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)
World History and the Eonic Effect