"I don’t like to get into the habit of commenting on a rebuttal to something I wrote, but in the case of Joseph McBride’s “Dale Myers and his ‘so-called evidence’” posted on Jim DiEugenio’s website (ironically and absurdly called, Citizens For Truth About the Kennedy Assassination), I’m going to make an exception." (Dale K. Meyers)
Some debating the Kennedy case engage in unproductive and emotional displays and reasonable criticism often transforms into diatribes of partial fact distorted by personal attacks. Emmy award winning animator and author Dale K. Myers is no exception, his use of hyperbolic jargon and dismissing those who disagree with his chosen conclusions begins with the term "conspirati". The insults begin without any sufficient citations of sourcing to dispute the claims offending Myers and he' claims another website is "absurd" without presenting at least tacit evidence for his charge and this does not support his statements. He asserts having "hammered the ridiculous and unsupported claims about the Tippit shooting made in his recent book, Into the Nightmare." After briefly quoting the offending text, Myers begins his next insult-laden attack.
"Sarcasm alert: But, of course- I wrote the title and worked backwards. Have you ever read anything so insane? What kind of jackass thinks like this? Apparently, in the world of conspiracy buffs, starting with a preordained thesis is commonplace, and so too, apparently is the notion of projecting one's own foible on to others.... "
Again, Myers does not offer to dispute McBride's claims with proof, it is possible citation of his evidence could render these claims ineffectual. Yet he instead engages in personal attacks upon McBride's sanity and calls him a "jackass" for his disagreement and Myers then begins his diatribe in earnest by claiming everyone who advocates conspiracy has the problems he asserts that McBride suffers from. Seemingly, this unfortunate diversion is wholly emotional and supported by Myers' bias and speculation. He then decides that McBride's criticism is "bitching" and using another dismissive claim popularized among conspiracy critics, "buffs". If some critics invested as much time presenting verified evidence as they have in conjuring new derogatory jargon, the case might be less contended. Myers then completes this bit of insulting banter by calling McBride "stupid" and that is not the most award winning commentary.
"McBride can't resist attacking my computer work calling it deceptive and pseudo scientific- which shows his general ignorance about the technique and his willingness to dismiss my work as nothing more than some government lackey falling in line behind the official party line- a typical retort from propagandists who revel in the belief that only they can see the Emperor has not clothes- a belief based solely on their own distorted view of the world..."
Since I do not claim to be an expert in these chosen techniques, I would have a few questions. How many other independent scientific and technology experts have reviewed and supported Myers' work? Can Myers offer proof and his detailed analysis for public view and criticism? If Myers' can provide these or similar verification for public inspection, that could largely decide the matter. However, to make bold speculations about others being "propagandists who revel in the belief that only they can see...based on their own distorted world view" is hyperbolic nonsense aimed a broadly judging those who contend Myers as inherently flawed.
I would not judge either Myers' or McBride based upon speculation, especially personal speculation that none can substantiate from a single article. However, flawed ideas should face exposure and criticism if they are unverified. Many conspiracy advocates, despite Myers' declarations are not "propagandists", nor do they possess a distorted worldview. Some advocates of conspiracy, similar to some critics, are well informed and have reasonable ideas. Myers' dismissal of critics with his flawed contentions ironically resembles his assertions regarding McBride's view of his computer work.
"Stop! Please, must we go over this yet again? Tippit was shot at about 1:14:30 p.m. as I demonstrated with real, actual, believable evidence in With Malice. There is no question that the shooting couldn’t have happened as early as 1:09 p.m. as claimed by McBride – who repeatedly makes the charge with little more than wishful thinking to support it. Here, McBride simply repeats his unsupported (and frankly, impossible) claim as if that will suffice as an effective rebuttal to all of the evidence I presented in With Malice to the contrary."
I agree with Myers that much evidence and testimony supports Oswald feasibly shot and killed J.D. Tippit.i ii iii iv v However, a few evidentiary problems with the official story regarding the death of Officer Tippit are quite important. Officials could not establish that Oswald's gun fired the shots due to modifications, witness T.F. Bowley stated he observed Officer Tippit shot and fallen at 1:10 pm, while a DPD report states Tippit was dead at 1:15 pm.vi vii There also is a strange allusion to Dallas Police Detective Gail Tippit and Ruby meeting repeatedly the Federal Bureau of Investigation recorded.viii Perhaps instead of Myers just referencing his book, he might share the most relevant evidence for review. T.F. Bowley's statement is four minutes prior to Myers' timeline and would render some official claims untenable if verified. Thus, room for contention in the shooting is neither insane nor a distorted view as Myers' claims. Unfortunate reliance upon generalizations and insults disregards reasonable discourse and some official evidence does not support McBride or Myers' assertions.
While Myers does review many aspects of the Tippit shooting correctly he seemingly is unwilling or disinterested in presenting the bare facts. Instead of merely offering a few of the pieces of evidence to support his claims, he engages in diatribes against the mental capacity of his detractors. Myers has some viable ideas and used evidence to support them, yet he disregards the contending primary evidence, and those who might disagree. All the evidence should enjoy consideration and neither critics nor advocates possess enlightenment beyond the unbiased evidence. Where insults ring hollow, reasonable discourse can succeed.
i. Report of the Presidents Commission, Chapter 4, The Assassin, The killing of patrolman J.D Tippit, p. 157
ii. Affidavit of Sam Guinyard, John F. Kennedy-Dallas Police Department Collection, County of Dallas, Texas, November 22, 1963
iii. Affidavit of Virginia Davis, John F. Kennedy-Dallas Police Department Collection, County of Dallas, Texas, November 22, 1963
iv. Hearings of the President's Com., Volume VI, Testimony of Domingo Benavides, pp. 457-459
v. Hearings of the President's Com., Volume III, Testimony of William Scoggins, p. 334
vi. Report of the Select Committee of the United States House of Representatives on Assassinations, Appendix Volume VII, Findings and conclusions of Firearms Panel concerning the Kennedy Assassination, Tippit Murder, pp. 373-378
vii. Hearings of the Pres. Com., Volume XXIV, Commission Exhibit Number 2003, Affidavit of T.F. Bowley, p. 202
viii. Records of the JFK Assassination Collection: Key Persons Files- Jack Ruby, National Archives and Records Administration, February 1964 to May 1964, p.5