I don't know what the title of this voice card has to do with the subject of this discussion (a response to Larry's card regarding this imbroglio over the Kennedy assissination, which has now widened to encompass the Holocaust), but I couldn't come up with a catchy title, and this was the first thing that popped into my porous head. Maybe some metaphoric connection will come to me as I get going. First let me take Larry's points point by point.

LARRY: "First, where did you get the notion that I assume that you are a supporter of a Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory?"

STUART: Well, since in VC 24 Stuart 1, I write that "I think the 'more-than-one- shooter' idea is very compelling" and go on to develop that thesis, and since much of your reply to your response card, VC 25 Larry 1, deals with debunking the validity of a such a theory (the so called conspiracy theory), by implication, due to the juxtaposition of these cards, I thought you were under the impression that I was a supporter of that theory (sorry to sound so - ahem, haw, hee - professorial).

LARRY: Second, I agree in general with the notion that scientific "truth" as defined by research is being refined every day. . . . Any changes later are not a surprise to everyone (someone has probably predicted the change but their theory wasn't in vogue at the earlier time). But, the important point is that someone, somewhere probably had some facts to support the change.

STUART: Well, maybe; maybe not. There are cases where the assertion of your "important point" is true, and cases where it isn't. MY point in this regard is that the 30 year time limit you seem to be setting with regards to proving the Kennedy Assissination theory (or any theory, for that matter) is unreasonable and is not borne out when one examines the history of science, the history or literary research, the history of historical research, economic research, etc. The formulation and acquisition of knowledge does not conform to such neat time tables and patterns.

LARRY: Third, I vehemently disagree with your assertion 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." Maybe, you're implying that governments can consciously hide things while nature can't. But, that doesn't in the least mean that information that is being "hidden" by nature is any more accessible. To me it matters not that information is inaccessible due to a sealed CIA file, the enormity of the universe, the microscopic size of the atom, or the complexity of the mind.

STUART: Your eloquently stated point is well taken, amigo. I concede it.

LARRY: You take exception to my statement 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."

STUART: That part of your voice card was what set me off on my diatribe about the Holocaust (somewhat emotional, I agree, and I apologize if I seemed to come down hard on you) in VC 26 Stuart 1. As I began my diatribe, I wrote that "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.' As I reread the voice cards of this sometimes heated discussion, I see that our misunderstanding or disagreement with each other rests on a different interpretation of what "compelling evidence" is with regards to the Kennedy assissination.

You, Larry, see a lack of evidence to support a conspiracy theory. In your last voice card on the subject, you write that "I still believe that after 30 years with no verifiable evidence to support a conspiracy theory, that it should be dismissed."

Though I admit that the evidence of another shooter(s) (on the grassy knoll or anywhere else) has not been proven, I think that there is sufficient evidence to seriously question the "fact" that there was only one shooter, Oswald, shooting Kennedy from the book despository building. The so called "magic bullet," the fact that experts have been unable to shoot and reload the type of rifle Owsald used in the amount of time that he would had had to have done it when he shot the president, etc. lead me to question that conclusion of a single shooter.

Looking at the Kennedy Assissination, it seems to me that an examination of the facts place it in some sort of twilight zone limbo where the more-than one- shooter-conspiracy theory has not been compellingly proven, and the just-one-shooter acting-on-his-own theory has been compellingly NOT been proven to be "verifiable," to use your word.

Perhaps it all boils down to language. You say "verifiable evidence"; I say "compelling evidence." In your mind, as you say in your card, you are "comparing the ABSENCE of clear evidence to support the 'Zionist theory' with the ABSENCE of clear evidence that proves that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Since in my mind there is "compelling evidence" to suggest the possibility that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, I get emotionally distraught when you say that this conspiracy theory is objectively the same as the theory put forth by white supremacists that the Holocaust never happened, a theory that I think is completely without foundation and fully of hooey.

Call it the "Hooey" phenomenon. One theory is full of it; the other ain't, in my opinion. In your view, both are full of it. Granted, the evidence to support the fact that the Holocaust ever happened is, unfortunately, irrefutable to any reasonable person, much more so than what I have been calling the "compelling evidence" that suggests more than one person shot at Kennedy.

But basically it all boils down to this: I am simply not as sure as you are, Larry, that there is an "ABSENCE of clear evidence that proves that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy." And that leads us on our misunderstanding about the Holocaust. You say "verifiable evidence," I say "compelling evidence." Perhaps we should "call the whole thing off," as the song says.

Hmm. I guess I couldn't fit the title of this voice card into the discussion after all.