When I first began intensively studying the Kennedy assassination, I attempted to incorporate the objective evidence into my various theories.
What bothered me most was that nearly every piece of objective evidence had been contested.
I quickly came to the conclusion that there was no way that I could determine whether the objective evidence was true or false especially since the government at one time or another had exclusive control of that evidence.
Consequently I wanted to see if I could arrive at the truth another way. I didn’t want to accept or reject the objective evidence. My position was that it might be true or it might not be true; there was no way of knowing. This made the going pretty tough because if I rejected all the objective evidence, what could I go on? Was I going to reject the Zapruder film as well?
Well, everybody cherry picks evidence, and I am no different. I chose to accept that if there was one piece of objective evidence that could be accepted as valid, it would be the Zapruder film primarily because the technology of the day while good wasn’t on the level we see today. Fabricating an entire sequence would be tough. I did allow myself some hedge room though. I thought it might be possible for the government to alter a frame or two.
Aside from that though, I accept the Zapruder film as valid. The rest of the so-called objective evidence I for the most part ignore. I don’t trash it; I just don’t use it.
What I decided to do instead was look at the Kennedy assassination in terms of how people think and how they are likely to react; and I combined that with how I would have planned the assassination.
Much of what I have written with regard to the technical aspects of the assassination is how I would have planned it out. As I say, when I looked at the patterns before me, I said to myself that I “know” the guy who planned it. I’ve never met Seymour Bolten, but I “know” him nonetheless. Now, that doesn’t mean that I am as talented as he was. I’m merely saying that I know him.
Now, the government and the Warren Commission would have you believe that objective evidence is superior to eyewitness and earwitness testimony. Supporters of the Warren Commission principally rely on that “objective” evidence. I’m not sure that point is valid that objective evidence is superior to historical narrative.
Many times in the field of medicine we receive “objective” evidence that is far off base. We should not accept “objective” evidence carte blanche because a machine measured it. All machines and all tests are ultimately run and handled by fallible human beings. Hence, the word “objective” is often an illusion.
Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved