To be honest, the WC clearly had a mandate and agenda not to look too closely at certain possibilities.

I must have missed that memo. Can you cite it.

It was heavily FBI-reliant, staff-reliant, and operating under pressure to "get the damn thing done."

I'm always suspicious when I see a word or phrase quoted out of context. It makes me wonder what is being omitted.

 

The WR report is an impressive piece of work under the circumstances, but there is no way it can be viewed as an impartial, full-scale investigation and vetting of all the relevant issues; it just can't.

Because you say so.

Reclaiming History is a prosecutor's brief from the title to the last page of the index. Bugliosi was neither an historian nor a scholar. In addition to being a successful prosecutor, he was a massively self-promoting publicity hound; that's just the reality. In my experience, prosecutors and defense counsel both tend to have a one-dimensional view of every case.

On the contrary, Reclaiming History is a thorough and meticulous defense of the WCR.

Yes, the WR and VB would be the place to steer a newbie if one wanted to frontload him with the LN narrative, but I fail to see how that would be any more reasonable than a CTer steering him to Horne's books. Almost everyone in the JFKA is such a fanatic that the inclination is to frontload a newbie with "the Truth" - be it LN Truth or CT Truth - before he encounters anything else. That's why I say (1) learn everything you can about Oswald the man, because he's central to the case and every theory, and (2) at least learn a bit about epistemology and logic lest you be wowed by smart and articulate people saying crazy things.

The WCR and Reclaiming History are where to steer anyone who wants to know the truth of the JFKA without having the waters muddied by a bunch of nonsensical conspiracy crap. Reclaiming History is especially valuable in the debunking of most of the popular conspiracy myths that had been propagated in the 43 years since the release of the WCR. I saw most because new ones have cropped up since it's publication.

To be honest, the WC clearly had a mandate and agenda not to look too closely at certain possibilities. It was heavily FBI-reliant, staff-reliant, and operating under pressure to "get the damn thing done." The WR report is an impressive piece of work under the circumstances, but there is no way it can be viewed as an impartial, full-scale investigation and vetting of all the relevant issues; it just can't.

Reclaiming History is a prosecutor's brief from the title to the last page of the index. Bugliosi was neither an historian nor a scholar. In addition to being a successful prosecutor, he was a massively self-promoting publicity hound; that's just the reality. In my experience, prosecutors and defense counsel both tend to have a one-dimensional view of every case.

Yes, the WR and VB would be the place to steer a newbie if one wanted to frontload him with the LN narrative, but I fail to see how that would be any more reasonable than a CTer steering him to Horne's books. Almost everyone in the JFKA is such a fanatic that the inclination is to frontload a newbie with "the Truth" - be it LN Truth or CT Truth - before he encounters anything else. That's why I say (1) learn everything you can about Oswald the man, because he's central to the case and every theory, and (2) at least learn a bit about epistemology and logic lest you be wowed by smart and articulate people saying crazy things.

LP--
One has to concede, whether LNT'er or CT'er, there are highly intelligent people on both sides of the issue.

From my original post: "As we see with the JFKA, occupancy of the LF bears absolutely no relation to an occupant’s intelligence, education or knowledge of the subject."

"Smart people" really has nothing to do with whether one is in the lunatic fringe. If Niederwacky graduated from Harvard Medical School, I assume he has functioning brain cells. David Ray Griffin was beyond brilliant. If we can believe his self-puffery, MTG actually has academic credentials. And yet, they all believe absolutely crazy things.

Intelligence and education, alas, are not a guarantee of the ability to think rationally or analytically. Indeed, in his book Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer argues that "the number one reason why people believe weird things is because they're smart – they have a high IQ or they have an exceptionally creative intellect. Because he can rationalize away evidence, an intelligent person is better able to defend weird ideas to himself." From another source: "Highly intelligent people fall for ridiculous things primarily because their high intellect gives them the mental horsepower to rationalize beliefs they arrived at for emotional or social reasons. Instead of protecting against irrationality, high intelligence can act as a tool for sophisticated self-delusion."

How many raving CTers - or Young Earthers or Flat Earthers or Fake Moon Landing proponents - strike you as really dumb? I can answer that because I've dealt with all of these folks. The answer: pretty much NONE. They are uniformly intelligent, articulate and persuasive. It's among their followers and cultists that you will find the 15W bulbs.

And, of course, the conspiracy-prone mindset, like it or not, plays a huge role. Add a conspiracy-prone mindset to a high intellect and you have a recipe for lunacy.

I don't exactly know why - I wish I could tell people - but I was blessed to be able to step out of this trap. Partly it was my legal training, but mostly I think it was my long exposure to religion. To fit into a religious community, you must pretend to believe some wildly unlikely things or somehow convince yourself they are true. I listen to Christian talk radio several times a week where truly highly intelligent, highly educated people assert that the earth is 6,500 years old. No, sorry, it's not; that's a crazy belief, no matter how many "scientists" provide "scientific" reasons that the Grand Canyon was formed in a couple of hundred years.

In any event, at some point I was blessed with some sort of epiphany to be able to recognize the utter craziness coming from the mouths of "smart people" across all the many areas of weirdness in which I was involved. Where I used to say "Wow, tell me more!" I now say "Bullshit, prove it." Even in my OWN experiences that I have LIVED, as described in Duncan's new weirdness subforum, my initial reaction is one of intense skepticism. That's just how it has to be in the world where rationality and analytical thinking drive the bus.

Lest we forget: propinquity, it's all about propinquity. 

I think ignore might be the wrong word. But it is very easy for me to discount it enough to allow the possibility of an early first shot being the culprit.


Mr. LIEBELER. How long after did you feel yourself get hit by anything?
Mr. TAGUE. I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any connection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the second or third shot, I couldn't tell you definitely--I made no connection. I looked around wondering what was going on, and I recall this. We got to talking, and I recall that something had stinged me, and then the deputy sheriff looked up and said, "You have blood there on your cheek." That is when we walked back down there.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear three shots?
Mr. TAGUE. I heard three shots; yes sir. And I did notice the time on the Hertz clock. It was 12:29.
Mr. LIEBELER. That was about the time that you felt yourself struck?
Mr. TAGUE. I just glanced. I mean I just stopped, got out of my car, and here came the motorcade. I just happened upon the scene.

I think we can safely rule out the single bullet as the cause of Tague's minor injury. I've gone back and forth on whether it was a ricochet from the first shot or a fragment from the headshot.  There are arguments for and against both. To me it's a jump ball. We'll never really know nor do we need to.

For a while, I theorized that it might not have been caused by a shot at all but maybe a pebble tossed up by the traffic on Main St. but when I read there was a chip in the curb with a lead smear, that kind of ruled that out.

So what is the evidence?

It's staring you in the face in the Z-film.

You can lead a horse to water...