JFK 101 Part 16
The Ochelli Effect 1-31-2019 Carmine Savastano and Larry Hancock
The JFK 101 series turned to future considerations. The evolution of the research community and evaluations of what has been accomplished were also covered. A section by section look at “The Chicago Plot” sorts some of the odd issues of conflict in that particular episode before Dallas.
What does a writer do when they learn some of their conclusions were based on misleading evidence? Is the official record confusing? Is deception the order of the day?
What can we expect in the future? Hopefully Chuck getting sick during the break didn’t damage the presentation.
JFK 101 Part 16
Carmine Notes:
“JFK 101 Part 16: The Present and Future of the JFK Case”. Here are tonight’s refs:
1: JFK 101 Series, The Ochelli Effect, Neapolis Media Group, youtube.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B9MIvU8c_w&list=PLOIu8TUX4KQr3LzIvAD45lTJYicHLmIYq&index=1
2: C.A.A. Savastano, The CIA Man who considered using Oswald, Two Princes And A King Blog, tpaak.com
https://www.tpaak.com/tpaak-blog/2017/9/14/the-cia-man-who-considered-using-oswald
3: C.A.A. Savastano, The Power of the Press, TPAAK Blog, tpaak.com
https://www.tpaak.com/tpaak-blog/2017/12/3/the-power-of-the-press
4: C.A.A. Savastano, Note the Chain, TPAAK Blog, tpaak.com
https://www.tpaak.com/tpaak-blog/2018/7/26/note-the-chain
5: JFK Myths Series, The Ochelli Effect, Neapolis Media Group, youtube.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2zaLeV-SDM&list=PLOIu8TUX4KQqR9v9c8hUM9GUXVg2Z60pe
6: Lessons from Chicago, Larry Hancock, Someone Talked and I Wrote About It Blog, larryhancock.wordpress.com
Larry Notes:
Chuck, sure hope you are feeling better. Since we talked so much about documents I thought adding these two resources to the show might be valuable. Both have to do with crypts: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=204068&search=ft_sheridan#relPageId=1&tab=page and https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php
Extra Link:
https://youtu.be/83tae1jApLU
Carmine Savastano
https://tpaak.com
Larry Hancock
http://larry-hancock.com
Tune In to the 24/7 Stream from Ochelli.com to hear Replays Special Shows, Selected Music and The Evolving Vanguard of New Shows @ http://tun.in/sfxkx with the TuneIn App.
Thanks to all our listeners and contributors for your support, The Ochelli Effect would not be here without you!
Please contact us here at The Ochelli Effect, or if you want to contribute in some way, please do the same.
Join us in Ochelli ChatRoom for live shows every weekday 8 pm – 10 pm Eastern Time.
Ochelli, Savastano and Hancock: the triumvirate of trenchantness!
What a nice surprise to have one of these episodes. My weekend is complete ??
One of the main reasons I have The Ochelli Effect as my podcast of choice, especially on this issue, is that it examines a range of points, but doesn’t engage in name-calling and invective against those who have different viewpoints.
I have listened to other podcasts, but dropped them, because they seemed to revel in personal attacks against “the opposition”, rather than constructive debate. The irony is that many of the people they attack come from the same (conspiracy) side of the argument. Usual epithets employed include “gutless”, “embarrassing” and “idiotic”. I’ve even seen these people attack in a personal and unpleasant way a widely-respected long-time researcher because he put links on his website to a source supporting the lone gunman viewpoint. As if they are the only arbiters of the truth!
So, to my point. You mentioned the call for a new investigation. This caused me to ponder, in light of the sort of issues I highlight above, is it even possible now a this stage for any investigation to produce a conclusion that would be accepted by the majority?
I mean, it pains me to say I don’t think it is, but I would like to hear you three discuss this, if you could.
It seems to me there are so many differing viewpoints, theories, beliefs from the could-be-plausible, to the wacky, to the probably true, that no process could reconcile them. Some of those might easily be dismissed by a sound investigation (Baker, Oliver, multiplicity of Oswalds and his mother), but would their proponents ever accept the outcome? As you pointed out, a lot of those beliefs are not supported by evidence anyway and so are unlikely to be demolished in the eyes of their originators by evidence.
So, in the end, we would likely have a conclusion accepted by the objective person, but sadly a lot of “believers” are not objective.
Thanks.
P.S: I was surprised and shocked to hear Carmine declare that the earth is round.
Surely, it is flat?!?!
It must be, I saw a video about it on YouTube… :-)
I am glad you enjoyed the show and thanks for the support Chris.