I guess Charles Pierce now qualifies as a "wacko CTer".

[bullwinkle428]

"The murder of John Kennedy in broad daylight in the streets of an American city remains, to me, an unsolved crime. I do not accept the notion that the Warren Commission, created to allay public panic and not to investigate, and composed of wise men from Washington who had made careers out of knowing more than they ever would tell, somehow still managed to stumble onto the correct interpretation of all of the events of that surreal weekend. (Hell, Allen Dulles was on that Commission and Kennedy had fired his lying ass less than a year earlier.) I stopped believing in the Warren Commission even before it was put together. I stopped believing in the Warren Commission when I sat on my living room floor and watched the accused murderer of the president get gunned down on live TV in a roomful of Dallas cops. I stopped believing in the Warren Commission when I watched a lynching with my parents while the dead president was lying in state in the White House and as the country went numb around me.

The Warren Commission was a natural outgrowth of a mentality that had infected the government from the moment that the government decided that it would build, in secret, a weapon that would not only win World War II, but also have the potential to end civilization if it -- or the men who allegedly were in control of it -- ever ran amok. What historian Garry Wills calls the "Bomb Power" was based from its beginnings in the notion that there were things about their government that the American people need not know. From this came an irresistible impulse to treat the American people -- for whom the Founders intended all of what John Adams called "the awful knowledge" about their leaders -- like fragile children who must be protected at all costs from what their government found necessary to do on their behalf. From this has come a hundred commissions and boards and gatherings of the shamans of the security state -- the slow bureaucratic response to the Watergate crimes, the Tower Commission on Iran-Contra, even the Simpson-Bowles budget commission -- all of which sprang from the notion that the nation's elite should conduct the nation's business in as quiet a manner as possible, so as not to disturb the horses or wake the children. The Warren Commission was the first of these, and it did its job very well. What unruly bloggers call The Village can be said to have been founded in the premise that the American people needed to be shielded, for their own good, from the full knowledge of the facts surrounding the murder of their president in broad daylight in the streets of an American city.

...

I don't know if we'll ever settle who shot from where. But I do know that, almost from the start, the government has known more about this event than it has been willing to share with the people who, allegedly, govern themselves through it. It is long past time for that to end. It has been 50 years. So many people connected, in one way or another, and by one person or another, to the events in Dallas are dead. The Soviet Union is dead. Do not protect yourselves by claiming to protect us. We have been protected for too long and from too much of what the government has done in our name. We are not children, huddled at the classroom door, wondering why the nuns are weeping, and why the world has suddenly gone so silent all around us."

Read more: Anniversary of JFK Assassination - The Kennedy Assassination And American Fragility - Esquire
Follow us: @Esquiremag on Twitter | Esquire on Facebook
Visit us at Esquire.com

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/anniversary-of-jfk-assassination-112213

[sharp_stick]

1. You seem surprised n/t

[bullwinkle428]

6. Not terribly - he reflects my own feelings in that there's a great deal

of information that we, the public, have not been privy to since the event took place.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

2. He did not propose an actual theory--merely surmised there is more about JFK murder than gov.

Is willing to release. When he starts talking ballistics, forging of documents, and faked Zapruder film or the like, then I'll call him a crazy CT'er.

[bullwinkle428]

5. But it seems there are many that really don't make an effort to

distinguish those who merely question the official story and those who have their own particular theory regarding every last detail of the crime.

Funny how that applies to 9/11 as well - countless examples of that right here on DU.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

7. True

[Schema Thing]

20. still, one should have a theory. because things happen somehow. mechanistically.

it wasn't magic. Oswald acting alone is a theory with a hell of a lot of evidence behind it.

I've never heard a competing theory that answers near as many questions, even though for most of my life I was inclined to believe that Oswald didn't act alone or even play an active role.

But then again, for most of my life I stayed ignorant of the known facts.

[duffyduff]

12. Almost everything has been released. This STILL hasn't satisfied the CTs.

It's long overdue to give it up.

[riderinthestorm]

17. How do you know "almost everything has been released"? Is there a list of items to be checked as

They come out?

[whathehell]

22. The government itself said in the late 70's, that "a conspiracy was probably involved" in the death

of JFK. Conspiracies DO happen, believing in one hardly puts one in the nutjob category.

You think it's "long overdue to give it up"?...That's probably because you were too young to

remember it happening and don't really care....A lot of us still do.

[Stainless]

30. Almost everything has been released?

I don't think so. I was reminded recently that most of the files were locked away for 75 years. A time when most of those who were old enough to remember the event would be long gone. Where did you get your information?

[Warren DeMontague]

47. ALMOST everything! Isn't that good enough? ALMOST!

I'm sure that the last parts that they're still refusing to release don't actually say anything, which is why they're still holding onto them.

[HooptieWagon]

57. The law was changed.

In 1992 a law was passed releasing remaining documents in 25 years, which is 2017. Even then, I doubt the CTists will be satisfied....just as releasing Obama's long form birth certificate didn't satisfy the birthers. For the true "believers", faith trumps all evidence.

[treestar]

74. +1

Doubling down on dumb seems to be the way these days.

[rhett o rick]

77. CT'ers as you try to disparagingly call them, have open minds. It's those

that accept the government "story" lock stock and barrel, are the ones operating on faith. I agree there is a lot of evidence but there still are questions. Why are some so adamant about disparaging those that might not buy the government story? Are they afraid that if new evidence emerges it might make them look foolish?

[HooptieWagon]

85. "Open minds"? Thats a laugh.

CTers have anything but open minds. They form a conclusion, then discard all the evidence that doesn't support the conclusion, and invent "facts" to support their conclusion and call it evidence. Knock yourselves out...it's great fiction and sells a lot of books and movies. But it's laughable they're seeking "the truth"...which is why rhey're placed in the same category as birthers, 911 truthers, etc. If they are subjects of derisiin, it's because they've earned themselves that status.
People who believe Oswald was the lone assassin don't "buy the government's story lock stock and barrell". They have looked at all the available evidence, and seen none that implicates a conspiracy. While it's possible that evidence will surface of a conspiracy, its unlikely after 50 years, and becomes ever more unlikely as time passes. Any unseen evidence at this point likely is of a embarrassing nature, or reveals intelligence connections, neither of which proves govt involvement in the actual assassination.

[rhett o rick]

95. It's very closed minded to categorize all people that are skeptical as some kind

of nut cases that get the CT'er label disparagingly used. You've looked at all the information available to you and formed a conclusion. And you are so certain that you cant be wrong that you are willing to disparage those that dont agree. I agree that the evidence we've been given is compelling. But I dont think it's necessary to disparage those that are skeptical. There are many unanswered questions. I thought that only the conservatives thought that skepticism was a bad thing.

[sabrina 1]

101. You are equating DUers to Birthers? Nice, and you deniers wonder why a majority of the people doubt

you. A HUGE majority as time goes by and which only increases the more the small minority tries to denigrate and silence those who have those doubts. It's hard to denigrate 80% of the population. But that doesn't stop them from trying, losing even more people who might be open to rational discussion. That is what caused ME to start wondering if we had the truth about the day. The bullying and name calling and insults of the Deniers.

[HooptieWagon]

104. No. CTers to birthers.

They act the same.

[EOTE]

43. Really? What percentage of 'things' have been released?

90%? What HASN'T been released? You sound like you're speaking on authority, what has and hasn't been released. To make such an assertion, you should be able to provide at least that, I'd assume.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. Wow. ALMOST everything has been released.... and it's only been 50 years?

How reasonable! WHY AREN'T PEOPLE SATISFIED WITH NEARLY THE WHOLE TRUTH?



Still not really sure why someone impersonated him on the phone to the Soviets and Cubans in Mexico, linking him to a KGB assasin in the process. And why there was an admitted CIA coverup of those events.

That seems... weird.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/oswald-the-cia-and-mexico-city/

[sabrina 1]

96. How do you know that 'nearly everything has been released'?

[Sanity Claws]

64. He proposes a conspiracy of silence

so that the conspiracy behind the assassination, whatever it may be, does not see the light of day.

[sabrina 1]

87. And that is the position of a vast majority of the American people, not to mention the rest of the

world. They don't have any theories, they just don't believe the official story which seems more like a CT itself each time more information is obtained.

He IS the Mainstream. Those who cling desperately to the notion that they have all the facts have always been and are increasingly, in the minority.

[villager]

3. Expect the usual bullying snark from the Lone Nut Theorists

They are all about "compliance" and "shutting up," as opposed to actually getting to the bottom of anything, let alone discussing it in a remotely respectful way...

[duffyduff]

10. It isn't a theory--it's a fact. n/t

[villager]

11. ...and of course, their patronizing pronouncements

Devoid, as previously noted, of any discussion

[duffyduff]

14. Believe what you want, you just sound silly.

Next you will deny the moon landing happened.

[villager]

16. as noted, only snark offered up

n/t

[sabrina 1]

97. You need to qualify statements like that. Anyone seeking credibility generally makes it

clear they are not claiming that their opinion is a fact: 'I am speaking only for myself, to ME you sound silly'.

The fact is that a majority of the people agree with the person who, to you, sounds silly. Most people do not believe the official story.

[whathehell]

23. Like hell it is...Check out my last post. n/t

[JDPriestly]

34. How do you explain de Mohrenschildt's friendship with Oswald?

That stumps me.

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/10/14/bush-and-the-jfk-hit-part-5-the-mysterious-mr-de-mohrenschildt/

[HooptieWagon]

60. "Friendship" is likely a relative term.

Oswald had few or no friends, so likely anyone who said hello and was willing to listen to his political screeds he likely redgarded as a friend. Is there evidence the friendship extended both ways?
More than likely de M was keeping tabs on Oswald for the CIA. Understandable, since Oswald was the sort of unhinged nut the CIA might want to keep tabs on. Understandable the CIA would want to keep that hidden. Firstly, because such domestic spying by the CIA was illegal. Second, because admitting de M was an informant (or more) would endanger the safety and security of his other contacts.
However, since there is no evidence whatsoever that de M aided or abetted Oswald in any way, alleged CIA involvement is extremely tenuous... no more than a cop has conspiratal involvement in a crime committed by one of his street snitches.

[JDPriestly]

62. Nice conjecture. Possibly true.

But not based on evidence anymore than conjecture and speculation to the contrary is based or would be based on evidence. The point is there are still lots of questions about what happened before and after Kennedy was assassinated. \

Assassination is a serious matter. Kennedy's assassination deserves new study from today's perspective, and not just regarding the ballistics.

[treestar]

76. As someone who renounced his citizenship in the Soviet Union

In those cold war days, you can bet he'd be of interest. That is one factor that can inflame conspiracy theories. Here he is with a Soviet wife and he'd lived there and renounced his citizenship. It's the kind of thing the Soviets would have been interested in doing. Doesn't prove anything. So many factors regarding the assassination lend themselves to unprovable conspiracy theories.

[HooptieWagon]

86. The CIA wasn't the only agency interested in Oswald.

The FBI was also watching him, probably Navy Intelligence, the State Department, and the KGB kept him under surveillence 24/7 while he was in Russia. The guy was a loose cannon, an unpredictable nutcase, and quite likely no agency could figure him out and thus considered him a "problem" to be monitored.

[questionseverything]

99. all those alphabet agencies watching him

and yet no one from those departments checks on him the day the Pres visits his city?

sounds same as 9-11, lots of warnings about the highjackers but no one bothers to stop them

[Octafish]

92. Poppy's, too.

His contact info, nickname, kids' birthdays, etc. was in DeMohrenschildt's address book.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdemohrenschildt.htm

Small world.

[Logical]

70. LOL, make believe is more fun I realize. But get over it. It was alone nut. n-t

[treestar]

75. It's been investigated for 50 years

One other person was brought to trial for it and acquitted.

Something should have come out by now if there was a conspiracy. Human nature.

Marina Oswald is still alive. Her memory could be useful and people have had years to discuss it with her.

[NCTraveler]

4. He doesn't even hide it.

" I stopped believing in the Warren Commission even before it was put together"

[stopbush]

8. Yep.

[SidDithers]

28. Yeah. That line kinda jumps out, eh?...nt

Sid

[Ace Acme]

39. Yes, and he provides a valid reason for that position.

The presence of Allen Dulles on the Commission after JFK had fired him.

An analogous presence for the 9/11 Commission was that of Philip Zelikow, the architect of the demotion of Richard Clarke early in 2001 resulting in Clarke's inability to get a hearing for his Clarke's plan to go after al Qaeda before 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. How did he know Dulles would be on the commission before it was formed?

How did a fifth grader even know who Allen Dulles was?

Talk sense.

[dreamnightwind]

50. Great analogy, absolutely correct - eom

[sabrina 1]

90. Why would he hide it? Honest people do not hide things unless there is a very good reason.

You left out his reasons for not trusting the WC which he also did not hide.

He is in the majority in his opinion after all the work that has been done to try to push the WC findings on the people. When that many people doubt you, maybe there is a reason why. Pierce has explained his reasons.

He offers no theories, just doesn't believe the official story. That is the position of a majority of people and always has been, although the numbers who doubt it have only grown over the years as more and more has been revealed.

[duffyduff]

9. An opinion isn't fact. Pierce is wrong. End of story.

He has NO credibility with me on this issue.

[villager]

13. He must really be losing sleep over that.

n/t

[whathehell]

24. LOL n/t

[Logical]

71. I imagine his imagination keeps him up late anyway. n-t

[villager]

94. In your imagination... he stays up late?

[frylock]

31. your opinion has been duly noted.

[fascisthunter]

56. oh..ok

[ElboRuum]

61. Someone on the internetz named "duffyduff" says it's the end of the story...

...so I guess it must be so. After all it's on the internet. You can't put anything that isn't true on the internet. I read that on the internet.

[ancianita]

15. I think he's talking about the government separating itself from accountability to the people.

The secrecy that erodes trust in the integrity of representative bodies in this democracy isn't apparent in the assassination's planning or execution but in its aftermath. Why documents had to be secret and archived leaves the question of leadership integrity open, at least for me.

If 2017 is the date of the archival release of the Kennedy assassination papers, I'll wait 'til then to see what the government decided Americans need not have known for over 50 years. Perhaps I can better understand the integrity of this country's past, maybe even its present, leaders.

[LuvNewcastle]

18. Some people have something to hide.

If there wasn't a conspiracy and the government knows that, let's see all of the information they have on it. If they know it, they must have evidence. You don't really know anything if you don't have all the evidence. The government has spawned all of the conspiracy theories by not releasing the information they have. It's 50 years after the fact and we still don't have it all; they might never release it. I can't trust what anybody says about a subject if all the information isn't shared with me. The most important indication that there was a conspiracy is that the government is still, after 5 decades, withholding information.

[KoKo]

19. It's an excellent read! Recommend.

[brewens]

21. Sometimes the correct answer to a question is "I don't know." That's where I'm at and you don't

know what you don't know. I think you kind of have to be predisposed one way or the other to settle on believing any set of "facts" in this case.

[whathehell]

25. "I think you kind of have to be predisposed one way or the other to settle on believing any set".

One big thing that predisposes: Caring...which usually comes with being old enough to remember it.

[DirtyDawg]

26. Remember...

...Ed Lansdale...E. Howard Hunt...Dulles...Nixon...Johnson...the Pentagon Papers...the reason for the Watergate burglary...ending the Vietnam involvement almost before it got started...nuclear disarmament and the end of The Cold War...the assassination of Diem...now just google em all and you get your answer.

[WillyT]

27. K & R !!!

[SidDithers]

29. ...

Sid

[Major Hogwash]

33. JFK wasn't your President.

So, what gives with all of the snark?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

37. It's a fucking Onion newspaper. Hilarious as hell.

[Logical]

72. It is a joke. Look it up.

[treestar]

88. everyone in Canada has the same access to information to have an opinion

about it. But the Onion is funny, as usual.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

38. Nice one.

[meanit]

32. Pierce is absolutely correct.

A large amount of the players in the JFK assassination are gone. The Soviet Union is gone. Castro is an old man. Why still the secrecy? Why the "national security" black marker bullshit on many of the documents that have been released? Why the postponements of releasing documents, the archiving, the stonewalling? There are no more valid reasons after 50 years for not making everything about the JFK assassination public. None. Yet they still do it.... Why?

This is why many people still smell a rat. When information that should be released is still held in secret, it makes people think that there is a possible conspiracy at work, and they start to come up with theories as to what or why. You can't fault people for thinking this way.

If the WCR is so correct wouldn't releasing all of the JFK assassination documents just back up their findings?

[Peregrine Took]

52. + 1,000,000,000,000. n/t

[Ikonoklast]

54. There still might be people alive whose mistakes or bad judgment will become apparent.

Oswald was on so many different radars, so many different agencies, yet...

[fascisthunter]

55. exactly!

[proReality]

35. Anyone who watches

Dark Legacy (Netflix and YouTube) has to question the official story.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

36. "CTer" --> CTist. nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

40. Maybe I'm too suspicious by nature...

but this is what I can't seem to get past:

I stopped believing in the Warren Commission when I sat on my living room floor and watched the accused murderer of the president get gunned down on live TV in a roomful of Dallas cops.

I don't believe the official story for a minute, and couldn't care less what posters to a message board call me...

[Art_from_Ark]

68. Not only was Oswald gunned down in a roomful of cops

but none of them seemed to notice Ruby's gun. And how the hell was Jack Ruby allowed in there in the first place?

[calimary]

79. He was a groupie. A police groupie that is. From what I've read about him.

Kinda like a George Zimmerman of that era in one way, I suppose. He hung out with them, gave them free drinks at his bar all the time, visited the precinct frequently. A "buff" as it used to be called sometimes, and a wanna-be tough guy who packed his own heat. Pretty much was allowed to come and go freely at that police station, a familiar figure to the cops there, presumed harmless, nobody gave him a second thought.

[treestar]

89. In those days you could take a gun onto a plane

I don't think their not having security in those days was odd.

[MannyGoldstein]

80. That's what makes me suspicious, too

All the trappings of the Mafia taking out a patsy.

[Uncle Joe]

41. There are too many odd coincidences regarding the Kennedy Assassination for it not to be

a conspiracy.

Thanks for the thread, bullwinkle.

[zeemike]

42. The assignation of JFK was the genesis of the CT meme.

And the CT tool is powerful...just think, all you need to do to fool people is have an official story, like created by the Warren commission and if anyone questions it call them a CT nut, and claim they also believe in reptilian aliens taking over the world.
And it has worked for decades now, and even here on a progressive board you will be shut down with the CT label if you question any official story.
And once they got away with it on JFK there was nothing they could not do and get away with ...no matter if people saw it with their own eyes they would be afraid to say anything for fear of the ridicule they would face.

Yep it will be Pierce under the buss because otherwise you have to face the fact that you have been manipulated and controled...and who wants that?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

81. it is easier to fool someone than it is to convince someone that they were fooled ...

[zeemike]

82. Yep....n/t necessary

[questionseverything]

100. most important point in thread.....

And once they got away with it on JFK there was nothing they could not do and get away with ...no matter if people saw it with their own eyes they would be afraid to say anything for fear of the ridicule they would face.

[cpwm17]

44. Charles Pierce doesn't write about the evidence

perhaps because he doesn't know about the evidence. Since the evidence is extremely easy to find, his ignorance must be willful:

"I stopped believing in the Warren Commission even before it was put together."

Yep, his ignorance is willful.

"I don't know if we'll ever settle who shot from where."

Charles Pierce needs to look up the evidence. The evidence proves that Oswald shot JFK. There were witnesses to Oswald firing the shots. They have the video of JFK's assassination. They have the murder weapon that fired the shots and it belonged to Oswald. There's much more evidence. Ignorance is no excuse.

[dreamnightwind]

51. Even if what you claim is true

and for me that's far less certain, Oswald killing JFK still leaves a lot of room between that and lone nut. He killed JFK as part of what? As part of nothing? That's one explanation, that it was all about him. But he could have been working for and/or with someone else.

Your argument, to me, is like the 9/11 arguments that make the leap from an assertion that the buildings weren't brought down by controlled demolition to an acceptance of the official explanation of the whole event.

It is perfectly reasonable to find sufficient problems with the official story to reject it, without claiming to know the truth. That's basically where I'm coming from.

[DanTex]

67. That Oswald and Oswald alone shot JFK is certain well beyond reasonable doubt.

You are right, that still leaves room for a conspiracy, because Oswald could have been working for someone. There's no evidence of that, but it is still much more plausible than any theory that denies that Oswald fired the fatal shots or insists on a second gunman. But article cited in OP doesn't bother and make that distinction, and in fact specifically says "I don't know if we'll ever settle who shot from where". This is wrong. We know who shot and from where.

The problem with articles like the one in the OP is that they abandon even the pretense of reason, and throw all the evidence into the same "we may never know" bucket. It almost seems like a deliberate attempt to place the JFK assassination in some mythical place immune from logical deduction. Actual evidence -- things like fingerprints, and witnesses, ballistics, medical evidence, and so on -- are all tagged as being part of "the official story someone is trying to sell us", so they can all be simply dismissed offhand.

[Octafish]

93. 'The problem with articles like the one in the OP is that they abandon even the pretense of reason''

Like stating: "That Oswald and Oswald alone shot JFK is certain well beyond reasonable doubt" when the evidence shows otherwise.

http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/

[questionseverything]

103. this pretty much sums it up for me

. [49] Anyone with a copy of page 523 of the Warren Commission Report, or access to a computer, can see that on the day of the assassination Baxter had quite legibly written that JFK's "right temporal and occipital bones were missing." (my emphasis) [50] [F-18] A missing occipital bone, or a gaping wound in occipital bone, would offer evidence that a bullet had entered from the front and exited through the rearmost occipital bone.

/////////////////////////////////////

i mean i saw in the z film jfk get shot in the forehead on the right side, oswald was behind him so he could not of done that shot

[Bolo Boffin]

45. A dogmatic resistance to what can be known is just as destructive

as a dogmatic insistence on treating fantasies and myth as reality. Pierce suffers from the former and not the latter. When he's puncturing the myth that government must protect us from the truth, there's no finer writer alive. When he is rejecting the Warren Commission before it was even formed, he's displaying all the critical judgment of the fifth grader he was at the time.

There is only one recourse to the dilemma here: the evidence. When you have rejected that, who cares what any one person thinks? The forces who seek to keep the truth hidden have won. Yes, Charles Pierce, we can handle the truth. We are all adults here. Start handling it already.

[scarletwoman]

49. That's a wonderful post by Pierce.

Thank you for bringing it here.

I see it's brought out the usual pouting and sneering and stamping of tiny feet by those who simply cannot bear to see anyone questioning the official story. They are like buzzing flies. An annoying noise signifying nothing of import.

[Peregrine Took]

53. It is wonderful! n/t

[fascisthunter]

58. K&R

[johnnyreb]

59. K&R

Thank you Charles Pierce for your well-composed contribution.

[colsohlibgal]

63. CP Didn't Need to Get Specific

Others will and have done some of that.

I just can't believe there are that many who seem dead sure it was only LHO. There are legitimate witnesses who were ignored who saw real things in the grassy knoll area. Nixon, when asked later what he knew always told people they didn't want to know, it would blow their mind or some words like that.

Again, what kind of true believer lone nut denies doing it? And isn't the fact he got silenced so quickly bother some of you who are dead sure it was him and only him?

I believed it was Oswald till I read the Warren Report. Then we find that more than a few members of the commission were not convinced but went along for the " good of the country". We hear audio of Johnson on the phone wanting to head off any real investigation hence they needed their own to make sure they pinned it on LHO. Pretty fishy.

Of course also in the mid 70s the conclusion of the House Committee was that there was likely a conspiracy. I agree, I've spent a good deal of time looking into this and I'm as sure as I can be LHO did not act alone and semi sure he was just a patsy.

[Berlum]

65. Indeed.

[TBF]

66. I don't normally buy into much of the CT -

especially with my grandfather going on and on about the moon landing being faked etc ...

And, frankly, capitalism is bad enough by itself that advocating against it keeps me quite busy.


But I don't think we've ever heard the true story on JFK. There were factions who really hated our first Catholic president, in much the same way as they hate Obama today. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out his death was a hit rather than one sole wacko. I haven't done a lot of reading on it and probably won't but I'd love to know the real story and I'd love to see someone in government release ALL the official records on it.

[DanTex]

69. What's unfortunate is that people like Pierce simply don't want to look at any of the evidence.

I suppose it is comforting to just remain at a safe distance from the actual facts ("I stopped believing in the Warren Commission even before it was put together&quot , a distance from which statements like "I don't know if we'll ever settle who shot from where" might retain some credibility.

The thing is, even if there are some unanswered questions, that doesn't mean that all of the questions are unanswered. The questions "who shot" and "from where" are not unanswered. I suppose Pierce is just trying to make a general statement about distrust of government and the powers that be, and summarize the emotions of people who lived through the JFK assassination. It's too bad that he needs to ignore the factual record in order to do that.

[treestar]

73. That just sounds like a general anti-government rant

It doesn't address anything in particular, but simply argues that the Warren Commission must have hid things from the public just because his opinion of the government is what it is.

[rhett o rick]

78. Being skeptical about what your government tells you is a bad thing. Blind faith is. nm

[treestar]

84. He's not just skeptical

He doesn't believe them just because they are the government. Complete skepticism is no better than blind faith.

[rhett o rick]

102. I will agree that skepticism at extremes is as bad as blind faith.

I dont agree that the OP is speaking of skepticism in the extreme. He is merely pointing out that the government doesnt trust our judgement and are openly keeping secrets from us.

[TheKentuckian]

91. and here is the real reason for the rabid anti conspiracy stuff.

Fear of distrust of the government. The thing is distrust of government can only be neutralize by transparency, competence, and not doing shit that is between shady and corrupt, much of it . Further, that some level of distrust or at minimum trust but verify must be ever present to even have a functioning democracy.

[treestar]

98. It may at times but this guy assumes

it is the case all the time.

If a commission found that there was discrimination against women and a law should be made to address it, there would be no problem. Commissions come up with liberal types of conclusions too.

[NBachers]

83. I'll rec

[TheJames]

105. When I was about 10,

my father took me in his arm, raised me up and had me put my thumb in the chip/hole in the granite wall that the bullet that killed Huey P. Long made. It didn't fill the hole. He then warned me against ever going against the "Feds and those that run them".
Now, my question is, why would an avowed communist assassinate a president that was being attacked regularly, from all sides for being "sympathetic" to the commies?