standpoint of a routine homicide investigation that leads directly to individual suspects - but there’s evidence that the assassination was not just a conspiracy, but a coup d’etat, and this will be easier to solve because it was an inside job.

And there’s standing grand juries in D.C. and Dallas and Philadelphia that have jurisdiction in these cases, and somewhere there’s an honest and responsible assistant DA who will someday take these cases to court and end the debate.

This message provided no specifics, however. Although H referred confidently to abundant evidence in various areas, he ended on a weak note as he hoped aloud to someday, somewhere find “an honest and responsible assistant DA who will someday take these cases to court and end the debate.” This amounted to saying, “We have everything we need. The rest of the world just doesn’t understand.”

      How can we summarize Thread 7? Many promises, including breaking the case wide open soon (how many times have we heard that before?), but no names or hard evidence, no careful thinking, and no real indication that this third group had anything other than wishful thinking.

Ahead to Thread 8
Back to Thread 6
Back to Anatomy Of A Newsgroup Discussion