Why should LNs be objective. We figured out a long time ago that Oswald killed JFK by himself. It is no longer an open question. Hasn't been for a long, long time.
Actually, Russo co-authored the book with Stephen Molton.
Anyway, your bombastic verbiage -- "forced at gunpoint by a foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy fantasist" -- suggests a severe bias.
Yes it is. A bias toward the truth.
You act as if this is a multiple choice exercise. It's not. There is only one truth.
You seem to have a low bar for whom you consider scholars.
That's right. DVP didn't have trouble figuring this out. It's really pretty obvious Oswald did it and there is no credible evidence he had even a single accomplice. Given that the CT have had 62 years to search for evidence that somebody other than Oswald was complicit in the crime and have come up empty, why should anyone entertain the possibility others were involved.
DVD has lots of credibility and anyone who looks at the evidence objectively and applies common sense will reach the same conclusions he has.
You've always seemed to favor quantity over quality. It's reflected in your posts.
I'd estimate the 90+% of those people are ignorant of the evidence of Oswald's guilt and probably got most of their knowledge from Oliver Stone's shitty movie.
Keep clinging to that crap. It's all you have.
The HSCA was a cluster. The only things it got right were the things they agreed with the WC on.
The SBT wins by default because in 62 years, no one has been able to offer a plausible alternative that explains JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's. No one can come up with another explanation that tells us where other shots could have been fired from and the wounds they could have caused. I know you won't be able to. If you could've you would've.
The WC offered several possible scenarios. The consensus of modern LNs conforms to one of those scenarios, that the first shot missed, the second was the single bullet, and the third was the fatal headshot. None of that conflicts with the findings of the WC. The are a few nutty LNs who have come up with goofy alternatives but that is not the fault of the WC.
As for motive, no one can know for sure what Oswald's motive was nor is it necessary to prove why he did it to prove that he did it.
Your frequent message formatting errors, grammatical errors, and punctuation errors suggest you're in no position to be deciding who is a scholar and who is not, much less to be making sweeping pronouncements about JFKA evidence and research.
As for your comment about motive, ask any prosecutor and they'll tell you that in a complex or strongly contested case, establishing motive is very important for the prosecution--both in identifying a suspect in the first place and in persuading a jury of guilt in a trial.
Ask any detective about motive, and they'll tell you that one of the main things they seek to establish is whether the suspect had a motive. If they've identified two possible suspects and one suspect had no motive and the other suspect did have a motive, they will see the latter person as the more likely suspect, all other things being relatively equal.
I had to giggle when I read your first sentence (which you failed to punctuate correctly, but anyway. . . .):
Why should LNs be objective.[?]
LOL! Yeah, gee, why should they be objective?! Humm, maybe because being objective is a key principle of critical thinking? Maybe because being objective is a hallmark of credibility, education, and an open mind?
Perhaps you should change your forum name to
John "I Don't Need No Stinkin' Objectivity" Corbett.Here's one book that very few have read, but one that carries a ring of truth... by one of the three tramps... Chauncey Holt's book,Self-Portrait of a Scoundrel...
Huh, in reading the description of the book on Amazon, I find myself thinking I might just read it. It sounds like an interesting book, assuming he did in fact write it. I heard years ago that he'd written a book but never gave it a second thought.
