JFK Assassination Forum

More to the point: Insofar as I am able to determine, John Newman has NEVER published ONE WORD in ANY peer-reviewed scholarly or professional journal. This is almost unbelievable. Despite his supposed bombshell discoveries, he has not submitted ONE for peer review. This in itself is sufficient to tell you that Newman is not a "serious researcher" in any context other than JFKA-mania.

(Don't be misled: There is another John M. Newman who is a professor and publishes extensively in professional journals on antitrust topics.)

Little Old Me has published in law reviews. You can find my first, "Risks Under the Antitrust Laws Against Tying and Monopolization," published in the Idaho Law Review in 1986, if you care to subscribe to the service HeinOnline. I absolutely busted my butt on that obscure piece, but the first submission for peer review just about had me in tears (it was rejected by a much more influential journal than the ILR, but I did eventually have a piece included in the upper-echelon Antitrust Law Journal a decade later).

Instead of bandying about terms like "serious researcher," folks should challenge kooky Newman as to why he self-publishes and, despite his academic connections, has NEVER submitted ANYTHING for peer review. Just ONE "Oswald CIA" nugget, pal, just ONE.

So what? Been over 2,000 books on the JFKA. People don't write books on the JFKA to make money, if anything it's quite the opposite. LHO wasn't on the 6th floor when the motorcade went by the TSBD nor did he shoot JFK. There's no credible evidence that even shots were even fired from the alleged snipers nest.

1. Oswald had no verifiable alibi, so your conclusion is not supported by evidence.

2. The sizable bullet fragments recovered from the Limo and Parkland ALL came from Oswald's rifle which was recovered from the 6th floor!

3. "Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I also could here(sic) the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me."
Harold Norman affidavit from the 4th day of December, 1963.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/norman_1.htm

4. Oswald immediately flees from the crime scene and kills a cop and then tries to kill more cops at the Texas Theatre. If Oswald wasn't in flight from committing murder then why the need to kill cops?

5. Oswald while in custody said numerous provable lies about the rifle and associated events concerning the rifle.

I could go on but it's getting late and I've had enough of the CT BS for one day.

JohnM

Don't you have some KGB agents to find?

So what? Been over 2,000 books on the JFKA. People don't write books on the JFKA to make money, if anything it's quite the opposite. LHO wasn't on the 6th floor when the motorcade went by the TSBD nor did he shoot JFK. There's no credible evidence that even shots were even fired from the alleged snipers nest.

Hi, JM!

You are clearly the master of the photographic record and most all evidentiary stuff, and your contributions are always excellent.

The only quibble I have is that engaging with MTG and other Gee-Whiz True Believers is essentially just feeding the trolls. He gains some sort of curious credibility just by virtue of the fact that someone like you engages with him on his turf. I don't think there is any way his stuff really resonates with anyone other than a fellow Gee-Whiz True Believer. It's actually kind of bizarre to me that he keeps posting his stuff on this forum, as though the audience here hadn't already heard it all 5,000 times.

As you can see at his "Extremely Fragile House of Cards" thread, I personally think the only effective way to engage with these characters is at the level of:

1. Epistemology.
2. Psychology.
3. Ridicule.

Of course, my engagement is only "effective" with those still having enough critical-thinking skills to recognize "Yes, that's right. This is a mind not tracking in the channels of normality. These arguments do not hold together rationally and logically."

My engagement is not at all effective with Michael himself because, as I set forth in my post about the four defining characteristics of far-fetched conspiracy thinking, he lives in a cocoon (or echo chamber, if you will) where his theories are bullet-proof and his faith in them is unshakeable.

At the "Extremely Fragile" thread, he just blew right past my posts and blithely posted his next batch of nonsense.

Hey Lance,

I enjoy reading your stuff too, and yes there is no doubt that hardly anyone outside us fanatics is really interested in the JFKA anymore.
There is nothing left to prove and even if there was some massive Griffith type conspiracy where the Mountain of evidence was faked by some unknown alien technology and lied about by hundreds, would anyone under 60 give a stuff?
Unless someone can provide concrete proof that LBJ or Hoover or Tom's KGB was behind the assassination then I see no reason why anyone will care.
Personally I like exploring the photographic and film evidence and piecing together these individual elements into a cohesive whole and which 99 times out of a hundred just reinforces the official narrative.

JohnM