Marsh! Weisberg! Researcher or Kook?

My $0.02:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

19efppp

2021-02-01 02:58:21 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

Oh, well, then maybe he was okay, after all.

davide...@gmail.com

2021-02-01 02:58:45 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

There are a few Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists who are
certainly more on the fringe than others. They are outliers even within
their own cottage community.

On the conspiracy spectrum, you have those who not only believe Oswald was
completely innocent of the shooting (what you frequently call
anybody-but-Oswald) but they actually go so far as to make a ridiculous
argument as to who DID shoot Kennedy. On a scale from 0-10, I would call
these people a ZERO. They deny all the evidence that remotely implicates
Oswald. It's fake, fabricated and planted. They then make unsupportable
arguments about who actually did the shooting. Then there are the 1's.
They are still anybody-but-Oswald types, but they never really propose who
actually DID shoot Kennedy. They're not really theorists. They're
anti-theorists. They have no cogent thoughts about what DID happen - but
they'll rail on and on about what did NOT happen.

So, what's the other end of the conspiracy spectrum? Who would rank the
highest? How do you get a "high" score of 10 as a conspiracy theorists in
this debate? A 10 agrees that Oswald was the 6th floor gunman. He agrees
there were no other shooters. He agrees that Oswald even killed Officer
Tippit. They basically believe everything non-conspiracy believers believe
EXCEPT that they believe that Oswald may have done the shooting at the
behest of some individual/organization/entity which may have supported
Oswald's effort in some way - if only providing him the encouragement.
They do not categorically claim this is true - only that it's likely.

Harold Weisberg is certainly on the low end of the spectrum.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

John McAdams

2021-02-01 03:19:23 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

There are a few Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists who are
certainly more on the fringe than others. They are outliers even within
their own cottage community.
On the conspiracy spectrum, you have those who not only believe Oswald was
completely innocent of the shooting (what you frequently call
anybody-but-Oswald) but they actually go so far as to make a ridiculous
argument as to who DID shoot Kennedy. On a scale from 0-10, I would call
these people a ZERO. They deny all the evidence that remotely implicates
Oswald. It's fake, fabricated and planted. They then make unsupportable
arguments about who actually did the shooting. Then there are the 1's.
They are still anybody-but-Oswald types, but they never really propose who
actually DID shoot Kennedy. They're not really theorists. They're
anti-theorists. They have no cogent thoughts about what DID happen - but
they'll rail on and on about what did NOT happen.
So, what's the other end of the conspiracy spectrum? Who would rank the
highest? How do you get a "high" score of 10 as a conspiracy theorists in
this debate? A 10 agrees that Oswald was the 6th floor gunman. He agrees
there were no other shooters. He agrees that Oswald even killed Officer
Tippit. They basically believe everything non-conspiracy believers believe
EXCEPT that they believe that Oswald may have done the shooting at the
behest of some individual/organization/entity which may have supported
Oswald's effort in some way - if only providing him the encouragement.
They do not categorically claim this is true - only that it's likely.
Harold Weisberg is certainly on the low end of the spectrum.

Gerald Ford, remember, insisted that the WCR not say there was no
conspiracy, but rather that they had found no *evidence* of
conspiracy.

I think if there was a conspiracy, we by now would actually have some
evidence of it. But I'm less sure of that than I am sure that Oswald
shot JFK.

There is another dimension, however: morality.

Some conspiracy theorists are downright immoral.

How? In Mark Lane's case he outright lies, and knows he is lying.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane

Most conspiracy theorists do, however, genuinely believe what they
say.

The other category I consider immoral are the Garrisonites. Not only
do they viciously attack people who disagree with them, they condone a
DA who ruined a man's life -- and indeed inflicted huge grief on
several victims.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

19efppp

2021-02-01 13:11:27 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

There are a few Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists who are
certainly more on the fringe than others. They are outliers even within
their own cottage community.
On the conspiracy spectrum, you have those who not only believe Oswald was
completely innocent of the shooting (what you frequently call
anybody-but-Oswald) but they actually go so far as to make a ridiculous
argument as to who DID shoot Kennedy. On a scale from 0-10, I would call
these people a ZERO. They deny all the evidence that remotely implicates
Oswald. It's fake, fabricated and planted. They then make unsupportable
arguments about who actually did the shooting. Then there are the 1's.
They are still anybody-but-Oswald types, but they never really propose who
actually DID shoot Kennedy. They're not really theorists. They're
anti-theorists. They have no cogent thoughts about what DID happen - but
they'll rail on and on about what did NOT happen.
So, what's the other end of the conspiracy spectrum? Who would rank the
highest? How do you get a "high" score of 10 as a conspiracy theorists in
this debate? A 10 agrees that Oswald was the 6th floor gunman. He agrees
there were no other shooters. He agrees that Oswald even killed Officer
Tippit. They basically believe everything non-conspiracy believers believe
EXCEPT that they believe that Oswald may have done the shooting at the
behest of some individual/organization/entity which may have supported
Oswald's effort in some way - if only providing him the encouragement.
They do not categorically claim this is true - only that it's likely.
Harold Weisberg is certainly on the low end of the spectrum.

That is exactly what I noticed in something I read by Weisberg and what
prompted my topic here. Weisberg was lying about something and he knew he
was lying and I can prove his was lying. I'm not particularly smart.
Anybody could prove he was lying. But Weisberg was smart. Of course he
knew that anybody could prove he was lying. So why was he lying? And now I
understand. Weisberg was one of the good guys. He told good lies. The man
was a genius. Ah, the joy of discovery!

Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
Most conspiracy theorists do, however, genuinely believe what they
say.
The other category I consider immoral are the Garrisonites. Not only
do they viciously attack people who disagree with them, they condone a
DA who ruined a man's life -- and indeed inflicted huge grief on
several victims.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John Deagle

2021-02-01 13:11:30 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

There are a few Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists who are
certainly more on the fringe than others. They are outliers even within
their own cottage community.
On the conspiracy spectrum, you have those who not only believe Oswald was
completely innocent of the shooting (what you frequently call
anybody-but-Oswald) but they actually go so far as to make a ridiculous
argument as to who DID shoot Kennedy. On a scale from 0-10, I would call
these people a ZERO. They deny all the evidence that remotely implicates
Oswald. It's fake, fabricated and planted. They then make unsupportable
arguments about who actually did the shooting. Then there are the 1's.
They are still anybody-but-Oswald types, but they never really propose who
actually DID shoot Kennedy. They're not really theorists. They're
anti-theorists. They have no cogent thoughts about what DID happen - but
they'll rail on and on about what did NOT happen.
So, what's the other end of the conspiracy spectrum? Who would rank the
highest? How do you get a "high" score of 10 as a conspiracy theorists in
this debate? A 10 agrees that Oswald was the 6th floor gunman. He agrees
there were no other shooters. He agrees that Oswald even killed Officer
Tippit. They basically believe everything non-conspiracy believers believe
EXCEPT that they believe that Oswald may have done the shooting at the
behest of some individual/organization/entity which may have supported
Oswald's effort in some way - if only providing him the encouragement.
They do not categorically claim this is true - only that it's likely.
Harold Weisberg is certainly on the low end of the spectrum.

Gerald Ford, remember, insisted that the WCR not say there was no
conspiracy, but rather that they had found no *evidence* of
conspiracy.
I think if there was a conspiracy, we by now would actually have some
evidence of it. But I'm less sure of that than I am sure that Oswald
shot JFK.
There is another dimension, however: morality.
Some conspiracy theorists are downright immoral.
How? In Mark Lane's case he outright lies, and knows he is lying.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
Most conspiracy theorists do, however, genuinely believe what they
say.
The other category I consider immoral are the Garrisonites. Not only
do they viciously attack people who disagree with them, they condone a
DA who ruined a man's life -- and indeed inflicted huge grief on
several victims.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Alex Rosen, the FBI assistant director of the general investigative
division in a June 6, 1966 memo to Cartha DeLoach, the assistant to the
director in charge of investigations, Mr. LaFollette fired Mr. Weisberg
for leaking information to The Daily Worker.

John McAdams

2021-02-02 01:26:00 UTC

Post by John Deagle

Post by John McAdams
I think if there was a conspiracy, we by now would actually have some
evidence of it. But I'm less sure of that than I am sure that Oswald
shot JFK.
There is another dimension, however: morality.
Some conspiracy theorists are downright immoral.
How? In Mark Lane's case he outright lies, and knows he is lying.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
Most conspiracy theorists do, however, genuinely believe what they
say.
The other category I consider immoral are the Garrisonites. Not only
do they viciously attack people who disagree with them, they condone a
DA who ruined a man's life -- and indeed inflicted huge grief on
several victims.

The Daily Worker was a Communist paper. And not some exotic sort of
communist -- Trotskyite, for example. It was Stalinist.

Note, however that a lot of 30s Communists wised up and abandoned
their Communist sympathies, and maybe the 60s Weisberg was just some
rather ordinary leftist.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

2021-02-06 20:26:39 UTC

Post by John Deagle

The Daily Worker was a Communist paper. And not some exotic sort of
communist -- Trotskyite, for example. It was Stalinist.

Oswald defected to the Soviet Union and was disappointed by Stalinism.

Post by John McAdams
Note, however that a lot of 30s Communists wised up and abandoned
their Communist sympathies, and maybe the 60s Weisberg was just some
rather ordinary leftist.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John Corbett

2021-02-01 14:01:22 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

There are a few Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists who are
certainly more on the fringe than others. They are outliers even within
their own cottage community.
On the conspiracy spectrum, you have those who not only believe Oswald was
completely innocent of the shooting (what you frequently call
anybody-but-Oswald) but they actually go so far as to make a ridiculous
argument as to who DID shoot Kennedy. On a scale from 0-10, I would call
these people a ZERO. They deny all the evidence that remotely implicates
Oswald. It's fake, fabricated and planted. They then make unsupportable
arguments about who actually did the shooting. Then there are the 1's.
They are still anybody-but-Oswald types, but they never really propose who
actually DID shoot Kennedy. They're not really theorists. They're
anti-theorists. They have no cogent thoughts about what DID happen - but
they'll rail on and on about what did NOT happen.
So, what's the other end of the conspiracy spectrum? Who would rank the
highest? How do you get a "high" score of 10 as a conspiracy theorists in
this debate? A 10 agrees that Oswald was the 6th floor gunman. He agrees
there were no other shooters. He agrees that Oswald even killed Officer
Tippit. They basically believe everything non-conspiracy believers believe
EXCEPT that they believe that Oswald may have done the shooting at the
behest of some individual/organization/entity which may have supported
Oswald's effort in some way - if only providing him the encouragement.
They do not categorically claim this is true - only that it's likely.
Harold Weisberg is certainly on the low end of the spectrum.

I think it would have been possible for a conspiracy to have gone undetected
if there were only one or two accomplices. As the saying goes, three people
can keep a secret if two of them are dead. I don't believe for one minute there
was even a small scale conspiracy but I cannot logically rule one out. As Ford
said, there is no evidence of a conspiracy, large or small.

Post by John McAdams
There is another dimension, however: morality.
Some conspiracy theorists are downright immoral.
How? In Mark Lane's case he outright lies, and knows he is lying.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
Most conspiracy theorists do, however, genuinely believe what they
say.
The other category I consider immoral are the Garrisonites. Not only
do they viciously attack people who disagree with them, they condone a
DA who ruined a man's life -- and indeed inflicted huge grief on
several victims.

I couldn't agree more.

Steve M. Galbraith

2021-02-01 17:23:20 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

There are a few Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists who are
certainly more on the fringe than others. They are outliers even within
their own cottage community.
On the conspiracy spectrum, you have those who not only believe Oswald was
completely innocent of the shooting (what you frequently call
anybody-but-Oswald) but they actually go so far as to make a ridiculous
argument as to who DID shoot Kennedy. On a scale from 0-10, I would call
these people a ZERO. They deny all the evidence that remotely implicates
Oswald. It's fake, fabricated and planted. They then make unsupportable
arguments about who actually did the shooting. Then there are the 1's.
They are still anybody-but-Oswald types, but they never really propose who
actually DID shoot Kennedy. They're not really theorists. They're
anti-theorists. They have no cogent thoughts about what DID happen - but
they'll rail on and on about what did NOT happen.
So, what's the other end of the conspiracy spectrum? Who would rank the
highest? How do you get a "high" score of 10 as a conspiracy theorists in
this debate? A 10 agrees that Oswald was the 6th floor gunman. He agrees
there were no other shooters. He agrees that Oswald even killed Officer
Tippit. They basically believe everything non-conspiracy believers believe
EXCEPT that they believe that Oswald may have done the shooting at the
behest of some individual/organization/entity which may have supported
Oswald's effort in some way - if only providing him the encouragement.
They do not categorically claim this is true - only that it's likely.
Harold Weisberg is certainly on the low end of the spectrum.

Gerald Ford, remember, insisted that the WCR not say there was no
conspiracy, but rather that they had found no *evidence* of
conspiracy.
I think if there was a conspiracy, we by now would actually have some
evidence of it. But I'm less sure of that than I am sure that Oswald
shot JFK.
There is another dimension, however: morality.
Some conspiracy theorists are downright immoral.
How? In Mark Lane's case he outright lies, and knows he is lying.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
Most conspiracy theorists do, however, genuinely believe what they
say.
The other category I consider immoral are the Garrisonites. Not only
do they viciously attack people who disagree with them, they condone a
DA who ruined a man's life -- and indeed inflicted huge grief on
several victims.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

There's that excuse made by Oliver Stone that I've cited that explains the
Garrisonite thinking. Stone said in reply to the point that Garrison
ruined people's lives, especially Shaw's, that "In a war you sometimes
have to sacrifice people." The Garrisonites are so convinced in their
cause and so fervent in their belief that they are in a "war" with the
evil secret state that runs the US that they are willing to "sacrifice"
anyone for their cause. And it's this Manichaean worldview that leads so
their viciousness against lone assassin believers. Who, in this view, are
truly evil. That would be you John <g>. And little old me.

donald willis

2021-02-02 01:09:18 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

There are a few Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists who are
certainly more on the fringe than others. They are outliers even within
their own cottage community.
On the conspiracy spectrum, you have those who not only believe Oswald was
completely innocent of the shooting (what you frequently call
anybody-but-Oswald) but they actually go so far as to make a ridiculous
argument as to who DID shoot Kennedy. On a scale from 0-10, I would call
these people a ZERO. They deny all the evidence that remotely implicates
Oswald. It's fake, fabricated and planted. They then make unsupportable
arguments about who actually did the shooting. Then there are the 1's.
They are still anybody-but-Oswald types, but they never really propose who
actually DID shoot Kennedy. They're not really theorists. They're
anti-theorists. They have no cogent thoughts about what DID happen - but
they'll rail on and on about what did NOT happen.
So, what's the other end of the conspiracy spectrum? Who would rank the
highest? How do you get a "high" score of 10 as a conspiracy theorists in
this debate? A 10 agrees that Oswald was the 6th floor gunman. He agrees
there were no other shooters. He agrees that Oswald even killed Officer
Tippit. They basically believe everything non-conspiracy believers believe
EXCEPT that they believe that Oswald may have done the shooting at the
behest of some individual/organization/entity which may have supported
Oswald's effort in some way - if only providing him the encouragement.
They do not categorically claim this is true - only that it's likely.
Harold Weisberg is certainly on the low end of the spectrum.

Gerald Ford, remember, insisted that the WCR not say there was no
conspiracy, but rather that they had found no *evidence* of
conspiracy.
I think if there was a conspiracy, we by now would actually have some
evidence of it. But I'm less sure of that than I am sure that Oswald
shot JFK.
There is another dimension, however: morality.
Some conspiracy theorists are downright immoral.
How? In Mark Lane's case he outright lies, and knows he is lying.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
Most conspiracy theorists do, however, genuinely believe what they
say.
The other category I consider immoral are the Garrisonites. Not only
do they viciously attack people who disagree with them, they condone a
DA who ruined a man's life -- and indeed inflicted huge grief on
several victims.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Gee, that sounds familiar--and topical....

And it's this Manichaean worldview that leads so

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
their viciousness against lone assassin believers. Who, in this view, are
truly evil. That would be you John <g>. And little old me.

Steve M. Galbraith

2021-02-03 02:13:05 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

There are a few Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists who are
certainly more on the fringe than others. They are outliers even within
their own cottage community.
On the conspiracy spectrum, you have those who not only believe Oswald was
completely innocent of the shooting (what you frequently call
anybody-but-Oswald) but they actually go so far as to make a ridiculous
argument as to who DID shoot Kennedy. On a scale from 0-10, I would call
these people a ZERO. They deny all the evidence that remotely implicates
Oswald. It's fake, fabricated and planted. They then make unsupportable
arguments about who actually did the shooting. Then there are the 1's.
They are still anybody-but-Oswald types, but they never really propose who
actually DID shoot Kennedy. They're not really theorists. They're
anti-theorists. They have no cogent thoughts about what DID happen - but
they'll rail on and on about what did NOT happen.
So, what's the other end of the conspiracy spectrum? Who would rank the
highest? How do you get a "high" score of 10 as a conspiracy theorists in
this debate? A 10 agrees that Oswald was the 6th floor gunman. He agrees
there were no other shooters. He agrees that Oswald even killed Officer
Tippit. They basically believe everything non-conspiracy believers believe
EXCEPT that they believe that Oswald may have done the shooting at the
behest of some individual/organization/entity which may have supported
Oswald's effort in some way - if only providing him the encouragement.
They do not categorically claim this is true - only that it's likely.
Harold Weisberg is certainly on the low end of the spectrum.

Gerald Ford, remember, insisted that the WCR not say there was no
conspiracy, but rather that they had found no *evidence* of
conspiracy.
I think if there was a conspiracy, we by now would actually have some
evidence of it. But I'm less sure of that than I am sure that Oswald
shot JFK.
There is another dimension, however: morality.
Some conspiracy theorists are downright immoral.
How? In Mark Lane's case he outright lies, and knows he is lying.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
Most conspiracy theorists do, however, genuinely believe what they
say.
The other category I consider immoral are the Garrisonites. Not only
do they viciously attack people who disagree with them, they condone a
DA who ruined a man's life -- and indeed inflicted huge grief on
several victims.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Gee, that sounds familiar--and topical....
And it's this Manichaean worldview that leads so

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
their viciousness against lone assassin believers. Who, in this view, are
truly evil. That would be you John <g>. And little old me.

True; but the larger problem is that neither side trusts the other with
power; they sort of "feed" off one another. Let's be honest here: if Trump
had been re-elected - and for what it's worth I voted for Biden - there
would have been riots by some of the other "team" over it. They wouldn't
accept his re-election anymore than those ridiculous and disgraceful
people at the Capitol. This tribalism has to stop. Damned if I know how to
do it. One of the reasons I voted for Biden was my hope that he can
possibly calm things. So far he hasn't; those Executive Orders he's
signing are mostly in your face type "culture" stuff. We don't need that
now.

John Corbett

2021-02-04 03:08:35 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

There are a few Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists who are
certainly more on the fringe than others. They are outliers even within
their own cottage community.
On the conspiracy spectrum, you have those who not only believe Oswald was
completely innocent of the shooting (what you frequently call
anybody-but-Oswald) but they actually go so far as to make a ridiculous
argument as to who DID shoot Kennedy. On a scale from 0-10, I would call
these people a ZERO. They deny all the evidence that remotely implicates
Oswald. It's fake, fabricated and planted. They then make unsupportable
arguments about who actually did the shooting. Then there are the 1's.
They are still anybody-but-Oswald types, but they never really propose who
actually DID shoot Kennedy. They're not really theorists. They're
anti-theorists. They have no cogent thoughts about what DID happen - but
they'll rail on and on about what did NOT happen.
So, what's the other end of the conspiracy spectrum? Who would rank the
highest? How do you get a "high" score of 10 as a conspiracy theorists in
this debate? A 10 agrees that Oswald was the 6th floor gunman. He agrees
there were no other shooters. He agrees that Oswald even killed Officer
Tippit. They basically believe everything non-conspiracy believers believe
EXCEPT that they believe that Oswald may have done the shooting at the
behest of some individual/organization/entity which may have supported
Oswald's effort in some way - if only providing him the encouragement.
They do not categorically claim this is true - only that it's likely.
Harold Weisberg is certainly on the low end of the spectrum.

Gerald Ford, remember, insisted that the WCR not say there was no
conspiracy, but rather that they had found no *evidence* of
conspiracy.
I think if there was a conspiracy, we by now would actually have some
evidence of it. But I'm less sure of that than I am sure that Oswald
shot JFK.
There is another dimension, however: morality.
Some conspiracy theorists are downright immoral.
How? In Mark Lane's case he outright lies, and knows he is lying.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
Most conspiracy theorists do, however, genuinely believe what they
say.
The other category I consider immoral are the Garrisonites. Not only
do they viciously attack people who disagree with them, they condone a
DA who ruined a man's life -- and indeed inflicted huge grief on
several victims.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Gee, that sounds familiar--and topical....
And it's this Manichaean worldview that leads so

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
their viciousness against lone assassin believers. Who, in this view, are
truly evil. That would be you John <g>. And little old me.

I too hoped that Biden was serious when he said he wanted to unite the
country and create bipartisan consensus. He seemed to be going in that
direction when he met with Republicans on their proposal for a Covid-19
relief bill. He didn't like their proposal because he thought it was too
small but rather than negotiate a compromise solution, he told Schumer and
Pelosi to go ahead with the big relief bill he wanted all along. Yesterday
it passed a procedural vote in the Senate. Joe Manchin has become perhaps
the most important person in the Congress now. He is a Democrat in a deep
red state and must hold to a moderate line if he wants to keep his job. He
has already committed to opposing an end to the filibuster which would
prevent the most radical parts of the Democrat agenda from being enacted.
He voted with Biden on the procedural vote but has signaled he might still
vote against the final bill if the Democrats don't make some concessions
to get bipartisan support. The best thing is Democrats can't threaten to
run a hard left challenger in the primary against him because he could
then tell them he would switch parties and Schumer would be back to being
minority leader. Manchin is probably the one guy who can prevent a radical
left takeover of the federal government.

John Corbett

2021-02-02 01:09:28 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

There are a few Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists who are
certainly more on the fringe than others. They are outliers even within
their own cottage community.
On the conspiracy spectrum, you have those who not only believe Oswald was
completely innocent of the shooting (what you frequently call
anybody-but-Oswald) but they actually go so far as to make a ridiculous
argument as to who DID shoot Kennedy. On a scale from 0-10, I would call
these people a ZERO. They deny all the evidence that remotely implicates
Oswald. It's fake, fabricated and planted. They then make unsupportable
arguments about who actually did the shooting. Then there are the 1's.
They are still anybody-but-Oswald types, but they never really propose who
actually DID shoot Kennedy. They're not really theorists. They're
anti-theorists. They have no cogent thoughts about what DID happen - but
they'll rail on and on about what did NOT happen.
So, what's the other end of the conspiracy spectrum? Who would rank the
highest? How do you get a "high" score of 10 as a conspiracy theorists in
this debate? A 10 agrees that Oswald was the 6th floor gunman. He agrees
there were no other shooters. He agrees that Oswald even killed Officer
Tippit. They basically believe everything non-conspiracy believers believe
EXCEPT that they believe that Oswald may have done the shooting at the
behest of some individual/organization/entity which may have supported
Oswald's effort in some way - if only providing him the encouragement.
They do not categorically claim this is true - only that it's likely.
Harold Weisberg is certainly on the low end of the spectrum.

Gerald Ford, remember, insisted that the WCR not say there was no
conspiracy, but rather that they had found no *evidence* of
conspiracy.
I think if there was a conspiracy, we by now would actually have some
evidence of it. But I'm less sure of that than I am sure that Oswald
shot JFK.
There is another dimension, however: morality.
Some conspiracy theorists are downright immoral.
How? In Mark Lane's case he outright lies, and knows he is lying.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
Most conspiracy theorists do, however, genuinely believe what they
say.
The other category I consider immoral are the Garrisonites. Not only
do they viciously attack people who disagree with them, they condone a
DA who ruined a man's life -- and indeed inflicted huge grief on
several victims.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Count me in.

Anthony Marsh

2021-02-06 20:26:36 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

There are a few Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists who are
certainly more on the fringe than others. They are outliers even within
their own cottage community.
On the conspiracy spectrum, you have those who not only believe Oswald was
completely innocent of the shooting (what you frequently call
anybody-but-Oswald) but they actually go so far as to make a ridiculous
argument as to who DID shoot Kennedy. On a scale from 0-10, I would call
these people a ZERO. They deny all the evidence that remotely implicates
Oswald. It's fake, fabricated and planted. They then make unsupportable
arguments about who actually did the shooting. Then there are the 1's.
They are still anybody-but-Oswald types, but they never really propose who
actually DID shoot Kennedy. They're not really theorists. They're
anti-theorists. They have no cogent thoughts about what DID happen - but
they'll rail on and on about what did NOT happen.
So, what's the other end of the conspiracy spectrum? Who would rank the
highest? How do you get a "high" score of 10 as a conspiracy theorists in
this debate? A 10 agrees that Oswald was the 6th floor gunman. He agrees
there were no other shooters. He agrees that Oswald even killed Officer
Tippit. They basically believe everything non-conspiracy believers believe
EXCEPT that they believe that Oswald may have done the shooting at the
behest of some individual/organization/entity which may have supported
Oswald's effort in some way - if only providing him the encouragement.
They do not categorically claim this is true - only that it's likely.
Harold Weisberg is certainly on the low end of the spectrum.

Gerald Ford, remember, insisted that the WCR not say there was no
conspiracy, but rather that they had found no *evidence* of

Exactly. Like any savvy politiician. But Ford's hands are dirty for
rewritng the report to move JFK's wounds.

Post by John McAdams
conspiracy.
I think if there was a conspiracy, we by now would actually have some

Silly boy. We had the evidence that day but you guys have been covering it
up for half a century. Did YOU put the autobsy photos on your web site?

Post by John McAdams
evidence of it. But I'm less sure of that than I am sure that Oswald
shot JFK.
There is another dimension, however: morality.
Some conspiracy theorists are downright immoral.
How? In Mark Lane's case he outright lies, and knows he is lying.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
Most conspiracy theorists do, however, genuinely believe what they
say.
The other category I consider immoral are the Garrisonites. Not only
do they viciously attack people who disagree with them, they condone a
DA who ruined a man's life -- and indeed inflicted huge grief on
several victims.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

2021-02-06 20:26:32 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

There are a few Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists who are
certainly more on the fringe than others. They are outliers even within
their own cottage community.
On the conspiracy spectrum, you have those who not only believe Oswald was
completely innocent of the shooting (what you frequently call
anybody-but-Oswald) but they actually go so far as to make a ridiculous
argument as to who DID shoot Kennedy. On a scale from 0-10, I would call
these people a ZERO. They deny all the evidence that remotely implicates
Oswald. It's fake, fabricated and planted. They then make unsupportable
arguments about who actually did the shooting. Then there are the 1's.
They are still anybody-but-Oswald types, but they never really propose who
actually DID shoot Kennedy. They're not really theorists. They're
anti-theorists. They have no cogent thoughts about what DID happen - but
they'll rail on and on about what did NOT happen.
So, what's the other end of the conspiracy spectrum? Who would rank the
highest? How do you get a "high" score of 10 as a conspiracy theorists in
this debate? A 10 agrees that Oswald was the 6th floor gunman. He agrees
there were no other shooters. He agrees that Oswald even killed Officer
Tippit. They basically believe everything non-conspiracy believers believe
EXCEPT that they believe that Oswald may have done the shooting at the
behest of some individual/organization/entity which may have supported
Oswald's effort in some way - if only providing him the encouragement.
They do not categorically claim this is true - only that it's likely.
Harold Weisberg is certainly on the low end of the spectrum.

I don't think we ever established a spectrum for researchers, but some
did get along with various people more than others.

Post by ***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

donald willis

2021-02-01 03:00:11 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

"I'm inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting at all, and I have no
reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth floor. All
of the evidence that tends to indicate that is corrupted in one way or
another."

I disagree with the first part; everyone knows I agree with the second
part.... "Corrupted" is a good word here.

dcw

19efppp

2021-02-01 14:01:16 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

"I'm inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting at all, and I have no
reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth floor. All
of the evidence that tends to indicate that is corrupted in one way or
another."
I disagree with the first part; everyone knows I agree with the second
part.... "Corrupted" is a good word here.
dcw

I agree completely with the Weisberg quote from DVP. No shooting from the
6th floor, and I am inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting, but I'm
not sure about that. Oswald was a slime ball. Maybe he did shoot somebody.
Exactly what Weisberg said. The man was a genius. I'm sorry to have
embarrassed myself publicly by questioning this fact. All praises to
Weisberg!

John Corbett

2021-02-01 17:23:02 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

"I'm inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting at all, and I have no
reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth floor. All
of the evidence that tends to indicate that is corrupted in one way or
another."
I disagree with the first part; everyone knows I agree with the second
part.... "Corrupted" is a good word here.
dcw

I agree completely with the Weisberg quote from DVP. No shooting from the
6th floor, and I am inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting, but I'm
not sure about that.

Until you accept that Oswald was the shooter, you have not chance of
figuring out what happened because that is the one and only correct
answer.

Post by 19efppp
Oswald was a slime ball. Maybe he did shoot somebody.
Exactly what Weisberg said. The man was a genius. I'm sorry to have
embarrassed myself publicly by questioning this fact. All praises to
Weisberg!

Weisberg was a putz who made lots of outlandish claims which he was never
able to support with actual evidence. That pretty much describes most avid
CTs. Lots of noise and no substance.

David Von Pein

2021-02-02 12:20:34 UTC

Post by 19efppp
I agree completely with the Weisberg quote from DVP. No shooting from the
6th floor, and I am inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting, but I'm
not sure about that.

This is hilarity at its finest. Like most Internet CTers, 19ef-Triple-P
can't even figure out the easy conclusions (like somebody shooting from
the 6th floor). Heaven help Triple-P if a really tough one should ever
come along.

donald willis

2021-02-03 02:13:20 UTC

Post by David Von Pein

Post by 19efppp
I agree completely with the Weisberg quote from DVP. No shooting from the
6th floor, and I am inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting, but I'm
not sure about that.

Easy there, yourself.

John Deagle

2021-02-01 13:11:24 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

The FBI looked into Harold Weisberg before Whitewash. Weisberg's FBI file
states that he harbored subversive ideological sympathies. The FBI file
states that Weisberg in 1939 jeopardized the security of government
information by leaking to The Daily Worker.

Anthony Marsh

2021-02-06 20:26:28 UTC

Post by 19efppp
I'd like to hear what you say, Marsh. Of course, I know that no researcher
compares to the Great One, but was Weisberg a researcher or a kook? I'm
starting to have my doubts about old Harold. What do you think?

Weisberg was a serious researcher, but he was not right about
everything. I think he made a few mistakes.

19efppp

2021-02-07 05:35:03 UTC

Weisberg was a serious researcher, but he was not right about
everything. I think he made a few mistakes.

I just read yesterday a letter he wrote about the 112th cables. He shared
them with his inner circle but did not want them made public for fear of
the kooks sensationalizing them. They were too sensational to be
sensationalized?

19efppp

2021-02-09 18:56:22 UTC

Weisberg was a serious researcher, but he was not right about
everything. I think he made a few mistakes.

Yes, old Howard was one of them, too. I spoke too soon in praise. Maybe he
was a genius, but he protected the murderers when it counted. Just like
Chomsky.

Anthony Marsh

2021-02-10 10:51:17 UTC

Weisberg was a serious researcher, but he was not right about
everything. I think he made a few mistakes.

Yes, old Howard was one of them, too. I spoke too soon in praise. Maybe he
was a genius, but he protected the murderers when it counted. Just like
Chomsky.

false. HE sought the truth wherever it led.

19efppp

2021-02-10 19:17:50 UTC

Weisberg was a serious researcher, but he was not right about
everything. I think he made a few mistakes.

Yes, old Howard was one of them, too. I spoke too soon in praise. Maybe he
was a genius, but he protected the murderers when it counted. Just like
Chomsky.

false. HE sought the truth wherever it led.

He may have sought the truth, but he did not always tell it.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2021-02-13 00:55:04 UTC

Weisberg was a serious researcher, but he was not right about
everything. I think he made a few mistakes.

Yes, old Howard was one of them, too. I spoke too soon in praise. Maybe he
was a genius, but he protected the murderers when it counted. Just like
Chomsky.

Yeah, good old Howard whoever he was. SMH.

You mean Harold Weisberg?

The author of this book?
https://www.amazon.com/Whitewash-Report-Warren-Harold-Weisberg/dp/162636110X

Hank

John Corbett

2021-02-07 19:02:42 UTC

Weisberg was a serious researcher, but he was not right about
everything. I think he made a few mistakes.

The biggest one being that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.

Pamela Brown

2021-02-11 11:55:59 UTC

Post by 19efppp
I'd like to hear what you say, Marsh. Of course, I know that no
researcher compares to the Great One, but was Weisberg a researcher or a
kook? I'm starting to have my doubts about old Harold. What do you
think?

I contacted Weisberg once, with some questions about the limo. It seemed
to me he was quite protective of the Secret Service handling of the limo,
which surprised me.

Pamela
ss100x.wordpress.com

19efppp

2021-02-12 00:47:52 UTC

Post by 19efppp
I'd like to hear what you say, Marsh. Of course, I know that no
researcher compares to the Great One, but was Weisberg a researcher or a
kook? I'm starting to have my doubts about old Harold. What do you
think?

I contacted Weisberg once, with some questions about the limo. It seemed
to me he was quite protective of the Secret Service handling of the limo,
which surprised me.
Pamela
ss100x.wordpress.com

Yes. he stands up for the authorities quite a lot, even though he also
criticizes them. He shouts down crazy ideas about things which seem
reasonable to wonder about. Much like our wound-up Marsh.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2021-02-13 00:55:01 UTC