This is a response to VC 25 Larry 1 ("Solid facts, please")...
As I go back over the series of cards that discuss the Kennedy assassination, I see that we first started with Roger's card supporting a conspiracy theory; then to yours, Larry, attempting to debunk such a theory; then to a card of mine where I chastise you for what appeared to be your lack of curiosity about history; then to another card of yours where you assume that I am a supporter of a Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. I said I find the evidence for more than one shooter (specifcally, the so-called "magic" bullet) "very compelling." There's a difference. I'm still willing to be persuaded either way on the basis of ALL the evidence.
And I would not be at all surprised to learn that some key bits of evidence have been witheld over the years. You mention that if after thirty years a theory hasn't been proven, your experience as a researcher tells you that such a theory has no validity, that "it's time to let go and move on."
That may be true with scientific research, with which you are engaged (though I note that scientific truth is being refined everyday - the many new and often redefining "truths" that have been discovered over the course of our century regarding the make-up of the atom is one example; the theory of evolution is another). And I submit that research into contemporary history presents problems that scientific researchers don't encounter; i.e., nature doesn't actively try to hide evidence from researchers the way the governments are wont to do.
Look at the Cuban missile crisis as an example. What we thought we knew about what happened thirty years ago, what we thought was historical fact, has had to be seriously questioned and challenged as KGB files have been opened since the fall of the Soviet empire, as CIA files are opened due to Freedom of Information act law suits, and as Cuban officials have given their sides of the story in recent years. If there WAS a conspiracy to kill Kennedy - CIA inspired, KGB inspired, say - don't think that the CIA or KGB would have made that evidence easily accessible to bonafide researchers, journalists, or conpiracy theory crackpots. I agree that the absense of data doesn't necessarily prove a theory. But what do you do if the source of much of the data is locked away from you. You may have to wait more than thirty years.
Lastly, I take exception to your use of my quote that it's "a small leap from being unconcerned about the conspiracy theories to denying the Holocaust." Your response to that quote is to say that "objectively, what is the difference between the theory that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and the white supremacist theory that the Holocaust never happened."
I find that response a bit disingenuous, to say the least. There is plenty of difference. The "facts" of the crematoria exist. You can visit them today when you travel to Poland. The "facts" exist of the thousands of people who still live and who are able to give testimony about what happened in the Holocaust. I remember seeing such people on Fairfax Ave. in Los Angeles when I was a child. The "facts" of Nazi documents outlining the plans for a "final solution" exist.
Books, "facts," evidence, have been written by survivors of the Holocaust such as Elie Wiesel, and the children of Holocaust survivors, such as Art Spiegelman in his MAUS books, are compiling oral histories of these elderly survivors before they pass away. These are more "facts." The bodies have been unearthed. More "facts."
To equate the EXISTENCE of such evidence that millions of people were killed and the small band of fanatics who would ignore it and say that the Holocaust is a myth, a "Zionist conspiracy," with the ABSENCE of clear evidence that proves that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, is, as I say, to say the least, disingenuous, if not obscene.
If the absence of convincing evidence to date that Kennedy's assassination was part of a conspiracy doesn't necessarily prove the theory, then the veritable mountain of evidence that the Holocast took place doesn't disprove that fact. Shame on you, Larry.