General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy take on JFK Conspiracy Theories and Theorists.
I'm by no means an expert on the JFK Assassination. In fact, I only really started reading about it two or so weeks ago, because the anniversary and discussions here and elsewhere piqued my interest. My original thinking was that it was probably Oswald alone, but who knows. But the more I read (from both sides), the more I become convinced of the near-absolute certainty of the lone nut gunman theory.
First, while some conspiracy authors are certainly intelligent, few come across as particularly credible or trustworthy. A case in point is Mark Lane, probably the most famous conspiracy theorist of all, who was widely believed to be a nut, and who among other things also worked as a lawyer for Jim Jones (mass murder/suicide cult leader) and alleged that there was a government conspiracy against his cult.
Of course, the fact that Mark Lane is a nut doesn't prove that the Warren Commission was right, but it is curious that very few conspiracy proponents bother to admit "yes, Mark Lane is a nut with no credibility, but there was still a conspiracy because of ..." Instead, the conspiracy community regards Lane highly, as a pioneer in exposing government deception.
Second, conspiracy theorists don't drop arguments or pieces of "evidence" after they are conclusively disproven. An example here is the fact that JFK's head jerked backwards after the fatal head shot. This, of course, proves absolutely nothing about the direction of the bullet, because in real life as opposed to the movies, the momentum of a bullet is not nearly enough to cause a human body to violently fly backwards. Especially when the bullet goes through the body, so most of the momentum isn't even transferred.
Still, how many conspiracy proponents are willing to admit "of course, the head movement means nothing, but there was still a conspiracy because of ..."? Very few. It almost gets to be a game, where instead of coming up with solid evidence, they go for quantity, and write volume after volume of every conceivable "inconsistency" in the Warren Commission's version of the story. If you look at any event in excruciating detail, you're going to find a bunch of odd facts about it.
I think any conspiracy theory has to start with the admission that Oswald and Oswald alone shot JFK. There is just too much evidence to deny that. OK, Oswald might have been working for the CIA/KGB/Mafia/Castro/Whatever (though from what I've seen, the evidence of any such link is pretty meager), but insisting on a second gunman -- or even worse, insisting that Oswald was not even one of the shooters -- at this point is silly and is a shot to the credibility of authors who make such claims.
Like I said, I'm not an expert, this is just my take on the subject after reading for just a few weeks. But my unfolding belief is that the case for conspiracy is even weaker than I had originally imagined.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I picked up Jim DiEuginio's book, with moderate to high hopes, since he seems to be one of the more highly respected conspiracy authors. But I was disappointed to find that he also believes, among other things, that the JFK head jerk is evidence of a shot from the grassy knoll. He also seems to believe that all the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle was faked -- the fact that it was delivered to his PO box, that the order for the rifle was in his handwriting, that there are photos of him holding it, that his finger/palm prints were found both on the rifle and on the boxes from where the shots were fired, the fact that his wife testified that she saw it, etc.
I'm certainly not going to dig into 2 million documents myself to figure out what happened. Is it too much to ask that there be some credible author present the case for conspiracy without making simple logic errors?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)I gotta admit I'm taken aback by all the posts from folks who are 100% certain it was a lone gunman.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Everyone has their own pet CT they want everyone else to believe in.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... but I have grave doubts that the official version of events is correct. Could be, but sure seems unlikely.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Let us call it the WC CT.
Same here, no idea what went down...so many people wanted JFK dead, the mafia, the USSR, Cuba, some would say the MIC and the CIA. Some even believe LBJ had a hand in his assassination. With so many wrong answers to choose from, finding the right one can be impossible after all these years imo.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The United States defeated, maybe.
What do they care who's fronting for their Cold War enemy? Would a replacement president be any better? Obviously the historic answer was: not!
Why would they want to kill a chief executive - to have a world war?
Same with Cuba - 10 presidents is it now? Same policy throughout.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I can't imagine a single reason why the USSR would want JFK dead after that. Or anyone in Cuba for that matter. It always amazes me how LHO went to the USSR and Cuba then gets allowed back into the US and kills JFK. Like a ghost.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)who kept the likes of LeMay and Lemnitzer at bay, when they wanted to have a nuclear war if necessary in October 1962.
"It always amazes me how LHO went to the USSR and Cuba then gets allowed back into the US and kills JFK. Like a ghost."
Or like a patsy. Who had been an intel asset in the Angleton false-defector efforts. Heights of the Cold War and this guy who tried to renounce his citizenship at the U.S. embassy in Moscow wants to come back to the U.S. with a Russian bride! After a routine bureaucratic procedure, he is given his papers and a loan, no biggie, and he and Marina are let back in. No interrogations, nothing. A real defector who had acted as he had -- who was implicated in the exposure of the U2 program and the shootdown of Gary Powers! -- would have never got this soft treatment. Or hung out with White Russian exiles like De Mohrenschildt. Or pretended he was with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, as the only New Orleans member, with an office address at Guy Bannister's anti-Castro nest! Let's finally get real about the "loner." He was with the spooks, and they served him up when they took out JFK. This is "Occam's Razor," the least complex explanation for the available facts, if we must use that tired trope. And when he maddeningly survived the day, a mafia killer throws himself at him as a self-sacrifice to kill him on live national TV! But a palace coup d'etat can't happen in America, therefore lone gunman acting alone murdered the president. Repeat for 50 years.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Someone that believed in USSR dogma. But had no help from the Kremlin. Honest.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)and a fake as a Marxist, no prob.
Rex
(65,616 posts)was pretty popular back then. Maybe he came back to America intent on killing JFK for the Motherland?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Would you take Putin's word on something being honest and truthful today? A patsy, a double agent, but alone in killing JFK I will never believe.
stopbush
(24,389 posts)It was not what he expected, and he didn't like it.
That's one reason he became obsessed with Cuba - he felt it was the last bastion of pure Marxism in the world.
You'll notice Oswald denied being a communist. He called himself a Marxist.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)You're right in the dead man's head, 50 years later!
Of course, you're not answering anything I said. Because it's not what Oswald may have thought, but what the State Department did when the "defector" returned with a Russian bride, after having attempted to renounce his citizenship at the U.S. embassy in Moscow, and after being implicated in exposing secrets about the U2 program. They gave him a passport, on the spot! Also Amazing!
stopbush
(24,389 posts)renounce his US citizenship.
BTW - Oswald had a very difficult time with the Soviets trying to get Marina out of the country.
As far as Oswald saying he was a Marxist, not a communist, that's all on TV film taken when he was stumping for Fair Play For Cuba.
His disillusionment with the USSR is also documented. You'd know that had you ever bothered to read the WCR. Apparently, if you're not aware of a fact, it doesn't exist.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)arguments I didn't make. For example, the interesting thing is not the difficulties of getting Marina out of the USSR (which is irrelevant and which I didn't mention) but the ease with which Oswald and his new Russian bride got right back in to the USA.
And what Oswald, the evident intel asset, said on camera is not necessarily what he thought, despite your amazing psychic powers to be in his mind knowing what he thought without reservation.
But you are not a serious interlocutor.
stopbush
(24,389 posts)More than likely, you're a firm believer in the WCR who is just here to yank a few chains by posing as a CTist.
Applying your standards, I see no reason to believe anything different.
Thanks for clearing that up for me - I now know how to take your posts on DU.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Because rational people start with the evidence and work to a conclusion. Conspiracy theorists start with a conclusion and discard any evidence that doesn't fit that conclusion. In the case of the Kennedy assassination? That's all the evidence, basically.
tiny elvis
(979 posts)according to the six or eight other theater goers?
if you have trouble answering, would you think that evidence was discarded?
who saw oswald come downstairs from the sixth floor?
that is easy to discover with an online search,
but who discarded that evidence?
the necessity of the lone nut is the basis of the WC physical theory
not vice versa
what are the limiting factors in the lone nut theory of physics?
they are the number and direction of shots fired
these are not legitimate factors for excluding evidence
rather than basing these factors on physical evidence and witnesses,
the theory's limits on number and direction, fully biased inputs in all functions of the theory,
come only from the lone nut for no express reason
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)What he may or may not have done in the Texas Theatre is irrelevant. It is not "evidence". He shot a cop. There were witnesses. Shell casings recovered from the scene and a bullet recovered from Tippit's body matched his revolver. He shot the President. His rifle was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. It fired the bullets that struck Kennedy and Connally. Oswald was seen on the second floor by Patrolman Marrion Baker; no credible witness saw him come down from the sixth floor, but he was seen IN THE WINDOW, WITH A RIFLE, by at least one witness who gave a description that went out over the police radio and was a close match for Oswald. Under interrogation Oswald placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination.
All of the physical evidence says "Oswald did it". All of the forensic evidence says "Oswald did it". All of the circumstantial evidence says "Oswald did it". What about those "curtain rods" he supposedly went out to Irving to get, the night before? He denied having a package with him in the car that morning to the police. His room had curtain rods in it. What about his leaving his wedding ring and almost all the money he had in a teacup next to his wife's bed? What about the magazine with the Klein's Sporting Goods advert, with the Carcano circled and the order slip cut out? What about the money order in his handwriting? And the rifle delivered to his PO box?
The majority of witnesses say three shots were fired. Two of those struck, all came from behind (conclusively proven by forensics and wound ballistics).
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)"All of the physical evidence says "Oswald did it". All of the forensic evidence says "Oswald did it"."
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Where's the evidence of another shooter? Where are the bullets or shell casings from any other weapon? It was Oswald's rifle. Forensics, autopsy photos, X-rays, all say "the shots came from behind". Nothing says any shots came from anywhere else. Where is the evidence? There is none.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts).... " But what's more, Ford himself is guilty! Not only was it learned that he was secretly reporting on the Commission to FBI Director Hoover, but also, forced by declassified files, he has admitted that he instructed the Warren Commission to move Kennedy's backwound up by several inches !!! The significance of this cannot be overstated! For with a wound in the original location, there cannot be a single bullet theory and without a single bullet theory there cannot be a lone gunman. Last time I looked, this was called "tampering with evidence", " ....
As I told you before, there are grave problems with the chain of custody for this "evidence".
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Which are inconrovertible evidence of the location of the wound. The photos are all of the same person. that person is John Fitzgerald Kennedy. This has been confirmed by forensic anthropology.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Chain of custody problem with all evidence.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)JFK's personal physician Admiral Burkley gave the exposed film to a secret service agent to develop. This is a matter of record. And all of the persons in attendance at the autopsy have confirmed that the photos show the wounds as they remember them.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)... "all of the persons in attendance at the autopsy have confirmed that the photos show the wounds as they remember them." ...
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscv7b.htm
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)" of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location "
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)The evidence says that the autopsy photos are authentic (they were authenticated by the HSCA), and that the persons in attendance who were interviewed by the HCSA corroborated the photos and X-rays as faithful depictions of what they recollected.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)who worked on Kennedy to one degree or another, saw his head wound there and has stated that the photos of the autopsy, which was done in DC, do not match what he saw in Dallas.
Just something I read in an interview in Rolling Stone, I believe.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)
Cherry-picking at it's best.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)People are no longer gullible enough to believe the Warren Commission report.
People are no longer gullible enough to believe the Warren Commission report.
People are no longer gullible enough to believe the Warren Commission report.
Nope. See it doesn't make it true.
tiny elvis
(979 posts)the rifle was said to have fired one recovered bullet
your declaration that it fired the bullets in plural is unsupported
more than no one seeing oswald come down the stairs,
witnesses affirmed he did not come down
the witness description did not match oswald
the witnesses claimed other things beyond the number of shots
the conclusion from the forensics and ballistics is as stated above
but what did oswald do in the theater and why do you not know?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)fragments recovered from the interior of the presidential limo? Matched to Oswald's rifle. Striated from the lands and grooves of the barrel. To the exclusion of all other weapons.
The witness description matched Oswald closely enough.
The conclusion from forensics and ballistics is that Oswald did it.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)59% of Americans are mentally ill!
(I agree, actually: we just disagree about the composition of the 59 percent.)
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)world would just leave a trail of evidence leading straight back to them. There's some good sound reasoning. 
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)It's not the super-competence of the perpetrators - it's their placement within the government that gives them the pass. This is why all the "third" theories are implausible. The mafia can't run a cover up where the WC goes up its own ass. It's either the WCR or a coup d'etat, these are the only real possibilities. And if it's not the WCR...
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)good diction are capable of violence will cherry pick the bits of disinformation that preserve their fragile world view.
My point is that these criminals were not going to make it easy to identify them.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Mantra mantra mantra!
I win! Win!
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Standard Oil and GM conspiring to kill off commuter rail; the Dreyfus affair, etc. Those are all documented, we have evidence. on the other hand, there's no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. If the CIA are so goddamned awesome at covering their tracks why do we know about Operation Northwoods and MK Ultra and CIA involvement in the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran and Diem in Vietnam and the assassinations of Patrice Lumumba and Rafael Trujillo and in running guns and drugs in Central America? They couldn't cover up all of that, but somehow they managed to keep this one thing a secret? How does that work, exactly?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)not to mention the automotive industry, there is a pronounced tendency to minimize or outright deny, still, the well-documented GM-led effort to destroy commuter rail and trolleys. And there are some ridiculous talking points to justify it, along the lines of, well the commuter rail was going to die anyway (the same argument could be used on behalf of poisoning very old people, if you see what I mean).
This is because interest can, in the mentality of those who have one, consistently trump reality. As it is doing in your case with JFK. Not just interest, but denial, an incredibly powerful force.
I've heard people call Noam Chomsky a "conspiracy theorist" for saying there is a ruling class! There is a whole body of pluralist political theory that still purports to deny that there is a power elite, contrary to all the evidence.
Cover-ups only need to last long enough to establish stable relationships of power. Mossadegh, Diem, Lumumba, Gulf of Tonkin... the realities of these episodes were denied for decades! The State Department first owed up officially to Mossadegh in the 1990s, if I remember correctly. Until then it was "conspiracy theory" to say CIA-UK-Anglo-Iranian orchestrated that coup, even though everyone in Iran knew what had happened.
So the hilarious thing is your premise that the coup d'etat of November 1963 has been kept secret. Here you're confused about the difference between secret and taboo, or between truth and hegemony, or, as seems likely in your case, between reality and denial.
In this case, apparently unwittingly, you've bought into a fairly invincible hegemonic opinion, despite the best evidence to the contrary. There are and have always been countless loose ends in the official JFK narrative, especially on the construction and cover-up side with the intel asset Oswald, his mafia killer Ruby, and the hopelessly compromised, Dulles-steered WCR.
The loose ends don't matter. It's not about keeping it a total secret. It's not about super competence. It's about toughing it out and holding tight. It's about who has the power (in the case of elites) or the privilege (in the case of those who echo them) to define what is important -- or to keep repeating the same bullshit over and over definitively, as if this makes it true.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)supported by all of the credible evidence of forensics, ballistics, et cetera. There's no credible conspiracy theory of the Kennedy assassination that denies Oswald was the shooter. There's also not really any credible conspiracy theory of the assassination in which conspirators would rely on someone like Oswald as the triggerman.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)I tried. I take you at least half-seriously.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Claims that all the evidence that points to Oswald are faked because it was a CIA conspiracy aren't evidence.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)are not evidence. You don't provide anything that withstands scrutiny, you just repeat a mantra. We both provide our citations, claims and examples, but full dissertations are outside the purview of a thread. See you in another 50 years.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Just for starters. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6'th floor of the TSBD. There were three empty shell casings near it. His fingerprints were at the scene. The bullets that killed JFK and hit Connely were matched to his rifle. Eyewitnesses saw a man with the rifle at the 6'th floor, one of them gave Oswald's description. A witness on the 5th floor heard the rifle shots a floor up, as well as a clicking sound of reloading between the shoots. Oswald was the only employee of the TSBD who quickly fled the scene after the shooting. He was not seen by anyone at the time of the shooting. That morning he left his wedding ring and cash at home for his wife. He later shot a police officer, an event with eyewitnesses. And so on.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)The ballistics, forensics, and everything else? Have withstood all the scrutiny thrown at them by two separate investigations, first the Warren Commission, second the HSCA. The conspiracist claims that the evidence is faked don't withstand scrutiny. The claims that the autopsy photos and X-rays were faked or falsified, for instance, were refuted by the photographic analysis conducted by the HSCA. The claims that Kennedy's body was altered between Parkland and Bethesda to alter the appearance of his wounds? Refuted by the evidence that it was under continous guard the whole way. The claims that the single bullet wounding Connally and Kennedy is "impossible"? Refuted by the HSCA's analysis, and by subsequent analyses. All of the actual evidence has withstood repeated scrutiny. Conspiracy arguments, on the other hand, are all about handwaving, claiming the evidence was faked, making things up out of whole cloth, and focusing on total irrelevancies.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Have you read bugliosi's book?
It was an eye-opener for me since I used to believe their was a conspiracy.
I'm glad I wasn't scared to read it like many CTers are.
It's good to have an open mind...oh wait, I must have a closed mind because only closed minds believe Oswald acted alone.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I also have Jim DiEugenio's response to Bugliosi's book, as well as JFK and the Unspeakable and a few others. From what I've read so far, though, Bugliosi's book is very impressive and thorough, and the rebuttals I've seen (e.g. by DiEugenio) are all pretty weak.
Like I said in the OP, the most surprising thing about it all to me is just how weak the case for conspiracy is. And Bugliosi's book does a good job pointing this out, going through all the evidence in agonizing detail.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)that the Warren Commission did a bad job.
But instead, they did an incredibly thorough job.
Not to mention, in that book I discovered things about the case I had never read in a conspiracy book before...such as the fact LHO left his wedding ring and all of his money behind when he left his wife and went to the Depository.
I can see why no conspiracy author would mention that...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That has nothing to do with a conspiracy to assassinate JFK though, just the plain fact that organizations like the FBI and CIA like secrecy.
Another good point I remember reading from Bugliosi is that if people were actually conspiring to kill the president
(assuming they wanted to get away with it), the last thing they would want to do is use multiple gunmen, because that makes it so much more obvious that it wasn't just an isolated event, not to mention more likely that at least one of the gunmen get caught.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)but think of the ass-covering involved!
CYA had to have been the mandate.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)So you don't know, but you know!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)distraction from the question that a majority of the people are still asking. Until it is answered they will go on asking.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Whenever a question about the assassination is answered, it is ignored.
I think this fella believes Oswald was not the shooter.
"As for Oswald, I don't know if he was a hero in all this or not."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2232672
By the way, Sabrina, I know you read all 26 volumes of the WCR...cuz you said so...and I was wondering what specifically you thought they got wrong?
Take your time.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of people in the world, from the very beginning, right up to today. In fact the more that is revealed, the more people have become skeptical of the Warren Report.
Why does it bother you so much that people doubt the official story?
I think he was extremely disturbed and someone who was a perfect tool for anyone who needed a 'hit man'.
Other people might not believe he was the shooter, but I don't think it matters whether he was or not. What matters is who might have manipulated him? And no matter how hard they try, those who would like this to go away for some reason, cannot change the fact that most people just don't believe the Warren Report.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...some even think he was a hero. And to think we laugh at the birthers....
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Findings of the Select Committee on Assassination in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy
I.B. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)But thank you for proving his point about CTers ignoring facts and evidence!
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-assassination-acoustics-and.html
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm
DanTex
(20,709 posts)As I understand, the acoustic evidence was the only solid evidence that the HSCA had to indicate a second shooter. Once that's gone, we're back to the lone nut.
zbdent
(35,392 posts)1. All the crap that Nixon did, all the stuff that Presidents did before him (foul-mouth, etc.), what was so earth-shatteringly vile which would cause someone erasing a tape from the White House?
2. George Herbert Walker Bush handed the position of head of the CIA in 1970s
3. One of the first things that George W. Bush did when he got into office was make sure that nearly every "currently" (at the time) sealed document regarding the JFK assassination would remain sealed for (I think) another 50 or so years.
4. Gerald R. Ford was on the Warren Commission ... Nixon gave him the VP spot. After Nixon resigned, Ford pardoned him ... when no actual charges were yet filed.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Rose Mary Woods was playing footsie with Nixon's tape recorder and "just happened" to erase 18 1/2 minutes of what was just your typical presidential conversation! That's the official story, and I believe it, because it's the official story! 
And never mind that 3 men who ran opposed to Nixon in Presidential elections/primaries ended up getting shot! And all by lone gunmen! Just a coincidence, I'm sure-- I'd have to be a Glenn Beck nutcase to think otherwise!
zbdent
(35,392 posts)there would not only be no Republican party today, there might not have been a United States of America ...
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)it must have been pretty bad.
I wonder how much Rose Mary Woods knew about the content of those 18 1/2 minutes? Or was she just a fall guy, like Scooter Libby?
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Watergate is a very good example of precisely how inept the government is when it comes to cover-ups.
The Plumbers had ties to the CIA, one of the groups so often accused of involvement in the assassination. Yet they were so incompetent that they were busted by a night watchman who spotted a piece of tape over a door latch. Their attempts at discrediting Daniel Ellsberg (he of the Pentagon Papers, another example of how for-shit the government's attempts at cover-ups can be) were amateurish.
People went to prison for Watergate and the other crimes related to it, including the former Attorney General and the oh-so-brilliant CIA spook Howard Hunt. What was on that tape? Probably the stuff which would have shown that Nixon was ordering a cover-up. Erasing those 18 and a half minutes was an extremely stupid and transparent attempt at covering up the cover-up.
As for Gerald Ford, yes, Nixon nominated him for VP. He did so only after it was made clear that his original choice, John Connally, would never be confirmed. And, yes, Ford pardoned Nixon. It sent his approval rating into the crapper and destroyed any chance he had of being elected President in his own right.
ancianita
(35,917 posts)era. It was nine years later, with Ellsberg having released the Pentagon Papers two years earlier and bulldog journalism surging. Hard evidence found by the public got a much different outcome at that point than did the delay of evidence finding during the Warren Commission investigation nine years earlier. Nine years earlier, the public was in mourning and asked to be dutiful and wait. Nine years changed a lot about the public's receptivity to the whole truth.
roamer65
(36,744 posts)Former Sen Howard Baker to Nixon, "What do you know about the Kennedy assassination?"
Nixon's reply to Baker, "You don't want to know".
Nixon upon seeing Jack Ruby on TV after his killing of Oswald, "I know that guy."
Nixon on video, "You know ol' LBJ, he never liked being second."
After the 1960 election this country basically had a three ring circus that didn't end until Nixon resigned in 1974.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)More Americans believe that President Obama was "not born in the US" than believe the WCR.
More Americans believe that Saddam had WMD before the invasion than believe the WCR.
And by a wide margin, more Americans believe the fundamental tenant of Creationism, the Man was created in his present form (not evolved) than believe the WCR. 46% to 25%
One would think that with 50 years of study the truth, if it is true, could do better in the court of public opinion.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But I don't see public opinion being an important piece of evidence as to what actually happened.
Also, popular opinion is wrong a lot. Evolution is actually a good example. It breaks down to about 50% believe in pure creationism, 25% believe in some hybrid, and only about 25% actually believe the scientific theory of evolution. Also, more than 50% of Americans think creationism should be taught in schools.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)They seek to affirm rather than be informed but in the aggregate, the majority is usually correct. Even if it is not by a wide margin.
In my research, Oswald is an agent provocateur in New Orleans in the summer before the murders (JFK, Tippit, Oswald) so even if he shot by himself, and the magic bullet is real, and Oswald passed a paraffin test despite allegedly firing a total of 8 rounds, etc, ..even if all that is fine and therefore Oswald shot alone, Oswald is still connected to some anti-Castro group that is likely an outgrowth or rework of the Bay of Pigs. And apparently Hoover, Dulles and the WC didn't want to say that, which I can understand.
http://www.psmag.com/media/the-age-of-affirmation-6594/
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But this is one of the cases where the majority is wrong. The extensive forensic evidence implicating Oswald and the lack of any substantial evidence supporting involvement by outside groups is much more definitive than popular opinion.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Do you?
I don't.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Obviously no correspondence between the two groups.
The likeliest last line in the speech of a politician who perorates in support of the WCR and all that it represents is, of course, "God bless America."
pacalo
(24,721 posts)In addition to that, after seeing the former CIA director's son in action for 8 nightmarish years, it should be easy to understand why 60% of the American people believe there is more to the assassination than what we were told.
I suppose the lone-gunman believers think the MLK & RFK assassinations were just coincidental.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)rejecting the WCR?
On the whole, not.
55% of 320+ DU respondents - almost none of whom, presumably, fit any of your other stereotypes of "Americans" - believe Nov. 22nd was a coup d'etat from within the state.
Another 18% don't believe the WCR.
See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024013605
This is the lowest level of dealing with the alternative hypotheses - resorting to unfounded associations with unrelated ideas.
Talk about the assassination, Oswald, Ruby, WCR, the two million documents, the scenarios one way or another.
Don't talk about angels or global warming, as they have no relation to this discussion.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Most Americans are only aware of the biased and fictional account presented by Oliver Stone.
Arguing that "more people believe patently untrue things than believe the Warren Commission" is not an argument against the Warren Commission; if anything it's an argument against the conspiracy theories.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)What was the motive of the conspirators and what evidence do we have that they acheived their ends?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)
ancianita
(35,917 posts)wouldn't be in the business of searching for and uncovering records and artifacts. Science gets overturned and changed all the time over new discoveries. Even historical events often get rewritten by new evidence that refutes previous interpretations. But not with Kennedy.
I am not a nut job. I don't believe in guardian angels, a god, 'isms,' religions or Elvis. I've an advanced degree from a nationally known university, and have had a successful career. I was alive -- fifteen years old -- and paying attention closely at that time. Oliver Stone and Zapruder were right. There was more than one shooter. No matter who it was, there was more than one shooter. Look at all the messy planning that got Oswald shot on live TV. I saw it. We don't have to know the group to know that Kennedy's enemies had enough guns and hush money to silence all witnesses. A pretty powerful group, I'd say; enough to rewrite history. History is what the elites decide it is. Evidence has been killed or buried. So here we are.
Just my two cents.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)It isn't just historians--it's also scientists and forensic experts who have proven Oswald did it.
If you believe Oliver Stone, there is NO hope for you. Oliver Stone is a whacko, a liar. A thoroughly contempible, despicable individual who LIED about Jim Garrison and the Clay Shaw case. It is utterly unconscionable, and I can't believe you or anybody else could fall for that crap.
Zapruder was not a conspiracy theorist, by the way.
ancianita
(35,917 posts)I'm not "falling" for what has been a professionally engineered conspiracy -- for decades -- to deny the existence of multiple shooters. If you trust these experts, more power to you. I trust my experience, which multiple shooter deniers know will disappear someday. No, Zapruder isn't a theorist; he just has a film that can't be disproven by current status quo consensus.
Guess I'll be a denier, then, like much of the population who witnessed those events during their adult lives. I can live with that label, since there are worse things to be. I don't know about the "unconscionable" part, though. My conscience is clear. At least I haven't killed anyone or lied to an entire country and its history books.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Just that the authors that present the pro-conspiracy case tend to be on the nutty side. The idea being that if there were any legitimate evidence, then I should be able to find a well-reasoned and credible presentation of this evidence.
As far as science getting overturned, this is partially true, but not really relevant. The possibility that a whole new trove of evidence will overturn the present understanding of the assassination isn't reason to deny what the present evidence clearly demonstrates, anymore than the fact that evolution might be disproved by some future finding is a reason to believe creationism.
What you are describing is a sort of "grand conspiracy" which is immune to any kind of evidence at all, because the rebuttal to any and all evidence is simply to claim that it could have been faked by the conspirators. And, of course, that's always possible, in the same way that it's possible that the moon landing was also faked, just not very likely. But the fact that an evidence-free conspiracy is essentially the only kind that is possible in these cases is pretty telling IMO about the strength of the evidence supporting the single gunman theory.
ancianita
(35,917 posts)I do understand the internal validity of present evidence, but I was also an alive, alert, scanning, reading adult back then. I kept my radar out for what had happened to the eyewitnesses, and how the "official story" developed. In the early 70's, a British article appeared in a Chicago paper which I've long since lost, and isn't findable on the nets, that laid out all the paper trail of reports on the disappearances and systematic intimidation of at least four key witnesses by police and the FBI. There were secret files kept on all kinds of dissidents in those days.
By 1975 when we were smirking about the Weather Underground's johnny-come-lately behavior at blowing stuff up, or kidnapped Patty Hearst running around with some weird gang, we just knew that when the evidence sandbox was built, everything else became invalid. It was the time when we realized that our country's leadership had gone to bed with bad guys. We couldn't get the evidence in that analog time, is all.
Living with uncertainty has been the overriding fact of the past analog world. We lived with that and our patience. I'm not trying to describe 'grand' conspiracy by any means. We learned then and take for granted now that 'scrubbing' is a whole profession, and that it's pretty easy for organized security forces in states and national levels to erode evidence and discourage witness. It happens all the time today, and it's just Tuesday.
I'm claiming, lamely now and without evidence, that much nonexistence evidence and eyewitnesses were 'lost,' or 'eroded.' Much evidence and important witnesses just disappeared. Powerful forces had much to gain from the stealth burying and killing off of evidence then, and there was no bulldog internet crowd to call it out.
So, thanks for trying to get me to understand the internal validity of the prevailing opinion. I do appreciate your commitment to the current facts and logic that fits what's left. It's just that those of us still alive saw and now believe that historical agency got bulldozed. I can live with it. I've had to for a long time. It's what people do in a rigged game.
Edit: I read the Warren Commission's Report. I and everyone else who were grown enough to see events play out knew that the report left all kinds of key facts out, including the Zapruder film. Arlen Specter was key in getting everyone to buy into his "theory." Talk about conspiracy. The Warren Commission Report was seen as the codified narrative that the PTB wanted to have stand as the official history. And here we are. The "official story" now stands. I hated Arlen Specter from that day forward and was glad when that old bastard died. I knew I'd never join any political party that he was a part of.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That obviously does not make me an expert, and also I wasn't alive when it happened, so I did not trace the events in real time like you did, and I can appreciate that being there is different than just reading about it.
With regard to overturned evidence, my point is just that we can't reject what the existing evidence points to simply because of the possibility that it might be overturned in the future. If we went that way, we would just toss all of science out the window.
I have no idea how difficult it would be for the government to scrub all the evidence in this case as you describe, but it just sounds implausible to me, given the specificity and the extent of the evidence that exists. Like I wrote somewhere else in the thread, my experience is that the less one looks at details and specifics, the more it seems like a conspiracy.
At a high level, JFK had lots of enemies, and Oswald's background screams conspiracy -- marine, defected to Russia and back, went to Cuban and Russian Embassies in Mexico City the summer before, etc. But you start to look at the actual forensic evidence, and look at Oswald's life and his movements in more details, people who knew him, etc., the possibility of conspiracy starts to fade. It became much more difficult to believe that the powers that be scrubbed or faked all the evidence once I started getting a sense of just how much evidence there is, and how thoroughly things were actually investigated.
ancianita
(35,917 posts)as "crazy conspiracy," depending on who's claiming them. Also, scrubbing and fabricating are now routine and easy for government agencies that have whole departments devoted to nothing but.
Part of scrubbing is fabrication. Everything is in a larger historical context, not just one or two locations. Look at the pristine bullet that ricocheted and went through at least two people (not in that order, of course). How's that for forensic evidence. Look at how only certain people could be present for JFK's autopsy. The military took over when tough ol' Texas could have cried 'states rights' jurisdiction. Look at the immediate executive orders enacted by LBJ after he was sworn in. Look at the lone nut violence stories of the time. King was murdered. Bobby was murdered. Malcolm was murdered. Big. Public. Murders. Then look at the Zapruder film. In spite of today's re-establishing of the official story, that film stands as one of the few contradictory "loose ends."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film
PTB decided that our generation had been allowed, as stated by elites of the time, "too much freedom." We all were told we were conspiracy crazies to think that people in government had gone bad, then found out we had FBI files. In compensation for our betrayals and suffering, the Freedom Of Information Act and Civil Rights Act got passed, and the military draft ended. No one who grew up in that time disagrees with me. Only the young today.
In my generation's old analog life of limited information access and logistics, we learned that there have been and continue to be bad, dark people running things. From those days until Rove made his famous We're an empire now" claim to journalists, we continue to watch history being shaped to suit the PTB.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community (Wikipedia is as good a source as any because of its sourcing format.)
This is just the latest media surge to 'outreach' and enclose the young in the circle of this particular "official story" in history making.
Today, I'm just glad to know that stealth liars and propagandists might be on the run, run out or dying out. The NSA and PR firms are still in the the 'make reality' machinery business that tinkers with free will and truth in the world. But I thank the universe for Manning, WikiLeaks, Snowden, Hammond and others who've worked to uncover what probably would have eventually been scrubbed, also.
I'll not judge you or anyone today for going with consensus. We all have to work with what we've got, and support each other even when we don't agree with each other. I'm happy to let the past evils be and move on, still committed to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help me Zeus.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)Oswald fired the three shots and there were very likely no additional shots or shooters.
The only credible argument remaining is that he was part of a conspiracy, that some entity (a huge variety of suspects are suggested) was controlling him. But when one considers Oswald's character it quickly becomes apparent that he is the archetype of the type of person to do what he did. Alone.
The conspiracy theorists do not even have a single theory of what really happened. They highlight apparent anomalies (many of them falsified long ago) and provide no positive evidence for their conjectures which are as diverse as one could imagine -- You see, the CIA/FBI/LBJ/KGB/Cuba/Mafia/Etc really did it. Any evidence contradicting their pet theories then become part of the coverup. The conspiracy theory ends up growing and swallows all credulity.
William of Okham would do a face palm. "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily."
R&K
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)They start with a pre-conceived conclusion, and they twist or invent "evidence" to fit that conclusion.
There is no evidence of a conspiracy. JFK and Tippit really were murdered by a nutjob who in turn was murdered by a nutjob who acted alone.
I was around in 1963 and remember just how unbelievable it all was. A novelist could not have come up with such a tale.
Truth really is stranger than fiction.
longship
(40,416 posts)The edition that afternoon was delayed and we had to wait at the paper station for the trucks to deliver the newspapers from the presses. They did a great job because the afternoon edition normally arrived at about 3:00 PM. We got it about 4:30, undoubtedly all new edition. It was labelled "Extra". The headline was horrible. "Kill Kennedy"
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And why?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/oswald-the-cia-and-mexico-city/
If the story involves anyone besides just Oswald acting on his totally independent lonesome, it is by definition a "conspiracy". And the insulting of people who question this shit- like why, 50 years later, we can't have access to the rest of the documents- is simply lame.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)I read his book years and years ago. I even subscribed to some of the conspiracy nonsense, but I, like almost everybody else of that bent, started with motive and not with evidence.
There is simply NO evidence of a conspiracy, and technological advances have proven beyond all doubt--not that it wasn't open and shut to begin with--that Oswald is solely responsible for the JFK/Tippit murders and Connally shooting.
Other conspiracy writers also have agendas, and I feel they have done a great disservice to the country peddling falsehoods by exploiting people's dissatisfaction with government.
RagAss
(13,832 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:47 PM - Edit history (2)
U.S. Marine.
Leaves for Soviet Union.
Lives in Soviet Union and marries there.
Returns to U.S. without being detained - in the middle of the fucking Cold War !
Filmed by the FBI passing out Pro Castro leaflets on a street in New Orleans. - why him?
Takes a shot at right wing General Walker and "oooops I missed" - takes photos of Walker's house too. What assassin does that ??
Appears on television and radio to debate pro-Marxists views. - talk about creating a profile.
Travels to the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico and makes a scene in both places worthy of an Emmy.
Yeh, right - your typical 23 year old nut with a rifle.
The only conspiracy here is that there is no conspiracy.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)My experience is, the less you look at the details, the more it seems like a conspiracy. If you just look at the fact that a guy who defected to Russia and then came back, who previously was stationed at the base that launched U2 spyplanes, who went to Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City just a few months before the assassination, who was a vocal Marxist and Castro supporter, and yet also befriended some anti-Castro people, and who himself was assassinated by another shady character before he can be properly questioned, then it smells like conspiracy.
The thing is, that's about the extent of the real evidence of a conspiracy. And none of that is actual evidence of evidence, it is suggestive, but not nearly conclusive. For example, there is not a single person in any other group against whom any kind of case at all can be made as to involvement in the assassination. There is no evidence that Oswald was involved with the CIA/FBI/KGB or any other such group. The extent of a plausible "conspiracy" would be that some nutjob that Oswald met at an event or party said JFK should be shot, and Oswald then decided to do it. But there is no evidence at all that Oswald got any orders or planning or logistic support from anyone.
RagAss
(13,832 posts)in his very brief, curious life. But given that list of facts, what are the odds that he didn't ?
Also, I am no believer in Jack Ruby being a part of anything organized. As a matter of fact, I think he was the only "lone nut" in that story 50 years ago. What hired 'silencer" chooses a single shot in the abdomen to keep anyone from testifying? But I keep going back to a 23 year old whose entire life from the age of 17 on, reads like an over-done cover story developed in the meeting rooms in Langley - just as JFK began his popular rise to power and I can't get past it.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)It is arrogant in the extreme for anybody to start with the presumption that their theory is correct and immediately dismiss all other possibilities as "conspiracy theories."
Screw everybody who starts any post with "blah blah blah conspiracy theory blah blah blah". Get off your high horse.
If you want to have a fact-based discussion of the relative merits of one explanation versus another, acknowledging that they are ALL theories and they all involve conspiracies, that is fair game. But if you want to start with a condescending attitude towards any other points of view, to hell with that.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It is more concise than saying "theories other than the lone gunman", but the substance of the OP doesn't depend on the wording. The point I was making is that authors denying the lone gunman theory fail to present any credible evidence, so far as I have seen, and continue to insist on arguments that are clearly flawed (i.e. the head snap).
The argument that "they are all theories" is the just as irrelevant here as it is when creationists use it against evolution. Again, the words don't matter. What matters is that the evidence that Oswald was the only shooter is overwhelming.
RagAss
(13,832 posts)Being a sole shooter does not preclude conspiracy.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)It is a bullying tactic.
There are plenty of flaws in the Warren Commission conspiracy theory. I don't expect to ever know the full truth.
Setting the argument up as "Here's the 'real story' and over there you have a bunch of nutty conspiracy theories" is disingenuous at best. You noted that this tactic is in such widespread use that perhaps you didn't think about it. And that is exactly who authoritarians use tactics like this. It is a way of bullying the public into being afraid to ask questions and challenge the authority.
50 years later, I have yet to see a single discussion that covers all the theories in a fair and balanced way, subjecting the Warren theory to exactly the same level of scrutiny and suspicion give to the other theories. That's why the debate is so polarized. There is a certain part of the Warren report that is not theory and is actually supported by facts. And some of the other explanations also have some facts that seem to fly in the face of some of the suppositions and inventions included in the Warren theory as if factual.
If anybody ever comes across such a work, I'd love to see it.
ancianita
(35,917 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)As far as your claim that nobody has scrutinized the WC's theory, that is simply false. It's been scrutinized by hundreds of authors that doubt the lone gunman version of the story. The problem is that the evidence for the WC theory is far greater than that for any other. What WC doubters generally come up with is apparent contradictions or inconsistencies in the WC theory. For example, things like the backwards head movement of JFK, the fact that paraffin tests didn't find any residue on Oswald's cheek, the fact that an eyewitness placed Oswald on the second floor of the building shortly after the shooting, etc.
However, no other theory has anywhere near the same level of positive evidence as the WC theory. For one, there is no other individual suspect with any evidence at all against them. Whereas with Oswald, there are fingerprints, there is plenty of evidence that he owned the rifle (it was delivered to his PO box, the order was in his handwriting, he was photographed with it, etc.), Oswald worked at the TSBD, he was not seen by anyone else at the time that JFK was shot, his rifle was found along with three empty shell casings, the bullets were matched to his gun, people one floor down heard the shots being fired above them, there are eyewitnesses that he shot a police officer shortly thereafter, and so on.
There is no positive evidence of a second gunman. There is no positive evidence of anyone trying to frame or setup Oswald. There is no positive evidence of someone unknown other person being in a position to fire shots from the TSBD. There is no positive evidence that Oswald was working for the CIA/KGB/Mafia/Castro/etc. There is suspicion, and there is conjecture, but the evidence is not there, at least not from what I've seen.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Every analysis I have seen has had a clear and strong bias either for or against the government's official conspiracy theory. I wish it were possible to find a truly objective analysis that applies the same scrutiny, the same criteria for evidence, and the same plausibility tests to all of the conspiracy theories. If you ever find one, I'd like to see it.
ancianita
(35,917 posts)wasn't the logistics and legal heft to mount major opposition to formal congressional proceedings and "findings." When leaders and institutions commit conspiracy, their PR call it 'investigating.' But when citizens do it, they're called crazy.
It's a constant battle for mapping "history." Having lived through that period, I believe that there was more evidence and witnesses scrubbed than "found." I will believe that to my death bed. I'm hopeless like that.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)and the others aren't talking, we will never really know the facts for sure. You make a good point that the Interwebs / net roots are a force for transparency, but they didn't do us a lot of good getting to the key questions surrounding 911.
There are a lot of people who benefit by these things not being publicly vetted.
ancianita
(35,917 posts)former9thward
(31,920 posts)but you have become quite the expert in all the theories. Especially about a person "widely considered to be a nut", Mark Lane. Who besides you is part of the "widely considered" circle who considers him to be a "nut."
DanTex
(20,709 posts)About Mark Lane, I didn't think that the assertion that he is a nut is particularly controversial. In fact, I think the better question is who, outside of JFK Conspiracy Theorists, doesn't consider him a nut. For one example, he was a lawyer for cult leader/mass murderer Jim Jones, during which he alleged that there was a government conspiracy to undermine People's Temple.
former9thward
(31,920 posts)In June 1961, during the civil rights movement, Lane was the only sitting legislator to be arrested for opposing segregation as a "Freedom Rider". In the 1968 presidential election, Lane appeared on the ballot as a third party vice-presidential candidate, running on the Freedom and Peace Party ticket (an offshoot of the Peace and Freedom Party) with Dick Gregory.
I am sure plenty of people called him a nut for those actions.
Yes, he was a lawyer for the People's Temple. Before the People's Temple imploded they had a lot of support particularly among the politicians from San Francisco.
After the Temple mobilized volunteers and voters instrumental in George Moscone's narrow election victory in 1975, Moscone appointed Jones as Chairman of the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission. Jones and the Temple received the support of, among others, Governor Jerry Brown, Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally, Assemblyman Willie Brown, San Francisco mayor George Moscone, Art Agnos, and Harvey Milk. Willie Brown visited the Temple many times and spoke publicly in support of Jones, even after investigations and suspicions of cult activity.
After his rise in San Francisco political circles, Jones and Moscone met privately with Vice Presidential Candidate Walter Mondale in San Francisco days before the 1976 Presidential election.[65] Jones also met First Lady Rosalynn Carter on multiple occasions, including a private dinner, and corresponded with Mrs. Carter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple
Mark Lane asked to present Oswald's interests before the Warren Commission. They refused. Oswald went unrepresented.
Again, please be specific, who besides you says that Lane is a nut?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)the government was conspiring against them. For example, here's a NYT article I was able to Google:
Mr Lane's turnaround came almost immediately after the events of Nov. 18, when Representative Leo J. Ryan, Democrat of California, and four other persons were shot to death after a visit to the commune in Guyana and when Mr. Jones and more than 900 residents of Jonestown died, many of them apparently by suicide.
...
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lane%20Mark/Lane%20Mark%20Peoples%20Temple%20Massacre/Item%20005.pdf
If that isn't enough evidence that someone is a nut and sees evil government conspiracies around every corner, I don't know what is. And the fact that he was a civil rights activist certainly does not absolve him of being a nut.
That he is and was at the time considered a nut was an impression I got from reading. The Warren Commission investigators certainly considered him a nut. Who besides you thinks he is not a nut?
former9thward
(31,920 posts)Yet you are asking me to disprove it. If it is so widely known that he is a nut then it should be easy to come up with names especially since you have been studying it so very hard for two weeks. There is no evidence the Warren Commission considered him a nut. They had an agenda and did not want anyone to interfere with it. They did not allow anyone to represent Oswald's interests.
As a lawyer you often engage in active public relations for a high profile client outside the courtroom. That does not make you a "nut." As I posted before many people, including the present governor of CA, were friendly to the People's Temple. Does that make Jerry Brown a "nut" just because he got it wrong?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It is also evidence of a tendency to see conspiracies around every corner. Which is exactly my point. People who push JFK conspiracies tend to be nuts who see conspiracies everywhere, rather than rational and skeptical people who make judgements based on evidence.
There is evidence that the Warren Commission investigators considered and others at the time considered him a nut, at least according to the recent book A Cruel and Shocking Act on the Warren investigation I have been reading. For example, the Dallas Morning News reporter Hugh Aynesworth is quoted as saying "I made mistakes, I helped create the monster of Mark Lane". This after Aynesworth let Lane borrow some classified witness statements which Lane went on to misrepresent (according to Aynesworth). There is also plenty of indication that the commission as a whole though his claims were absurd. Earl Warren "couldn't understand why respectable journalists gave any credibility to Lane". And so on.
Like I said, that's the impression I got. If there is any evidence to the contrary, any indication that Mark Lane is a person of credibility and sound mind, I would be interested in that. Evidently you don't have any.
former9thward
(31,920 posts)Is it linked in the book to a footnote?
How come the WC did not allow Oswald's interests to be represented? That is what we usually call a kangaroo court. Of course it would just be "nuts" so might as well not hear from them. Everybody who does not worship the WC religion is a nut I guess. Oswald was a lone nut, Ruby was a nut, anyone who questions the WC is a nut.
RFK had no use for the WC. I guess he was a nut too. Right? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-dad-believed-warren-commission-shoddy/
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 22, 2013, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)
I have the Kindle version so I don't know the page number. It is not a quote by Warren, it is quote by the author of the book talking about how Warren felt.
The WC was in charged of investigating the JFK assassination. It was not a trial or a prosecution, and also Oswald was dead. There is not any evidence at all that they intentionally threw the investigation. Everything indicates that they were focused on fact-finding, and open to whatever conclusions came up.
I didn't say that anyone who questions the WC is a nut. I said that Mark Lane is a nut, and this is based on what I've read about him, both during the WC investigation, as well as later (e.g. Jim Jones). The point I was making is that if there were really an evidence-based case to make that the WC was wrong, then I should be able to find some non-nut author who presents this evidence without making spurious claims or basic factual or logical errors.
former9thward
(31,920 posts)So you have some great circular logic going on.
It is impossible to debate the WC on a discussion board because the posts would have to be too long (witness the endless books that have been written on it) so I won't do that but the WC was deliberately not given a lot of evidence. Just this week there was an article about how Cuban intelligence in the early morning of Nov. 22, 1963 was ordered to stop listening in on the CIA and Miami. They were ordered to train their listening posts on Texas. Which would indicate Castro had knowledge of what Oswald was about to do. This information was withheld from the WC by Johnson.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304243904579200281204381194?KEYWORDS=oswald+cuba
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I specifically think that Mark Lane is a nut, not because he questioned the WC, but based on what I've read about him. In fact, elsewhere in this OP I learned that Thom Hartmann has written a book questioning the WC, and I do not consider Thom Hartmann a nut, and I am going to read his book. Maybe he's got something new to say.
I agree that it would be impossible to have a complete debate on this or any other discussion board because it would get too long. I also agree that the FBI and CIA withheld evidence, but of course that doesn't come anywhere close to proving a conspiracy. Since when have the FBI or CIA ever been forthcoming about anything?
The article you link to is typical of conspiracy evidence in that it doesn't prove anything. It just indicates that the Cubans knew about Oswald. Not particularly shocking. Even the guy who wrote that book concluded that what he found fell short of a conspiracy, but rather just encouragement. Like I said in the OP, this is the only kind of conspiracy theory that would be plausible -- Oswald and Oswald alone shot JFK, but maybe someone else influenced him. There are other anecdotes of people claiming that Oswald was involved in discussions about shooting JFK. But there is no evidence that anyone gave him any material or planning support, or paid him, or ordered him, or knew what he was going to do, or anything like that.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)For those of you who are not afraid of the truth and haven't been brainwashed by Oliver Stone's demented spin:
I suppose NBC was also part of the government conspiracy and the Clay Shaw jury was also part of it when they saw through Garrison's bullshit.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)NBC report was considered so one sided they had to give Jim garrison half hour to respond
The jury said they believed the prosecution had proved there had been a conspiracy to kill JFK they weren't convinced Clay Shaw was part of the conspiracy.
Clay Shaw lied about knowing David Ferrie and of being part of CIA.
Before he died the judge In Shaw Case said he thought Shaw lied through his teeth and If he had been on Jury he would have voted guilty on Shaw.
I guess you must think Bush won the 2000 and 2004 elections fair and square.That nobody lied to go to war In Iraq.There Is no
republican plan to get democratic voters from voting.And Fox news Is not lying all the time.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 08:08 PM - Edit history (1)
I didn't know he was still alive, actually. For those who don't remember, Newton Minow was Kennedy's head of the FCC ... he's the one who called television "a vast wasteland" and also helped to start and fund a Public Broadcasting System when there were nothing but a few commercial networks on television. Minnow was a close friend of both Bobby and Jack Kennedy.
At any rate, Minow was on the hour-program Chicago Tonight, a local affairs program here. And at the end of a very long interview about all manner of things Kennedyesque, Phil Ponce asked him about the conspiracy theories that are starting to be discussed again. Did he believe in any aspect of any of them? It was so refreshing to see this gentle, intellectual, accomplished attorney, who had been such a good friend to the president and his brother, look both saddened and a bit mad. No, he did not. The Warren Commission did a thorough job, in his opinion, and although people will always want to know more, he said, and want to read things into historical events, they'll never satisfy those impulses. And that is the way of history. Let it go, people. Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy.
That's all I wanted to say. I wish you all had seen it.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I remember his name from my days at college.
As a major in television and film, his name came up quite freequently.
However, this won't stop CTers from believing what they believe.
Thanks for the description!
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I hope you enjoy it:
http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2013/11/20/remembering-jfk
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Thanks!
CTers are already muttering that Minnow can't be trusted.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)Based on the forensic science I believe LHO acted alone. My mind is still open to a conspiracy theory, however, I am still waiting for good evidence and their just isn't any. I have not seen it, only conjecture and speculation and defensive personal attacks when inconsistencies in the CTs are pointed out.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I am not only open to a conspiracy theory, I am actually hoping for one -- it would be much more satisfying than just a lone nut. However, the evidence is just not there, and the defensiveness and personal attacks from people advocating conspiracy theories, along with the fact that they generally tend to treat weak or refuted evidence as conclusive (e.g. the head movement), makes me even less likely to believe in any CT.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)And if you do not believe in that which cannot be proven, you are framed as closed minded and an enemy.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)for the vehement on both sides of the argument.
Captain Stern
(2,198 posts)A theory is something that's been tested repeatedly for falseness, and passed every test. In the truest sense of the words, there are no 'conspiracy theories' about the jfk assassination.....just wild guesses.
I haven't found a single compelling piece of evidence to convince me that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK on his own. "But other people hated JFK" and stuff like that isn't evidence. It just isn't.
The thing that provokes the most thought from me about the JFK assassination is how long ago it was. I'm 50 years old...I was only a month old when JFK was killed. That pretty much means that the only people that really remember JFK are over 60 years old. For what it's worth, President McKinley was assassinated 62 years before President Kennedy was. Lincoln was assassinated 36 years before McKinley. The passage of time is impressive.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)If Oswald acted alone... then there's no national security risk. None at all.
ancianita
(35,917 posts)Captain Stern
(2,198 posts)The documents could expose illegal activity by the CIA in other countries...who knows?
There's nothing they can release that will satisfy the conspiracy theorists. They'd just do the same thing that the birthers did when Obama released his birth certificate.....they'd claim the papers were forged, or that there were still other unreleased papers.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)And if Oswald acted alone, there should be nothing in the docs about the CIA at all.
JimboBillyBubbaBob
(1,389 posts)I've walked every path that this story has led down and come back to the same place. Oswald did it and that is what still weirds me out. This little pathetic wannabe never got the help he needed. He altered history. Our reality was rattled and it still vibrates to this day. 
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)If you did not encounter inconsistencies then your professing to have walked every path rings hollow.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Not more than one would expect from an event scrutinized this much. As Vincent Bugliosi pointed out in his book, in every case there are always some facts that don't neatly fit the rest of the evidence -- some witnesses remember things differently, and also just some random things happen. But looking at the evidence in
More concretely, in order to believe the lone nut theory, one has to believe, for example, that Oswald defected to Russia and then came back to the US without being either a CIA or KGB agent. That visiting the Cuban and Russian Embassies in Mexico City a few months before the assassination was really just because he wanted a visa to Cuba, and not some intelligence activity. That Kennedy and Connelly were aligned in such a way that one bullet went through them both. Etc.
But to believe in a conspiracy, you have to explain away much more damning inconsistencies. If Oswald didn't shoot JFK, why was his rifle, and his fingerprints, along with three empty shell casings, found on the fourth floor of the TSBD? Whey was he the only employee that fled the TSBD after the shooting? Why did he shoot a cop that tried to question him afterward? Why did ballistics match the bullets to Oswald's rifle? Etc.
If there was a second shooter at the grassy knoll, why was no person, gun, or casing ever found there? Why are there no entrance wounds found in the front of Kennedy? Why was not bullet found anywhere that found any gun other than Oswalds? Etc.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There's obviously more to this story than is on the over-simplified surface.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)He visited the Cuban embassy, who told him he could only get a transit visa to go to Russia, so then he went to the Russian embassy to try and get a visa to Russia, which he also didn't get. Workers at both embassies have testified to this.
I guess it's possible that the embassy workers were lying, and actually Oswald was at the embassies to plan the assassination, but, like other allegations of conspiracy, there's no evidence of that whatsoever.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/oswald-the-cia-and-mexico-city/
Oswald was in Mexico City in late September and early October of 1963. During his one-week stay, he tried to obtain visas from the Cuban consulate and Soviet embassy. But intelligence documents released in 1999 establish that, after Oswald failed to get the visas, CIA intercepts showed that someone impersonated Oswald in phone calls made to the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate and linked Oswald to a known KGB assassin — Valery Kostikov — whom the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year.
***
After President Kennedy’s assassination, documents show that the Agency created two more false stories in connection with Oswald’s Mexico City visit. The first cover story was that the CIA’s tapes of the phone calls had been erased before the assassination. The second cover story was that the CIA did not realize Oswald had visited the Cuban consulate until they looked into the matter after the assassination.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There is a CIA photo of someone who is not Oswald outside the Russian Embassy around the same time, which some people mistakenly matched up to the name Oswald, but the people working at both Cuban and Russian Embassies testified that it was the actual Oswald that was in there. There was also an initial statement that Hoover had reported evidence of a phone conversation by a fake Oswald, but that turned out to be the result of an error. The article you link to doesn't appear to demonstrate anywhere that a fake Oswald was actually recorded on the phone, only that some evidence is missing.
Proof that someone was impersonating Oswald would be noteworthy. Proof that some tapes are not accounted for or that the CIA/FBI withheld evidence is not. We already know that the CIA and FBI were less than forthcoming to the Warren Commission, but that doesn't prove that they were involved in a conspiracy, it just proves that they are secretive organizations that were trying to cover their asses.
Still, like I said in the OP, in light of the forensic evidence, this kind if conspiracy is the only kind that is possible: a conspiracy in which Oswald and Oswald alone shot JFK, but maybe some other group helped him. But, there's still no evidence for it.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I think there are odd, ill-fitting aspects to the story that jump out as incredibly weird. Especially when you look at that guy.
...That does not mean I have some sort of alternative narrative I believe or don't believe in.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Marine, stationed in the Japan air base where the U2 spy planes are launched. Then defects to Russia but comes back with a wife and kid. Goes to Russian and Cuban embassies Mexico City a few months before the Assassination. Is known to be a pro-Castro activist but also associates with anti-Castro right-wingers. All this by the age of 23. And this is back when international travel, especially to Russia, was a much bigger deal than today. Then he shoots the president and gets shot himself before he can be fully investigated. On top of that JFK had enemies all over the place. It all screams conspiracy.
Honestly, I would prefer if there were a conspiracy, because it would be much more satisfying. It's just that, the evidence, on closer look, really doesn't seem to support any of that. At least from what I've seen.
ancianita
(35,917 posts)is a case of the public being denied agency in managing a government of, by and for the public. To call people who want the government to stop hiding...or archiving, as it's now called -- facts and information in no way makes them conspiracy theorists. The act of hiding in archives information of national concern to people who experience any national event -- that archiving event is itself a conspiracy.
Archiving is "national," which presupposes that the nation has known information that it shelves for future reference and future generations -- not to shelve information it isn't allowed to know. That's a denial of public agency right there.
Theorist presupposes that one has full freedom to access the same information as everyone else. It presupposes that multiple versions of a broad set of all the known facts are tested or replicated. None of that activity has existed in the Kennedy assassination.
So, on this occasion of Kennedy's murder, I hereby reject all stigmatizing labels of CT to people whose agency has been betrayed by their own leaders. I stand by the people who experienced that event directly and support their right to know right now, everything that's been conspiratorially hidden away in the National Archives.
tiny elvis
(979 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)I'm no dummy, quite the opposite, and have been all over this for years. Virtually everyone, including law officers, in the grassy area opposite the grassy knoll looked then pointed and moved toward the grassy knoll. Some said they saw a wisp of smoke. They were all mistaken? Why was the movie of what happened hid for so many years? Why was once lady's camera never returned? Why were witnesses who saw people and activity in the knoll area ignored?
Plus, again, what kind of lone nut zealot vigorously denies he did it? And isn't him being whacked 2 days later still in the police building even slightly suspicious? While he was still alive he now seems to me to be a man who is figuring out he's been set up.
My thought is that the pros used by the mob/CIA made sure they gave the police someone to arrest -known in the business as a "throwaway", just as right wing businessman Joseph Milteer told multiple people about a week before the shooting.
Thom Hartmann is one smart guy who dug into it for 16 years with a co author and he's sure Oswald isn't the one.
I believed Oswald did it till I read the fiction called the Warren report and that opened my eyes - that one bullet didn't hit both JFK and Connally. So I dug into it more than superficially over the years - and along the way learned that the US government has lied to us before, we did give syphilis and other things to unsuspecting volunteer in the 50's, etc. And learned later that LBJ didn't even believe the Warren Report, and that the Dallas police chief wasn't convinced either.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Russell and Boggs of the WC, the Parkland witnesses who saw a rear exit wound...
They're all just dismayed at how random the universe is, where crazy loners can change history, and they're seeking solace in comforting fantasies of dark plots.
Okay?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The audio evidence was later discredited scientifically, so in that regard, yes, the HSCA was wrong. But with regards to everything else, it is the conspiracy community, not the Warren Commission, that are at odds with the House Committee.
It's not true that "virtually everyone" pointed to the grassy knoll. Some people did, but more people heard shots from the TSBD. Yes, the people who heard shots from the grassy knoll were mistaken, an easy mistake to make, trying to determine the direction of sounds. And then there's the fact that no person was found there and no gun, bullet, shell casing, or any kind of forensic whatsoever has ever supported the theory of a grassy knoll shooter, whereas for Oswald in the TSBD there is all of the above and more.
The real questions for conspiracy proponents, that are never answered, is how did Oswald's gun end up on the 6'th floor of the TSBD, with his fingerprints on and around it, with three shell casings on the floor, and how did the bullets matched to his gun end up at the crime scene, and why was he the only employee at TSBD to hurriedly leave, and why did he shoot a police officer later that day, and so on.
In fact, your post is a good illustration of the enormous difference in strength of evidence between the WC theory and alternative theories. The WC has things like fingerprints, ballistic matches, etc., stuff you could bring to court and get a conviction with, whereas the conspiracy theory evidence is questions like "why did Oswald deny it?" and "why was the Zapruder film classified?", but no positive evidence whatsoever.
He is a smart guy, and I wasn't aware that he wrote a book about it. I am interested in what he has to say.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)In my OP is concede that Oswald acted alone.
Ruby too.
Therefore, no reason to keep the docs hidden.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But, of course, the fact that docs haven't been released proves nothing except for the fact that someone doesn't want them released, and there could be any number of reasons for that.
Response to DanTex (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Like I said in the OP, I was always leaning towards the single gunman theory, simply because I am generally a skeptical person. But it was only when I started reading about it that the evidence became increasingly clear.
Wolf Frankula
(3,598 posts)Any conspiracy that is strong enough to remove a sitting president, is strong enough not to have to hide itself. It IS the power structure, and all must obey. And any "HEROIC LONE INVESTIGATOR DIGGING OUT THE ACTUAL TRUTH" : Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, et. al would end up as part of the accident statistics, or in Garrison's case, found guilty of a felony and sent to a prison full of men he sent there.
Sorry CT'ers, a lone nut killed Jack Kennedy (hereafter Jakkabang). Just like a lone nut shot Reagan (Pithecanthropus Bonzoensis), a lone nut missed Ford, a lone nut killed McKinley and Garfield, a lone nut shot Teddy Roosevelt, a lone nut shot at FDR and hit Tony Cermak.
But go on, Ct'ers, keep believing in conspiracies, like you believe Space Aliens built the Pyramids (Them brownputterers couldn't have built something like that), the moon landing was faked, George W. Bush controlled the Saudi hijackers on 9/11, invisible Lizards caused the depression, Saucer Nazis caused Watergate and other stupid things.
Wolf
