Should we really give the whole country a pass on reason when it comes to JFK conspiracies?

[DanTex]

I like to think of liberals and DUers as more rational and evidence-based than the average person. Most of us would scoff at media reports saying that there are "conflicting views on global warming." Yes, there are conflicting views, but there is also evidence, and if you look at in a scientific manner, then one of the views proves to be correct and the other proves to be incorrect.

Who killed JFK is far less important than whether global warming is real, so maybe it's OK to designate this as one area where everyone can release any latent desire to entertain wild and irrational speculation. Still, it's a little disconcerting that a large percentage even of liberals are so willing to give up on reason when the conclusions don't fit their worldview.

Part of it is due to the fact that most people just haven't looked at the facts very carefully (which is fine). The media hasn't exactly helped here, portraying JFK conspiracy theorists as valiant rebels who refuse to drink the official kool-aid (e.g. Oliver Stone). Of the 70% of Americans that don't believe that Oswald alone shot JFK, I suspect most don't know that Oswald's rifle and fingerprints were found at the TSBD, that ballistics matched the bullets to his rifle, that he alone among all TSBD employees fled the scene after the shooting, and that later he shot and killed a police officer who tried to question him (an event with eyewitnesses). How many are aware that the medical examination conclusively determined that both wounds to JFK were from behind, a finding that was unanimously supported by fifteen different pathologists in four different subsequent investigations that reviewed the autopsy evidence? On the other hand, they've all probably heard about "magic bullets" and had the Zapruder film narrated to them by Kevin Costner, as JFK's head snaps "back and to the left".

So there's the excuse of ignorance, although it gets a bit uncomfortably close to "I'm not sure I buy the whole global warming story, I know some scientists say so, but I've also heard about sunspots changing the temperature, and also that it's really water vapor and not CO2..."

And then there's the fact that it's the "official story" that "they" want us to believe. But again, this is uncomfortably close to right-wingers who reject the IPCC climate reports because the IPCC is an "official" scientific body organized by (gasp!) the United Nations.

The author of this highly recced Esquire article proudly proclaims that he "I stopped believing in the Warren Commission even before it was put together". Really? Skepticism and suspicion of those in power are good things, but not when they trump reason. Being extra skeptical of a government inquiry into a politically sensitive event like this is warranted, but not to the point where you ignore all the evidence and simply conclude that the very fact that the Warren Commission is a government commission proves they must be wrong.

[treestar]

1. good post

IMO JFK's assassination simply lends itself to conspiracy theories for a couple of reasons. Ruby shooting LHO deprived us of his trial, in which a lot could have come out. LHO will always be the alleged killer, due to lack of a conviction of guilt in a jury trial. Leaving it open as to how it could have been someone else. LHO's strange past, where, in the cold war, he went to live in the Soviet Union and renounced his citizenship, but then came back, lends itself to the idea he was part of some Soviet-induced plot. None of it may be true, it just lends itself and makes it easy to spin theories.

Then when people say that CTs are just because people can't accept that one lone person can kill the POTUS, it is also true and they overlook that any POTUS being killed could well be due to a conspiracy rather than just random violence which could happen to the less famous/powerful. There are unlikely to be conspiracies where most people are murdered, but where it's the President, the possibility is greater.

[BlueStreak]

71. My goodness, aren't the Authoritarians out in force this morning?

Joseph Goebels would be proud.

[treestar]

72. What do the Authoritarians have to do with the CT theories on the JFK assassination?

I don't see my post as having anything to indicate "authoritarianism." In fact it showed some sympathy for why there might be CTs.

Your response just doesn't follow.

[BlueStreak]

73. This thread is littered with people hurling insults at anybody who refuses to fall right in line

with the propaganda on this subject.

I had to check the URL. I thought the site had been hacked and redirected me to freerepublic.com.

[valerief]

2. Yep, the CIA whacked him. I believe Dick Gregory. nt

[ucrdem]

3. The pattern of events renders the forensic "evidence" ridiculous

and has from Nov. 22 1963. I wasn't there, but a couple of phony police reports mean nothing in the larger scheme. JMHO.

[ScreamingMeemie]

4. Am I the only one reading this and getting the message that wanting a little

more transparency with regard to the assassination is just as bad as denying climate change?

Let me preface by saying that I believe Oswald acted alone that day.

That said, I believe the government did this to themselves with regard to JFK. The locking up of evidence that won't be made public until 2029, the weird way in which Parkland doctors were treated when questioned, etc. Those are the kind of things that open the door for a conspiracy theory.

In the end, it is not the end of the world that people are interested in this and that they entertain theories. It does not make those of us who believe Oswald acted alone somehow intellectually superior. It's time to put that to bed and go along hiding threads if it bothers you that bad. This is not a slam. It's just my opinion. Enough already.

[LuvNewcastle]

6. Well said.

[DanTex]

7. I don't think that's a fair characterization of the OP.

I also want more transparency. What I'm comparing to climate denial are beliefs like "I stopped believing in the Warren Commission even before it was put together" which, I hope you'll admit, bears a close resemblance to climate deniers who won't believe anything put out by the UN. I think I made that pretty clear. I also think I made it clear that "Who killed JFK is far less important than whether global warming is real".

[ScreamingMeemie]

12. I will admit that the "I stopped believing..." shows an inherent mistrust of Government explanations

and that is shown here daily, outside of conspiracy theories. I hope you focus more on the last part of my comment to you, instead of picking out what I said that bothers you. Hide the threads and move on. No, I don't think those of us who believe Oswald acted alone are superior. I know far too many people who are far smarter than myself who question the events of that day... and it doesn't hurt my sensibilities to admit it.

Leave it alone. Hide the thread. Move on.

[DanTex]

21. This has nothing to do with hiding threads that bother me.

I'm trying to have a discussion about the apparent suspension of reason among liberals when it comes to the JFK assassination. This is a phenomenon that interests me, particularly its implications as to whether liberals are actually more rational than conservatives (which I still believe), versus whether it is just a matter that at the present time the preconceived notions of liberals happen to be more in line with factual evidence than those of conservatives. If you're not interested in that topic, maybe you should hide this thread.

[ScreamingMeemie]

24. There isn't an "apparent suspension of reason."

That noise you hear? It's the sound of people thinking for themselves.

It is time for you to move on.
I am not hiding the thread because it is threads like these that make DU suck. The "with us or against us" mentality that makes it difficult for a lot of us middle of the road DUers to have rational discussions about a wide range of topics...not just what has been dictated as "okay to discuss."

Sorry, but the more you post, the clearer the intent.

As I said upthread, the major difference in the misguided attempt to connect your two subjects? The government screwed up with some more than boneheaded moves.

Move on, DanTex. Move on.

[DanTex]

30. Yes, there is.

I get that you disagree, and you don't like this thread. Maybe I've struck a nerve somewhere. And honestly, there are plenty of other threads where people are happily discussing Oswald Impersonators and the KGB and the Mafia and Castro and whatever else, and I have no desire to hide those threads.

This thread is not about whether or not JFK was assassinated by conspiracy. It is about whether liberals are actually more rational than conservatives, or whether the JFK assassination is some unique event where we should just give a free pass to wild speculation. Sorry if you don't like the topic. It's a topic I find interesting. If you don't, then follow your own advice, and move on.

[SidDithers]

5. DU rec...

One would hope that " liberals and DUers as more rational and evidence-based than the average person". Sadly, that's not the case. Any thread about 'Cannabis cures cancer!!" or "we're all gonna die from Fukushima radiation!1!' shows just how sorely lacking many liberals and DUers are in critical thinking and science education.

Sid

[WorseBeforeBetter]

8. If I had another rec to give to Pierce, I would.

I believe humans are contributing to global warming.

I don't believe the official story re: JFK's assassination.

The Warren Commission is dubious because of who comprised it, not merely because it is a government commission. (Simpson and Bowles are coming to mind...I don't trust them either.)

Don't try to portray those of us rejecting the official story as loopy libruls.

Oh, and OJ is guilty.

[cpwm17]

22. But we can evaluate the evidence for JFK's assassination ourselves

We don't need any government or official body to tell us how to think. The evidence is out there for us to see and evaluate. CT'ers refuse to evaluate the evidence and let the CT mongers think for them.

Oswald obviously killed Kennedy. Just look at the evidence. It's overwhelming.

[rhett o rick]

93. And you are fine with all the evidence that the CIA let you see. Why are 1,000 pages of "evidence"

still being kept from the public? But I do see the frantic need for those that have to believe. It is so much easier to live with it if we tell ourselves that Oswald acted alone. Other theories might point at our authoritarian leaders lied to us. And we cant have that. I find it sadly humorless that people are so desperate for closure on this that they have convinced themselves that ALL the evidence proves that the CIA didnt have anything to do with it. First of all, that's not true. What you mean is all the evidence that shows it was Oswald acting alone is all you looked at. There is other evidence. I also find it weird that people that claim to be politically liberal and not trust the Corp-Media, would turn around and listen to the Corp-Media as if they would tell us the truth.

Skepticism is a good thing for a liberal and blind faith is not so good.

[cpwm17]

96. We convict on the evidence that we have

and we have a massive amount of evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy. Anything that might be still secret isn't going to make that evidence magically disappear.

All of the witnesses of Oswald murdering JFK and Officer Tippet aren't going to magically evaporate. Oswald's murder weapon isn't going to disappear. His fellow workers that put him at the scene of the crime aren't going to change their stories. The Zapruder film isn't going to go change.

Your faith-based belief that there was a conspiracy isn't evidence.

You seem to have some sort of authoritarian belief that only people in power have the ability to evaluate the evidence: we must be just brainless cogs in the authorities' games. Well, I have the ability to evaluate the evidence all by myself. No one needs to hold my hands.

It would be immoral for the US Government to release some types of evidence, including personal finances and sources in countries such as the Soviet Union and Cuba. The government should never release such info.

[Big Blue Marble]

9. Would you care to name one major news event in your lifetime

where the government told us, the public, the whole truth?

Until the government starts telling us truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
there will be conspiracy theories.

Is it really irrational to question the official story of 911, or the Iraq War, the NSA,
the War on Terrorism, or the Kennedy Assassination when we know that the government
lies all the time?

[DanTex]

13. Just one example, I think the EPA is right about climate change.

Humans are largely responsible for recent climate change

Over the past century, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The majority of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuels to produce energy, although deforestation, industrial processes, and some agricultural practices also emit gases into the atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases act like a blanket around Earth, trapping energy in the atmosphere and causing it to warm. This phenomenon is called the greenhouse effect and is natural and necessary to support life on Earth. However, the buildup of greenhouse gases can change Earth's climate and result in dangerous effects to human health and welfare and to ecosystems.

The choices we make today will affect the amount of greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere in the near future and for years to come.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/

[Big Blue Marble]

18. The EPA's view is strongly supported by a growing body

of scientific evidence from around the world. This evidence is widely available to the public
who can then make their own decision. Yes, there monied and political interests that drive
the propaganda that confuses those who cannot face it.

That, having been said, the facts are readily available to the rest of us. It is entirely different
when the government alone controls the information as in the other events I have named and
many more such as Flight 800. Lack of accurate information combined with government secrecy
in an environment of mistrust will lead to conspiracy theories as rational people attempt to
fill in the gaps.

[DanTex]

23. Look, you asked for an example of something the government got right, and I provided.

Not just any example, but an example of a politically controversial topic with business and geopolitical interests at stake. The evidence about the JFK assassination is also available to the rest of us, and it is the evidence, not the fact that the government claims it is true, that proves that Oswald was the lone shooter.

[Big Blue Marble]

28. What I asked for was an example of a news event.

Climate change is not an event. It is a carefully observed and scientifically studied process
that is happening over time and no one can yet predict the outcome or results with certainty.

Events happen in time with beginnings, and endings. After the fact, evidence is collected
and either presented or suppressed. I am asking you to name such an event where the government
has been totally forthcoming with the facts.

[DanTex]

35. OK....

Notable recent news events where I don't think the government was hiding some big conspiracy:
The Sandy Hook shooting.
Obama's re-election.
Hurricane Sandy.
Killing Bin Laden.
etc.

[Big Blue Marble]

43. I would mostly agree.

I did not follow the story closely, but I do recall we were not told the facts correctly
on the Bin Laden killing. And I am confident that we will never know all the facts.
These news stories as all news stories have a "way" of being shaped for public consumption.

Please feel free to believe whatever you choose about anything you choose, If official
stories work for you, that is great. That is what the establishment wants and wishes
more people were like you.

Others of us are naturally more curious and less trusting of the official spin. We tend
to look to the understory and the backstory. I, personally, have never paid too much
attention to the Kennedy conspiracy theories, but have never been satisfied with the
official story either. There are too many strange and unexplained facts that go
unanswered. So for me it is open-ended like so many other events. And it will
argued for generations as so many mysteries of history are. That is the way the
world works.

[DanTex]

50. You missed the point.

I believe that Oswald was the lone assassin, not because that's the "official" story, but because that is the story overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. Since you haven't followed the story much, I can understand why you aren't fully satisfied with the single shooter story. After all, "there are too many strange and unexplained facts that go unanswered" is precisely what the pop culture and the media is generally saying -- I remember being convinced of a JFK conspiracy when I was 13. So it's no surprise that's the default belief of people who don't know the details.

[Big Blue Marble]

58. You make assumptions about me that are incorrect.

I have never so much question the single shooter story. I am far more concerned why
Lee Harvey Oswald was allowed to be killed while in police custody.

You only know the details that you have been told. You do not have first hand evidence
unless you privy to more information than the rest of us. As I said, believe what you.

There are many equally intelligent people that will view events differently than you.
I am OK with your views. It is strange that you are not OK with mine or others.

[DanTex]

61. Your views are what they are, and I don't hope to change them.

I am fine with the fact that most Americans believe in JFK conspiracies, just as I am with the fact that most Americans believe in ghosts. What this OP is asking is whether the suspension of reason when it comes to JFK conspiracies among liberals is a unique one-off thing, caused by either ignorance or by the emotional weight of that one particular event, or whether it should really cast doubt on my assumption that liberals are generally more rational and evidence based than the population at large.

[Big Blue Marble]

65. You miss my point.

I do not believe in any conspiracy theory. I do not believe the official story either. I am content
to leave the event in the "we will never know" category and leave it at that.
Your position has a tint of arrogance and superiority when you assume it is the rational one and
any other is tainted with irrationality.

As a student of psychology, I assure you that we all hold irrational opinions about
something. There is no evidence that I am aware of, that people holding certain political
views are more rational then others. Or that certain people have a lock on rationality.
That may be the most irrational belief of all.

[DanTex]

68. I don't think I did.

You somehow claimed that I am not OK with your views, which is not true. I am fine with your views, as I am with everyone else's views. Whether you actively believe in a specific conspiracy, or take a more neutral "views differ on shape of planet" view towards the evidence is not the point, since I'm more interested in the larger implications of the fact that liberals generally seem to have abandoned reason when it comes to JFK.

I do still believe that liberals are less prone to irrational beliefs than conservatives. That belief is based on observation, not on any scientific study, though it is supported by the fact that on important contemporary matters (e.g. global warming, evolution, whether Obama was born in America, whether presidential opinion polls are "skewed" against the GOP, etc.), liberals tend to be on the side of science. But maybe there is some other explanation other than some causal link between rational and scientific thought and progressive political views.

[Big Blue Marble]

74. Of course I would love to agree with you that liberals are more rational.

But just because we are more rational than the right on the issues you name,
does not mean that we are as a group more rational on all matters.

The driving theories of modern psychologies based on studies of how our brains
actually function are telling us that most of our behaviors are shaped below
our rational thought. Our beliefs are shaped by our personal histories as well.
There is little to support the classic view that the human is in fact a rational being.

I would ask you why is it important that we as liberals be "more rational"
than other groups? Would that make us better as people?

[DanTex]

78. Well, I certainly think some people/groups are more rational than others.

Sure, people are not purely rational beings, but there are wide differences in the rationality of certain beliefs about the world. Creationism is not a rational belief, while evolution is.

I also think that the beliefs of liberals are more in tune with reason and science than those of conservatives. Which I believe is a good thing, because I think that acting on the basis of true and accurate information, particularly in matters of public policy, leads to better outcomes.

I don't know if being rational correlates too strongly with being "better people" in the moral sense (i.e. a person can be rational and also evil), but I do believe that being rational results in making better decisions (in the amoral sense of better=more effective or more likely to achieve a desired objective).

[Scootaloo]

44. Didn't happen in the 60's; doesn't count

History stopped in 1968, nothing after that could ever possibly be important to anyone.

We have a whole legion of DU'ers who can name every Strawberry Alarm Clock song, but couldn't tell you who was involved in the Iran-Iraq war if you told them, first. "Durrr, was it zee jermanz?"

[treestar]

81. Since the government lies all the time, why isn't the EPA

denying global warming?

[Scootaloo]

41. The jump from "the government isn't telling everything" to "I know all the answers!" is a long one

But of course, every theorist has such an answer. And they all disagree what that answer is. In fact the only thing they ever manage to agree on is that anything from an "official source" - as opposed to Alex Jones, Rense, or My Buddy Dan at the Legion Hall - is always immediately disqualified as "disinfo"

[Big Blue Marble]

52. Of course, there are ridiculous outliers that drive these stories for fun and profit.

At the same time, you might want to consider that historians argue these possible
conspiracy theories at a more serious level for many historical events through time.

When we do not have all the information and there is an aura of secrecy, humans
will attempt to speculate. It is the nature of the species, like it or not. Sometimes
it goes off the edge. In a time, where media predominates our lives and money is to
be made, the effects will be exaggerated. People are manipulated for official sources
and from fear mongers such as those you list as well.

Remember the OP questioned any who would question the official story and did
not just accept the Warren Commision narrative not just the followers of the ranters and ravers
you mention.

[TBF]

10. Another "obey our authority" post. Thanks but sometimes

we do need to question what those in authority are doing. Critical thinking USED to be appreciated in this country.

[wercal]

11. Oswald's being the lone shooter doesn't

Automatically eliminate the possibility of a larger conspiracy, does it?

My questions always revolve around Jack Ruby. In fact, one really has to suspend disbelief to dismiss him as irrelevant. In other words the real conspiracy theorists are the ones who simply erase his existence fron history.

Ruby, like Oswald, had ties to Cuba. Ruby impersonated a reporter at a post assassination press conference, and had the audacity to correct the speaker on the name of Oswald's Cuba organization. Ruby wanted to speak to the Warren Commission, on the condition he be moved to a new prison - they wouldn't agree to his condition.

Fingerprints are a diversion, as are any bullet or knoll theories. They don't matter one bit. No conspiracy theory or red herring fingerprint argument can erase the very real fact that the most famous assassin in the twentieth century was exterminated by a mystery man, with very few questions asked.

Of course there were more people than just Oswald involved...just like more than 19 people planned 9-11. It would be a whacko conspiracy theory to assume otherwise.

[former9thward]

15. You mean you don't think 9/11 was 19 lone nuts?

Yep, you're a CTer!

[DanTex]

17. The difference, of course, being that there is evidence linking the 9/11 murderers

to larger organizations.

[DanTex]

16. No, it does not.

There is no evidence to suggest that either Oswald or Ruby were acting under orders or the influence of others, which makes such conspiracy theories unlikely but not impossible. On the other hand, conspiracies that deny that Oswald was the lone shooter can be conclusively ruled out by the evidence.

Unfortunately, most conspiracy theorists don't attempt to go down the road of rationality, and try to fit the theories within the confines of the evidence. An example of this is that Pierce article I quoted, which went on to say that "I don't know if we'll ever settle who shot from where". This is wrong. We do know who shot and from where. If instead Pierce had said "we know who shot and from where, but we may never settle why or who was behind it," that would different.

Just to add: the comparison to 9/11 is not valid, since with 9/11 there is extensive evidence documenting specific links to another organization, whereas with JFK there is no such evidence.

[former9thward]

14. You have put "facts" in your OP that are not facts at all.

But of course since I don't believe in the WC then I am a climate change denier so I am a hopeless idiot. You talk about liberals. Well it is a fact that conservatives love the WC because it allows them to say a communist killed JFK. It is conservatives who don't want anyone to look closer at the "facts".

The WC was filled with Kennedy haters and the information given to it by government agencies was controlled by Johnson who had no love for him either.

[duffyduff]

27. Actually you discredit liberals with that kind of nonsense.

This isn't a "left-right" matter--it's a matter of truth versus falsehood.

[former9thward]

34. I on the side of truth.

What is your position about that controversial issue?

[Octafish]

19. That's what Allen Dulles and the CIA want you to believe.

They even printed up instructions for their assets in the American news media (illegal at the time, but since made A-OK when "everything changed" after 9-11):

The facts are the point of how the nation's mass media are manipulated by the CIA.

CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.

CIA Instructions to Media Assets

RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with (?)and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. (Archivist's note: This claim is demonstrably untrue with the latest file releases. The CIA had an operational interest in Oswald less than a month before the assassination. Source: Oswald and the CIA, John Newman and newly released files from the National Archives.)

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

SOURCE: http://www.boston.com/community/forums/news/national/general/cia-instructions-to-media-assets-doc-1035-960/80/6210620

From 2003, first OP on DU I could find on it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x765619

So rather than an open investigation, where the facts can be examined in public, the instructions call for an attack on the messenger. Could it be that the CIA has something to hide?

First: CIA agents monitored Oswald in the weeks before the assassination.

Second: Top CIA officials knew Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City before the assassination.

Third: Former CIA director, fired by JFK, Allen Dulles kept this information from the Warren Commission.

These are the FACTS most Americans SHOULD know, but they don't. Because the government and its toadies in the press say, "Case closed. Move on. Nothing to see here."

Sorry, DanTex. I've heard that story for 50 years and seen the nation nearly ruined by wars for profit. That un-democratic authoritarian garbage doesn't cut it for me.

[DanTex]

25. The Oswald impersonation story? Really?

[Octafish]

33. Yes. CIA officer David Atlee Phillips said ''Oswald was never in Mexico City.''

Guy brought it up in 1978 during a public forum at USC in answer to student question.

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. Oswald wasn't "impersonated".

He submitted a photograph with his visa application. The photo is of Lee Oswald. The embassy clerk who took the application compared the photo and would have noticed any discrepancy. His signature is on a hotel register and on paperwork from the Cuban and Soviet embassies. These signatures have been examined by handwriting experts and found to match known and authenticated samples of Oswald's handwriting. He was positively identified by embassy workers. He mentioned his visit to Mexico City in his interrogation by the Dallas Police. He mentioned his visit to the Soviet embassy in a letter written on 9 November. The telephone number of the Cuban embassy in Mexico City and the name of the visa clerk were found among his possessions, on a slip of paper. There is conclusive evidence that Lee Oswald went to Mexico City.

[Octafish]

48. Here's the guy in the photograph...

Obviously. Not Oswald. That's what J Edgar Hoover told Lyndon Johnson the next day.

The story, including information pro- and con- Mary Farrell Foundation.

Where do you get your information, Spider Jerusalem? I'd like to learn more about the source of your theories.

[Spider Jerusalem]

64. The guy in the photograph submitted with the visa application? No.

That's very clearly Lee Harvey Oswald.

[DanTex]

77. J Edgar Hoover was wrong.

That was not actually Oswald, that was a picture taken by a CIA camera that agents mistakenly believed was of Oswald, and Hoover passed on the incorrect information. The testimony and documents from the Embassy demonstrate clearly that the person claiming to be Oswald was actually Oswald. The error was corrected, the HSCA investigated and talked to the agent who passed on the mistaken information to Hoover, and this is a non-issue except in the minds of conspiracy theorists, in which there are apparently never any clerical errors.

[longship]

37. You mean the Allen Dulles who Kennedy replaced as CIA chief on November 29, 1961?

He had been gone from the CIA for almost two years when Kennedy was killed.

[ucrdem]

59. Yes. Unlike patsies, perps have motives. nt

[longship]

62. I don't understand your response.

[ucrdem]

69. Remember Plato's cave?

With everybody watching shadows of puppets and 100% sure they're real? Well, Mr Dulles was an expert puppeteer.

[ohheckyeah]

95. That CIA

document made me laugh out loud. Little touchy about the Warren Commission report, aren't they?

Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself.

That's rather like using a Bible verse to argue the validity of the Bible.

[duffyduff]

20. Belief in conspiracies has a long history in the United States

Of course there are real events that were conspiracies, like Watergate was, and the terrorist conspiracy causing 9/11 (not talking about US government here). But the JFK one has endured I think because after the initial and understandable disbelief that any one person could affect the course of American history, especially a deranged loser like Lee Harvey Oswald, subsequent events tended to buttress people's skepticism toward government.

However, given ALL of the facts known about the JFK assassination, and virtually all of it is out there all these decades later, there truly is NO excuse for believing conspiracy theories anymore with regard to this murder and the murder of Oswald. That ship has long since sailed.

The latest Gallup poll shows 61 percent of those polled believe there was a conspiracy. This is a good sign, considering opinion polls from a couple of decades ago showed belief was as high as 81 percent. It's gradually going down. I don't think it is because those who believe in conspiracies are dying off; I think people are more inclined these days to accept the latest forensic evidence on top of the massive evidence that had already existed proving beyond all doubt Lee Harvey Oswald alone committed the JFK and Tippit murders and Jack Ruby alone killed Lee Harvey Oswald.

I have less use for professional conspiracy "researchers," meaning CTers, who are exploiting people's cynicism for money. They don't care about evidence or truth. It's all about the money with them.

[The Midway Rebel]

46. +1

Challenging a CTers beliefs seems to provoke and amygdala hijack. Some have found a way to make a shit pile of money from it. That's the conspiracy.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-amygdala-hijack.htm

[gulliver]

26. It's better for them than booze.

But not by much.

[Spider Jerusalem]

29. Belief in conspiracy is akin to religious belief.

It is not rational. It is impervious to evidence. "oh no, the CIA want you to believe that Oswald killed Kennedy! He never owned the rifle. The money order with his name on it, those photos of him holding it, that post office box he rented it was mailed to, all that's an elaborate CIA ruse!" is not any different than "there's no such thing as evolution! God put those fossils there to test your faith!"

The major problem with conspiracy thinking is that it has the whole process arse-backwards. It starts with a conclusion (Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy! Obama was born in Kenya! The WTC was a false-flag op brought down by controlled demolition! We never landed on the moon!) and from there cherry-picks minor inconsistencies in the "official story" and discards any actual evidence that doesn't fit with the predetermined conclusion. This is not rational thinking. Any rational process of understanding events starts from the evidence and works toward a conclusion, not the other way round.

[duffyduff]

31. It's the same mentality that affects creationists.

The CTers cherry pick the evidence or make it up or draw conclusions based on motive and not on facts, and they run with it. ANYTHING to distract from the simple fact this was a simple case of a president being in the wrong place at the wrong time and killed by a nutjob without any help from others. Same with Officer Tippit.

Same with Oswald WRT Jack Ruby. Still incredible after all these years the Dallas police ever allowed anybody in that station when the highest security was needed, but they sure didn't take any chances with Ruby!

[RussBLib]

32. wtf is up with all these "anti-CT" posts?

It feels like a disinformation campaign is under way to beat down the possibility of conspiracy theories.

The evidence that JFK was reviled by the CIA and defense interests is widespread. They had every reason to take him out, and Oswald was the perfect patsy.

Read "JFK and the Unspeakable" and get back to me.

[DanTex]

36. Yes, of course, I'm part of a disinformation campaign. You got me.

[colsohlibgal]

38. We Can Flip That Statement

As in should we give the Oswald did it alone end of story people a pass on reason. That would be the same slam.

There are a lot of really smart, serious people who don't believe that, people who would appear to have a fine supply of "reason". Some of them way more plugged in than the vast majority of us - like U.S. Congressman and LBJ. They have reasoning problems?

Saying you believe it was Oswald end of story is one thing, fine and dandy, impugning everyone who doesn't believe that is another.

[kydo]

39. Its human nature to believe in them.

The JFK assignation is a conspiracy lovers heaven. Mostly because of Ruby killing Oswald before anyone had a chance to really question him. Why Oswald shot JFK went to the grave with him. No amount of proof or evidence will ever stop the theories. This is not because conspiracy people are wrong or right its just any new information will be treated with lots of cynicism.

Personally, I do believe Lee Harvey Oswald was the person that killed President John Kennedy and that he acted alone.

But that does not mean that there were not other people there that day who were also going to try and kill the President. Because I believe there were. I also believe none of these people (be it groups or individuals), knew of the others intentions.

The conspiracy comes after the murder in this case. Everyone tried to cover their own asses make sure it wasn't their guy or gang that committed the crime and or that their group didn't botch something like security or even protocol for after the crime. And that's where both Jack Ruby (taking care of Oswald) and the Warren Commission (making sure nothing could come back to the government in any fashion), come into play.

I also never believed the magic bullet bull crap. But I still believe the end result of the Warren Commission was correct. In other words I think they got their conclusion right by accident. Like doing an algebra or math problem and getting the right answer but the work/formula was wrong.

[ZombieHorde]

42. Sure, why not?

All the various sides on this should give those with a different opinion a pass on this.

I personally find the anti-vax movement significantly more concerning than any JFK opinion.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. The Warren Commission Report was crap.

The assassination of Oswald by Ruby remains an astounding problem for those who continue to cling to the official story. The brief period of post watergate truthfulness in government included the house investigation that reached the opposite conclusion from the warren report.

Yeah we are exactly like anti-vac climate creationists.

[Nye Bevan]

49. Why wouldn't "they" have someone waiting to kill Oswald in the book depository,

pretty much immediately after Kennedy was killed? Why risk allowing Oswald to escape and then be captured? It was entirely possible that the whole Ruby thing would not go according to "plan".

[Warren Stupidity]

80. I have no idea. Perhaps you should ask them.

I haven't proposed any specific conspiracy.

[DanTex]

56. Not to get into a big long debate here but...

The house committee reached exactly the same conclusions as the Warren Commission on everything except for whether there was a second shooter. Based on audio evidence alone, they concluded that there was a second shooter, who fired one shot and missed. But they agreed that
-- The CIA/FBI/KGB/Mob/Cuba were not involved.
-- Oswald fired three shots, and he was the only one who hit the president.
-- The single bullet theory was correct.
-- The autopsy evidence was not flawed, and conclusively showed the that bullets entered JFK from behind.

The audio evidence was later disproved when it was discovered that the recording used by the HSCA actually took place a minute after the shootings, a finding that was confirmed by a panel of scientists organized by the National Academy of Sciences. Which means that, for all practical purposes, the House investigation supported the same lone nut theory as the Warren Commission.

[dogindia]

47. it looks like his head was blown out from the front

Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2013, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

That seems to me to be the evidence that is most compelling to me. Bone and brain hit the motorcycle police on the rear left. Jackie was on the back trunk to capture his scull and brain. If he had been hit from the back would not all that material have gone forward?

I looked at Zapruder and autopsy photos yesterday and thought about it.

So deeply sad about this.

l
m

[Warren Stupidity]

89. The official story makes the exit wound the entrance wound,

ignores the trajectory problem and the fact that everyone at the scene who reacted to the gunshots moved towards the grassy knoll, from which a shooter would have hit him in the right front, exactly where the zapruder film shows him getting hit, and which would have caused his head to move, as it does, "back and to the left".

This will never be resolved, unless we have a moment like the USSR did, where the files are opened and the secrets pour out.

[Spider Jerusalem]

91. No, no, and no.

The entrance wound is in the back of the skull. This is easily verified by reference to the autopsy report, X-rays, and photographs. The wound exhibited bevelling on the interior surface. This means that the bullet created a crater around the entry point on the inside of the skull. This is ALWAYS an indicator of an entry wound, not an exit. Fire an air rifle at a plate glass window, and a crater will form on the side opposite the impact. It's the same principle, and there's no way for an exit wound in the back of the skull to exhibit bevelling on the interior surface.

"Everyone at the scene"? You mean like Dallas Police officer Marrion Baker, who went to the TSBD?

Mr. BAKER - It sounded to me like it was a high-powered rifle.
Mr. BELIN - All right. When you heard the first shot or the first noise, what did you do and what did you see?
Mr. BAKER - Well, to me, it sounded high and I immediately kind of looked up, and I had a feeling that it came from the building, either right in front of me or of the one across to the right of it.
Mr. BELIN - What would the building right in front of you be?
Mr. BAKER - It would be this Book Depository Building.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm

You mean like the men on the fifth floor who heard the shots coming from directly above them, one of whom had dust knocked loose from the ceiling in his hair and another of whom heard the bolt cycling and the spent cartridges hitting the floor?

Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I also could here the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/norman_1.htm

[The Midway Rebel]

94. Here, watch in this video at around the 43 minute mark.

A forensic scientists explains it to me like I'm five.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2365118537/

[ConcernedCanuk]

51. Yes

.
.
.

I don't know if "conspiracy" theorists/believers indicate lack of reason though.

I was politically aware during JFK's presidency, had followed his handling of "the Cuban Missile Crisis" - most of our TV came from the USS back then, so hard to miss it all.

Anyhow - release of info at the time was not clear to us peasant viewers/readers.

And many of us know that "records", "evidence" et al can and has been misreported, fabricated and so on regarding many of Government's behaviour;

in other words -

WE DON'T TRUST OUR GOVERNMENTS OR OUR MEDIA.

so - yes - give the country a pass on JFK conspiracies.

Presidents getting assassinated sorta mess people up.

As it should.

CC

[The Midway Rebel]

53. The paranoid style is American as apple pie.

This country has long history of conspiracy theories. It did not start with the JFK assassination.

Dr. Jonathan Earle, professor of history and Kansas University teaches a class on American conspiracy theories. He calls them "organic."

I say no, they do not deserve a pass. Shared ignorance is still ignorance.

ETA: This link to an essay by Dr. Earle

http://s-usih.org/2013/11/the-jfk-assassination-and-american-conspiracy-culture-guest-post-by-jonathan-earle.html

[grahamhgreen]

54. Even congress concluded it was a likely conspiracy.

[DanTex]

57. See here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024080879#post56

[The Midway Rebel]

60. I have lost count of how many times the faulty HSCA findings are posited as fact at DU.

It is an excellent example of shared ignorance about the facts of the case.

People brandish that thing like a weapon and it gets smacked down only to rise again from another poster in another thread. Its like whack-a-mole.

[zappaman]

63. It's amazing, isn't it?

At this point, they have to know it...but they just can't admit it to themselves.

[DanTex]

66. Yes it is.

No joke, I started reading about the JFK assassination a total of two, maybe three weeks ago. That's it. Up until then I felt like a lot of people, it's probably Oswald, but who knows. After reading a few books on either side, the single most shocking thing is just how strong the evidence against Oswald is, and just how weak all the evidence of a conspiracy is. And the second most shocking thing is how conclusively disputed factoids (the head jerk, the Oswald impersonator, the HSCA thing, Jack Ruby was a hit man) just won't die, and that "reputable" pro-conspiracy authors will still repeat them. It's actually kind of disappointing how much ado about nothing the whole conspiracy thing is. And yet here we are.

Of course, the CT crowd won't believe me and will insist that I was somehow trained from birth to spread misinformation...

[The Midway Rebel]

67. Yeah, the personal attacks are what finally convinced me.

You can find them in this very thread. They really should be called on every single one of them IMHO. The ad hominem attacks finally convinced me that CTers have a very weak argument. Cters favor 20% of the evidence over the 80% that says there was no conspiracy.

That and when Octafish jumped the shark and accused Clark Clifford of being in on the plot. That fucking did it.

[zappaman]

75. That's what did it?

For me, it was this...

"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

[frogmarch]

55. Excellent post!

Thank you.

[colsohlibgal]

70. Discredit Tactics

One weapon to discredit anyone not buying any official narrative is to label them as "conspiracy kooks" etc. As people who want to believe these things and suspend reason to do so. Lump everyone like that into one package as people who aren't as rational as YOU.

Do I think the moon landing was faked as a few do? No. So many of us don't have a need to buy into all "conspiracy" theories. We aren't all sitting around with tinfoil hats. Very few of we who are over half of us are like that.

There is a lot to look at and question about so much with this case. But if you wish to believe Ruby truly shot LHO because he felt sorry for Jackie , and a lot of other things that don't quite pass the smell test, fine. But to say we are misguided or delusional? Ironic.

[kentuck]

76. The way I see it...

Neither side can say they have absolute proof.

[Fumesucker]

79. A lot of Americans have strong reasons not to completely trust the offical versions of anything

Just look at the Drug War for one example, there is no doubt at all that the government has lied and continues to lie about the dangers associated with cannabis use.

No one is that stupid, the evidence is crystalline clear that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and yet it's still a schedule one drug in the US, completely illegal on the federal level.

Should we really give Obama a pass on reason when it comes to continuing to support an utterly failed policy based on a lie, a lie that Obama knows is a lie from personal experience?

There are plenty of other examples of government lies, Colin Powell at the UN touting WMDs in Iraq comes to mind, the real miracle is that anyone believes the government at all.

[Drunken Irishman]

82. DU can't even agree on who killed Kennedy.

In fact, most CTers disagree on the motive and yet we're supposed to accept their logic? The reality here is that the motive changes dramatically with every suspect.

1. Castro. He killed Kennedy because he saw him as a threat through his actions during the Bay of Pigs and taking the world to the brink of nuclear war during the Missile Crisis. Of course, this conspiracy rarely gets play here among leftists because Castro would never do such a thing. So, even among CTers, you have non-believers of certain theories - a pattern that will become common.

2. LBJ did it. This is a favorite of the right and some on the left - LBJ hated the Kennedys and wanted the presidency. If true, Johnson's legacy is even more horrid and all he did domestically tarnished beyond repair. Still, most liberal CTers don't take this one as gospel.

3. The Soviets killed Kennedy. Another dismissed one, especially among liberals, for the same reason as the CT involving Castro.

4. It was the mafia. They hated Kennedy after receiving no favors when he won - even though they felt entitled after Joe Kennedy worked his ties to get votes. No one on DU likes this one because it's too small-time. It doesn't have the luster of LBJ or the CIA because we're not necessarily talking politics here - just the mafia being the mafia.

5. It's the CIA! The most popular one. The CIA killed Kennedy to protect their organization - something Kennedy was a threat to.

6. The military industrial complex. They wanted war in Southeast Asia and Kennedy wasn't going to deliver it. So, take him out. Ignore that Kennedy had been on record supporting the effort in Vietnam even a month before his death, and that evidence of his removal there is strictly based on hindsight, this is their reason.

7. George H. W. Bush did it. It's the Bushes, he was head of the CIA...anything else needed?

8. Nixon did it. Hell, we hear how Bush was in Dallas that day. Guess what? Nixon was in Dallas the day before. Maybe they both did it! After all, didn't Nixon appoint Bush as Ambassador to China when he was president? Hm...

That's 8 different theories. Some overlap, most don't... but all have reasons majorily different than the other. If you can't agree on the why, how can you expect us the believe your who?

Believe it or not, the one that makes the most sense continues to be the official story.

[zappaman]

84. ALL of them did it!

[Blue_In_AK]

83. It would be interesting to have a breakdown

of the age of people who do and do not believe that Oswald acted alone. I could be wrong, but it seems like people who were old enough to remember the assassination clearly, people who were in their teens or older, are more likely not to trust the official version. I was 17. For that Friday and Saturday, I could go along with the arrest of Oswald, assuming that his story would come out during a trial and we would get some clarity on his motives, but when Oswald himself was murdered, our opportunity to know definitively was gone forever. The authorities were convinced they had their man, and so the narrative was shaped.

As our liberal heroes fell one by one over the coming years, and as the country moved further and further to the right, it became impossible (for me, at least) to ignore that nefarious forces were at work. Of course, I would never go so far as to think that the assassinations were a coordinated effort, but the events of that time did make it mighty easy for the right wing to take over and for us to lose hope. I mean, really, who would have the courage to stand up for us when the threat of being gunned down was always present?

So call me a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist all you want, laugh and point, lmao smilies and all of that. It's not going to change one iota how I feel about this.

[renie408]

85. I have never been big on the whole conspiracy thing....

But then I watched a documentary about a ballistics expert who had been called as an expert witness who then took an interest in the case. He made it his life's work to study the assassination and came to the conclusion that Kennedy was accidentally shot by a Secret Service guy in the car behind him. It showed that the angle of the head wound and the fact that the bullet acted like a hollow point meant two different shooters were involved. Also, it took a trained marksman several tries before he could make the same shot that Oswald supposedly did in one try in the heat of the moment.

I dunno. I am not so sure that this is national insanity.

[DanTex]

92. I saw that documentary.

I don't blame you for giving it credence, but I do blame the people who made it, because it is people like them that are responsible for spreading misinformation and keeping rumors of conspiracy alive. It did make what seemed to be a compelling case, but that's only because the audience was assumed to not be familiar with any of the actual evidence. In reality, the level of journalistic integrity there was somewhere between Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

A few brief problems.

First, that theory required that Oswald only fired two shots, which the documentary explained by claiming that one of the shell casings wasn't actually fired, and that Oswald was just keeping it in the gun to keep the barrel clean. But we know that he fired three shots, not just because there were three shell casings found on the floor, but also because there were three employees of the TSBD watching the procession from the window directly below Oswald who all heard three loud shots fired above them. One of them, who was familiar with guns, also heard clicking from reloading, and the sound of shell casings dropping to the floor. Another one of them had some dust or residue drop on his head from the floor shaking above him from the shots. The fact that the producers of the documentary omitted that evidence while trying to claim that only two shots were fired should be reason enough to be extremely skeptical of anything else they present.

Second, the doc makes a big deal of the fact that a bunch of witnesses say they saw that Secret Service officer holding the AR-15 before the third shot was fired, even though the officer's statement said he didn't have it out until after. And maybe the witnesses were right -- it was a matter of seconds, after all. What the doc doesn't mention is that none of the witnesses actually heard or saw the AR-15 fire a shot. This includes not only bystanders, but also the other people riding in the same car, who were asked about this when the theory came out, and who stated that they obviously would have noticed a rifle being fired right next to them and that it didn't happen.

About the head wound, the obvious reason why the head bullet broke up while the "magic" bullet didn't is that the head bullet went straight into JFK's skull, while the "magic" bullet went through soft tissue. The documentary also fails to mention that two fragments of a full metal jacketed bullet were found in JFK's car, and that ballistics matched those fragments to Oswald's gun. Again this is conclusive evidence that Oswald fired both shots that hit JFK, and along with the first shot that missed, that makes three Oswald shots and zero shots from anywhere else. And, I hope that you'll agree, from the point of journalistic integrity, failing to mention the bullet fragments that matched Oswald's rifle is a pretty serious "error".

The trajectory thing was a simple mistake. The guy who came up with the theory was an expert on guns, not an expert on photography, so he has no particular expertise in figuring out the angle of JFK's head from the Zapruder film. The House Select Committee on Assassinations had the film reviewed by a panel of photographic experts, who confirmed that the angle of his head was such that the bullet trajectory lined up with Oswald.

And so on. I don't remember all the other details, but you get the idea.

The broader point is, it's pretty easy to make a documentary that selects a few witnesses out of hundreds, and ignores major pieces of forensic evidence, and presents what appears to be a persuasive case for one theory or another. And that's what most of the conspiracy stuff boils down to.

[hlthe2b]

86. I don't subscribe to any particular conspiracy theory...

I am convinced Oswald shot both JFK and Officer Tippit.

But, that is a long way from believing we know all the facts of the story. Given so many documents remain classified, I don't know how anyone can say we DO know all the facts. Whether that means there was a conspiracy or not, I have no way of knowing for certain.

Surely, as McNamara and Gulf of Tonkin demonstrate--not to mention GWB*'s lies re: Iraq-- we have reason not to totally trust what our (or any) government tells us...

[LWolf]

87. "We" give them a pass

on so many things that make our culture, our society, our nation, and our planet sick. Why focus on conspiracy theories? If you want to stop giving "us" a pass, why not stop with capitalism, neo-liberalism, religious fundamentalism, hate, fear, greed, aggression...

If you are worried about giving people a "pass," why not start with something more substantive?

[kentuck]

88. Much like the Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it...

The government said it, I believe it, that settles it.

[kickysnana]

90. Evidence presented and Reason leads to something other than a lone gunman...

Some conspiracies are true. We did not get all the facts, there was no trial and since then death bed disclosures lend credence to the "Conspiracy theory" folks being right. Did Space Aliens do it? Of course not but facts and his behavior say that Oswald did not act alone.

I do not care if you give me a pass or not. I believed the original story until two years later when I went to do a High School Paper. "What would have happened to America if JFK lived". I was thinking policy. Using mainstream sources there was no other conclusion to be drawn and that was before the death bed disclosures and recently released additional material.

911 happened and it happened because we never got to the bottom of the JFK assassination and the perps, those same evil, corrupt, people thought they could do anything and they almost did.

There is no honor in believing lies people tell you to make a "problem" go away no matter how many flags those lies are wrapped in.

[BootinUp]

97. +100 for humor value