About David Blackburst
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Date: 1/7/01 12:09 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: [20010107000918.08619.00000247@ng-fv1.aol.com]
I wrote:
>>Actually, I paid $76.00 for them [the WC's Hearings and Exhibits], in 1965.
Keith replied:
>Jeez you started young huh?
Yep, 1965 would be age 14. But actually, I started earlier. Like many on the assassination weekend, I accepted that Oswald did it, and I just wanted to know WHY. Then when he was killed by Ruby, I was not only frustrated at the possbibility of never knowing why, but also began to suspect that he had been killed to silence him.
I read a few things in 1964, notably Buchanan's book, and looked forward to the WC Report for answers. When it came out later that year, it seemed very conclusive. It had an internal logic to it that seemed to answer every question. Then I got the Hearings and Exhibits in 1965. Sure, I found a few contradictory and puzzling things, but it seemed so overwhelming and hard to absorb.
Then came Sylvan Fox, Edward Epstein, and especially Mark Lane. Right around the time I found Harold Weisberg came the Garrison affair. I was hooked. Massive conspiracy.
By 1972 or 1973, I had a bootleg Zfilm and was off and running, and in post-Watergate 1975, the floodgates opened. Then HSCA. Then I began visiting the Archives and ordering documents.
But as time went by (and some wacky theories came and went) I began looking at the whole matter through two different frames of reference: 1) Oswald did it, and did it alone. 2) Oswald was innocent, there were multiple shooters, and there was a massive coverup. Over the years I found evidence to support both points of view. Frankly, I've been back and forth on this several times over the years. There were parts of the WC scenario that seemed to make no sense, but there were parts of the conspiracy scenario that made no sense either.
Right around the time of the HSCA report, I decided to specialize in New Orleans, and this metamorphosized into a David Ferrie interest. I started out as an unabashed Garrison believer. But as my study grew deeper, and especially after Garrison files began to become available, I began to realize that the Garrison probe was not well-handled at all. On the matter of David Ferrie many of the most widely-believed notions about him are badly misrepresented in popular literature. I realized that what mattered most was not blind devotion to some religious fervor pro- or anti-Garrison, what mattered was truth and accuracy.
As I try to help contribute to the historical record, I sometimes run into zealots of one of the established religions who prefer to believe some exaggerated and inaccurate notions about the case, and they seem irritated when the available evidence contradicts one of these notions. But I'll keep on trying, moving forward. I'll take evidence over theory any day.