Print

Print


Darwinism and Kennedy Assassination--tenacity of the paradigm
I am often struck by the tenacity of the defense of the Darwin paradigm, and
the complete wall of silence that descends on a critic. The reason was clear,
yet hard to accept, and this bit from a book on the Kennedy Assassination
shows the psychology in part.

Thus, I was looking at Fetzer's most recent book on the Kennedy
assassination, after the earlier Assassination Science. The old pardigm has
collapsed, but will anyone find out? I know it took me a long time, not
surprising since, until recently, the students of the subject forever went
haywire and spoiled their case. But the evidence of new research is pretty
much conclusive at this point, given the clear proof of the tampering with
medical records, the analysis of the Zapruder film, and much else. Rereading
Betrand Russell's very early essay (before even the Warren Commission) leaves
one to marvel at how close he was. There were several people like that who
saw at once that the whole thing was a cover up.



Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We Didn't Know Then
by James Fetzer
    From "The Silence of the Historians", David Mantik p.373
For nearly four decades, historians have chosen to hide from the thorny
issues posed by the JFK assassination. Their silence--actually a near
abdication--has permitted the media to set the agenda for one of the major
events of the twentieth century. When forced to offer an opinion on the
matter, historians have chosen, with few exceptions, to recite the Warren
Commission version at face value. Given the straight-jacket, they have
therefore assumed that Oswald did it. That era of innocence has been dying
for some time. jpwever, and by any reasonable measure is now irrevocably
moribund.
Historians are faced with a troubling new challenge--how to write an accurate
and responsible history of 22 November 1963, one that takes into account a
great deal of new evidence....The historians' fear of ridicule has surely
been the dominant motive for their silence....Regarding this fear of
ridicule, Thomas Spencer Jerome has cptured the problem exceptionally well:

[The historian] finds further more that there are various sorts of
obligations laid upon him to refrain from truth-telling under divers
penalties. He is a member of a state, a church, a party, a class, a clique, a
family and in all these relations he is virtually obliged to see things as
they are not, and to speak that which is false, under penalties varying from
execution down to mere inaritculate upopularity, most difficult to be borne.
("The Case of the Eyewitnesses" in Robin Winks, editor, The Historian as
Detective, 1968, p190)



John Landon
Website for
World History and the Eonic Effect
http://eonix.8m.com
Blogzone
http://www.xanga.com/nemonemini