Ron Rosenbaum admits frontal headshot, but says we may never know. . .

[Phil Dragoo]

Here's an article from Smithsonian which in four pages provides a limited hangout while smearing researchers with all the typical devices.

Page 1

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/What-Does-the-Zapruder-Film-Really-Tell-Us-224928822.html

Page 2

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/What-Does-the-Zapruder-Film-Really-Tell-Us-224928822.html?c=y&page=2

Page 3

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/What-Does-the-Zapruder-Film-Really-Tell-Us-224928822.html?c=y&page=3

Page 4

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/What-Does-the-Zapruder-Film-Really-Tell-Us-224928822.html?c=y&page=4

(The navigation bar at the bottom of the page may not always function as anticipated)

Ron Rosenbaum is limited in his hangout:

He allows that the head shot was from the front.

He smears Stone's JFK as "farfetched" and steers readers to Morley's jfkfacts.org

It will be remembered that recently Morley told Lisa Pease her stating Oswald didn't shoot anyone and that there was certainly a conspiracy was outmoded, not working.

In the past Rosenbaum has blasted conspiracy asserters as being to infantile to accept that great men are killed by unimportant men.

Is Rosenbaum now contorting?

He goes on to ridicule "conspiracy books" insinuating "they can all be wrong."

He then accepts Witt as Umbrella Man.  Those who know the figure know Witt hadn't the right number of ribs, and the Umbrella Man did not, as Rosenbaum chirps with a wave of his hand, "raise his umbrella"--he pumped it. 

He milks a page and a half out of his space in the magazine fingerpainting in the matter, using Witt, Tink, and the anti-Tink, Cox, punctuating with a patronizing speech on irrationality.

His close is newthink, two opposite thoughts, that there is a real world "out there" and that we'll "never know" the truth about the assassination.

In four pages Rosenbaum has made the one admissio--which ought to require rewriting all the history books and school texts, and firing all the media fairies.

Headshot from the front.

This means the leadership of America has served as accessories after the fact since 1963, there is an open case of murder (having no statute of limitations), and the significance of removing the 35th president to greenlight a war, preserve an intelligence mafia, profit a financial octopus, prolong the tension of the Cold War with its inherent cost in dollars and blood is rude beast still hungry, growling in its cave.

Jim DiEugenio of ctka.net will have a typically thorough piece on this article; I thought I'd give it a look to see what all the fuss is about.

James Douglass frames the matrix; Sherry Fiester solves the forensic--now come the army of Escher Mockingbirds to deny there is any there there.

The People v The Castle in The New Millenium.

[TLR]

Witt claimed he was holding the umbrella out in front of him, trying to get it open, at the time of the shooting. I think they had instructed him to debunk the theory that the umbrella was a dart gun.

"I continued to move forward and finally got this umbrella up in the air. I think by the time I got the thing up in the air I was over and possibly standing on the retaining wall."

Retaining wall? Did Witt ever set foot in DP in his life?

[Leslie Sharp]

"His close is newthink, two opposite thoughts, that there is a real world "out there" and that we'll "never know" the truth about the assassination."

When all else fails, Rosenbaum seems to ridicule any who are committed to seeking justice in this case, AND he's now suggesting to the world that any with that motive are wasting their time because it will "never be solved," the latest and most insidious meme.   He further reduces the investigation to entertainment, a kind of whodunnit, and for those not effected by that tactic, he introduces the dynamic of good vs. evil. 

In order to argue that those who assassinated Kennedy were "evil," I believe we now need to consider quite seriously that there may be millions who silently believe that the assassination was righteous and necessary.  Of course this further obscures the evil aspect of the assassination  - not unlike the Koch Brothers' contemporary efforts to cloak their agenda of refusing to help their fellow man into the boat (which seems to me to be an agenda that by definition is evil) in some kind of righteous indignation. 

I'm surprised that Rosenbaum didn't come right out and say that "after November 22, 2013, this story is over," except perhaps for the residuals of a playstation or a boardgame if such still exists.  That's the direction some journalists and researchers are taking us ... that there is an arbitrary deadline after which none of this will matter except as a blip in history.  That might sell books (Roger Stone's upcoming book comes to mind) and material and conferences, but it doesn't serve our nation if justice and democracy are our stated goals. 

I believe that it's incumbent upon us to assure this does not happen on the 22nd of next month; otherwise, history books - once distributed out of the Texas School Book Depository in a state that set(s) the pace for textbook selection -  will be referring to Dallas in a similar vein as the Ford Theater.  We all know where that lead.

[Jim H.]

Phil wrote:

"It will be remembered that recently Morley told Lisa Pease her stating Oswald didn't shoot anyone and that there was certainly a conspiracy was outmoded, not working.

In the past Rosenbaum has blasted conspiracy asserters as being to infantile to accept that great men are killed by unimportant men.

Is Rosenbaum now contorting?

He goes on to ridicule "conspiracy books" insinuating "they can all be wrong."

He then accepts Witt as Umbrella Man."
-----------------------------------------------

I had to pull this quote and use it to show just how far from truth the MSM and attending mouthpieces live.
I cannot guess what "conspiracy books" Mr. Rosenbaum has read but the books and materials HAVE to be different than the ones I have read since about 1967.

Sure all research and even the hallowed efforts of the first generation of writers and researchers have questionable issues.

However the reason for the private unfunded efforts and most especially the first newspaper clippers and phone trees that grew into what we now have available to anyone bothering to try to learn
for themselves, is precisely because the Warren Commission and House Select Committee of Assassinations were ONLY COVER and lies to deceive WeThePeople!

If Maggie Fields and Mae Brussels with scissors and a telephone (with a radio show later)...  can accomplish as much as they did in the 60s and 70s, how can we do less?

If the diminutive Mr. Penn Jones and Mr. Harold Weisberg didn't let the efforts flag ... how can those that know do less.

Someone has to counter the disinfo assets. Names omitted but you all know who are the liars and bs artists in the arena of JFK truth.

Dunkel and etc, chose a master and serve them well.

I take great pleasure when I can apply the antidote to the Confuseum's crap spouted to the unknowing about the minefield of political research with disinfo and out right lies trying to stand for truth.

Best Regards
Jim

[Leslie Sharp]

Jim H., I'm not sure if I follow all of the subtexts in what you are saying, but I will say that I believe that the way forward is backward, that the first instinct is usually the right one, and that the earliest research - including that of Mae Brussell (RIP) and very specifically Peter Dale Scott and Vince Salandria - represents the guideposts for all research into the assassination.  Anything that veers from their original work should be put through a meat grinder.  Thanks for your post.

[Phil Dragoo]

I found this from the "writer" dated 2008:

http://ronrosenbaumwriter.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/the-jfk-assassination-your-theories-please/

He says Mark Lane is "much discredited"--this is scurrilous, making and spreading false claims with the intention of damaging a person's reputation.

He says for two decades he was a "conspiracy believer" but then "came to believe Oswald fired alone"

So, he's not intellectual, he's spiritual or emotion-based--he "believed" this or he "believed" that

And his "conspiracy belief" included Oswald firing

Look at his statement:  "I thought the real unsolved mystery was Oswald