Replies

Well with all due respect, there is a reasonable basis on which to doubt both of your propositions.

Like most of America, during the first years after the assassination, I bought the party line--something like 80% of Americans were convinced that Oswald had acted alone. However a body of evidence then appeared, developed by people with limited investigation resources, demonstrating pretty clearly that Oswald could not have acted alone; he could not even have been the only shooter; there is real doubt whether he could have been in the so called shooter's site in the book depostory; there is doubt that he was a shooter at all.

So, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, in the period after 1968, I have moved to the conclusion that JFK was removed as president by forces who have sufficient influence to control the public investigations and the flow of evidence to the end that responsibility has never been ultimately fixed.

Could I be convinced otherwise? Sure. But anyone with any experience in the real legal enviornment recognizes all of the so called investigations which have been conducted as efforts to cover up most of the significant relevant evidence. No reason to have done that absent a purpose to keep the truth from coming out.

If you wanted to really lay the issue to rest, you would conduct a real investigation although probably difficult to do now given deterioration of the evidence, with a tribunal that was free to really find out what happened. I doubt that is going to happen.

Re your Post #21- I think that we agree on this- I also think that, a generation from now, ours will be the "conventional wisdom" view (that is, that there was a limited conspiracy of some sort, but the chance to uncover it was lost with the Warren Commission cover-up).

What you are for has already been done. It's called "Case Closed." Have you read the book?