Where does this "It's been 50 years so now it's over" crap come from?

Since when does some arbitrary milestone date signify something's over with?
 
Some poster child over at the JFK Forum of Babel put up this thread: "Okay Ct's your time is up, who did it and why?" He goes on to say:
 
"Well let's be perfectly honest after today interest in the JFK assassination will slowly drop off and any chance of making an impact will be gone for good. But here we are 50 years and you still have no evidence of any conspiracy."  
 
Is 50 years a statute of limitations here? Must be a nice round number thing. Why does interest have to drop off after today? I see some are moving on to other things, like Billy Kelly has indicated in his blog. But hey, 2017 is just a few years away, why quit now?
 
I don't flippin' get it. As long as people are willing to fight the good fight, it's not over.

Just wishful thinking on the LN's part.
Which by the way would not work out too well for them. They kinda need us if they want to keep on spreading their crap. How can there be a Vincent Bugliousi if there is no Cyril Wecht? How can there be a McAdams if there is no Jim DiEugenio?
If we go, then so do they. Or are they going to sit around in forums and 'debate' with themselves about how right they are.

Frankie Vegas wrote:Just wishful thinking on the LN's part.
Which by the way would not work out too well for them. They kinda need us if they want to keep on spreading their crap. How can there be a Vincent Bugliousi if there is no Cyril Wecht? How can there be a McAdams if there is no Jim DiEugenio?
If we go, then so do they. Or are they going to sit around in forums and 'debate' with themselves about how right they are.

Good point Frankie.
 
If this thing is "over" as they so smugly say, then we shouldn't be seeing them anymore, correct? But you can bet your sweet bippy they ain't going nowhere. Like arterial plaque, they'll continue clogging the arteries of information flow and generally gumming up the works.
 
No, it's not over. Not by a long shot.

Stan Dane wrote:

Frankie Vegas wrote:Just wishful thinking on the LN's part.
Which by the way would not work out too well for them. They kinda need us if they want to keep on spreading their crap. How can there be a Vincent Bugliousi if there is no Cyril Wecht? How can there be a McAdams if there is no Jim DiEugenio?
If we go, then so do they. Or are they going to sit around in forums and 'debate' with themselves about how right they are.

Good point Frankie.
 
If this thing is "over" as they so smugly say, then we shouldn't be seeing them anymore, correct? But you can bet your sweet bippy they ain't going nowhere. Like arterial plaque, they'll continue clogging the arteries of information flow and generally gumming up the works.
 
No, it's not over. Not by a long shot.

Stan,

I would have to agree with you that it is not anywhere near over. But it is not just the LNs saying it. I read on another forum a post from a CT that we were never going to be able to solve the crime.

NEVER?!!

Researching a book on John Wilkes Booth, another suspect set up and killed before being "convicted" by a government tribunal as they swept all the questionable testimony under the rug ( sound familiar? ), I devised a scenario hitherto unknown. And this was after a researcher stated in 2006 that there could not possibly be anything new discovered in the case after nearly a hundred and fifty years. He was wrong.

Truth will out and as long as any of us remain breathing, I believe the case will be solved.

Especially with the likes of Greg, Lee, and Sean hard at work.

You're right. From the work I have been seeing (and some I have been participating in) this year could be rather explosive. It's far from over - it's the end of them hiding the truth though and I guess that is what is making them sweat.
I fully expect major headway to be made in having some big files released this year. We are so close to wrapping parts of it up
And the childish part of me (which is around 80%) goes like this: Suck on that LNS! Na na nana na *blows raspberries*

Perhaps the greatest problem with a set duration claim is the fact that most subjects worth pursuing require at times hundreds, even thousands of years to render a complete accounting of some aspects. If geologists had not pursued the sands of Egypt we would not know of the conspiracy of removing and concealing Hapshetsut (the female pharaoh). If no one such as Aristochus in ancient Greece, and later Galileo and Bruno in Italy,had not fought for the heliocentric theory against the lies of the Church, we might still believe Earth is the center of the Milkyway galaxy. Often those who dispute inquiry create expiration dates in their desire to end the debate. As if they could choose the date on which inquiry is no longer allowed. It displays delusions of self importance and the lack of due patience in my view.

This ain't soccer, or football, or basketball or hockey.  It's baseball.  We go into extra innings.  It's over when the inner logic of the game, and not some arbitrary time-limit, says it's over.  

I find it exceedingly noticeable that after 50 years, there are still forces and factors that are trying to ridicule honest investigation and prevent it from proceeding.

That suggests one glaring possibility: some of the principals are still alive.

Why else would it matter?

Protecting institutions and the power behind them, especially those which should not exist in a democratic state but which we love to mythologize as being there for "our security."

I refer you Michael Parenti's rejoinder to Chomsky, that what characterizes organizations based on secrecy and plausible deniability is nothing if not "institutionalized conspiracy".

Albert Rossi wrote:Protecting institutions and the power behind them, especially those which should not exist in a democratic state but which we love to mythologize as being there for "our security."

I refer you Michael Parenti's rejoinder to Chomsky, that what characterizes organizations based on secrecy and plausible deniability is nothing if not "institutionalized conspiracy".

Thanks! 

That's exactly the sort of term I've been trying to come up with myself!

I have to admit I am a kindred political spirit with Parenti.  I recently read Dirty Truths, which is just as timely today as it was two decades ago when it was written.  Great stuff.  The two essays from that period on the JFK assassination are on line, I believe:

http://www.michaelparenti.org/JFKAssassination.html

http://911blogger.com/node/15824

I see he has made more recent pronouncements, but I haven't looked at them yet.

Thanks for the links, Albert. Great articles!

I thought our Steven Duffy put it well when he said "Oh, there are still people alive who were participants. It's just such a Paine they won't talk"...