One last JFK poll just to prove or disprove a theory I have.

[Blue_In_AK]

Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

My theory (and I could be wrong, obviously) (and thank you, Android3.14, what I really meant was hypothesis) is that people who are old enough to remember the assassination and to have somewhat grasped its significance at the time are more likely to believe that Oswald did not act alone.

This is my first and only original post on the JFK assassination, so indulge me.

88 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I am 63 or older and I believe that Oswald acted alone
	2 (2%)
	I am 63 or older and I believe that Oswald was part of a conspiracy or was a patsy
	23 (26%)
	I am 63 or older and I am ambivalent
	2 (2%)
	I am 53 to 63 and I believe that Oswald acted alone
	8 (9%)
	I am 53 to 63 and I believe that Oswald was part of a conspiracy or was a patsy
	34 (39%)
	I am 53 to 63 and I am ambivalent
	2 (2%)
	I have no first-hand recollection of the assassination and I believe that Oswald acted alone
	5 (6%)
	I have no first-hand recollection of the assassination and I believe that Oswald was part of a conspiracy or was a patsy
	11 (13%)
	I have no first-hand recollection of the assassination and I am ambivalent
	1 (1%)
	I hate polls
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[villager]

1. Remember, we were alive -- even as kids -- to see the subsequent assassinations

...fit the same general pattern, benefit the same political actors, and all be pinned on "lone nuts."

Quite the decade-long "coincidence," eh?

[Blue_In_AK]

2. Yes.

I made that point in another post, which is what led me to do this poll. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4081771

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.

[villager]

3. +1, and amen!

[scarletwoman]

8. Awesome post. I'd rather reply to it here, than in the other thread.

...when Oswald himself was murdered, our opportunity to know definitively was gone forever.

Yup, that's the thing.

As a I posted in a different thread a couple days ago, I was 14, sitting with my whole family watching the TV coverage - as we had been all weekend. When we saw Oswald get shot - right there on live TV - the first words spoken were from my dad. He said, "Well, they've made sure we'll never know the truth now."

And that's how I've felt about this ever since. The American public was never going to be allowed to know the truth.

[RobertEarl]

25. ...we'll never know the truth now.....

Had there been a free and fair trial of Oswald the chances are many other facts would have become known. As it is a select few determined which facts would be known. What happened is that the leaders set upon a course to let only some facts become known.

There are still secrets they hold. They kept the Zapruder film secret for years and years. A congressional committee found that the WC did not delve into areas that the committee did, giving evidence that the WC was incomplete.

No wonder people don't have faith in what the WC issued. It is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that we may have had had Oswald been tried freely and fairly.

[scarletwoman]

28. Indeed. We needed a fair and open trial for Oswald.

Instead we got Jack Ruby, a lone nut gunman to kill the other lone nut gunman, end of story.

[spiderpig]

31. I've never for one moment believed Oswald acted alone

I was 12 at that weekend & remember every single second. I think it was the catalyst for much of an entire generation losing trust in "the establishment".

[Carolina]

69. Touche!

I was 10 and living in DC. My family, every single family member, loved JFK.

We lived in NW DC but I attended an experimental school in SW DC... so everyday, we drove by the White House. Some Fridays, coming home, we'd see Marine One coming over the Potomac heading to the White House and my uncle would drive us to east side (it was such a different DC then) and we'd run to the fence to see JFK get aboard and leave for Andrews from which he'd then fly to Hyannis.

So, needless to say, his death was like a death in the family. It was the first time I saw adults, especially men, cry. But I also remember well that after Ruby killed Oswald on TV no less, all the adults started murmuring about how fishy it was... They never accepted that Oswald accepted alone; they always said: THEY killed him!

Now in my senior years, when I reflect on how JFK stood up to (and against) the generals during the Cuban Missile Crisis, how he distrusted them after they led him astray with the Bay of Pigs, how he planned to change the policy on Vietnam (which had been inherited from the Eisenhower administration) after the '64 election and how the foreign policy he outlined in his commencement speech at American University just months before his murder was antithetical to US imperialism, I am convinced that the MIC/CIA took him out and Oswald was a patsy!

[spiderpig]

85. Bingo!

Feel free to PM me.

[Fumesucker]

6. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence but three times is enemy action Mr Bond -Auric Goldfinger

[Blue_In_AK]

7. Ha, my favorite Bond film. :)

[spiderpig]

32. "No Mr. Bond - I expect you to die"

Mr. pig & I quote that movie all the time.

[ohheckyeah]

33. And we were also alive to

be lied to about VietNam and witness things like Kent State. And more recently the lies about NSA, etc. Really - is it any wonder that we find it hard to believe a government that thrives on lies?

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. I suspect that a majority of people who aren't old enough to remember...

still think it's a conspiracy. Most of the public discourse on the assassination and its context is presented through the lens of conspiracy, and it's been that way for the past 20-odd years, thanks to the Stone film making the conspiracy POV mainstream.

[Blue_In_AK]

5. They don't seem to be weighing in much, though.

For what it's worth, I personally didn't need Oliver Stone's movie to convince me that the official story was dubious. It was the murder of Oswald that made me question the whole thing from the beginning.

[hfojvt]

9. surprising that there are so few young people responding

Is DU THAT lacking in young people? And, at 52, I am one of the young people in this poll, and not even young at all.

But do 53 year olds, or even 55 year olds remember this event? Okay a five year old could remember it (although at age 6 I do not remember the RFK assassination) but what would they possibly understand about it?

[Blue_In_AK]

11. That's why I separated the "older folk" into two categories,

the ones who were teenagers or older and the ones who remember but were generally too young to form an opinion at the time the events were occurring.

[Art_from_Ark]

64. I was pre-school but I still remember hearing about Kennedy's assassination

And I remember parts from his funeral-- the somber voices of the commentators, the casket loaded onto the caisson, his two kids who were close to me in age.

And I certainly remember RFK's assassination. Having 3 of the nation's top liberal icons murdered within 5 years of each other, all by "lone gunmen", is just too hard to swallow as a coincidence.

[Scootaloo]

78. It's not exactly relevant to us, is my stand

I expressed this before, and as predicted, got the usual howling from the "History stopped at 1968" contingent, how dare I not obsess about the stuff that defined their experience, and all that.

Basically, Kennedy is dead. Has been dead fifty years now. Whoever killed him - lone gunmen, broad conspiracy, or whatever - is likely dead with him, unless it was Poppy Bush or Fidel Castro. The damage is done, and was done so long ago that it can't be repaired in any meaningful way.

While it's understandable that people who experienced it continue to want closure, the fact is that those of us who didn't, who live well past that point in history, really have no stakes in it. As I expressed in an earlier thread, we might as well be talking about Garfield or Lincoln's assassinations. It's an important bit of history, but if there is a truth to uncover, doing so won't actually change anything except the footnotes at this point in history.

[treestar]

96. Yeah that category

assumes 3 year olds remember something. I was four then and don't have any real memory of it.

I'd say be at least in school before it's likely you truly remember it.

[duffyduff]

19. It isn't "dubious." It is FACT.

EVERYTHING points to a lone gunman shot by a lone gunman.

Denying it doesn't make it not true.

[GoneFishin]

34. I also knew it was total crap before the Oliver Stone movie.

[duffyduff]

18. Exactly. Most people who were around then who were old enough are dead.

Only 25 percent of the American people living today have any real memory of the events of that day.

I suspect some observers think those of us who were elementary school age don't remember, but many if not most of us do.

It depends on how closely their families followed politics and current events.

[Awknid]

83. I cannot imagine anyone 9 yrs old that day

Who was not hugely affected. It was enormous. Everyone I knew was truly affected. Of course the circumstances of being in an all girls Catholic school at the time in a very democratic and Catholic community was a big reason why it made such a mark on my upbringing. But I was traumatized for over three weeks.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

51. No. The public has viewed it through a lens of conspiracy for precisely 50 years and one day. nt

[ancianita]

99. Whether Stone made the film or not, the public discourse has not been presented but authentically

experienced and communicated, and already was mainstream. That "conspiracy POV" had been so pervasive 25+ years after it had been experienced historically, that counter-narrative books were written about the assassination.

Real credit to the film lies elsewhere. Thanks to Stone, who is old enough to remember, I and other Americans old enough to remember consider this film important in giving to future generations at least minimal exposure to the Zapruder film, a re-enactment of the public's experience of the assassination, social conflicts of of the time, and an on-the-record attempt by citizens -- Jim Garrison and others -- to assert some agency in using their jurisdictional standing to use existing laws to pursue those who put Oswald in the book depository.

Stone's film exposes a real time first-time mass experience that, sooner or later, forced many Americans to realize that integrity and transparency of democracy and government were also assassinated, or to wonder if they ever existed.

Thanks for your clear presentation of findings, arguments and the entire process that shows internal validity to the Warren Commission's report. I've learned a lot from you.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. Greatest Page for you, my dear Blue, and your important poll!

I am way older than 63 and I am ambivalent. Very ambivalent.

[Major Hogwash]

12. I was only 7 years old when Ruby murdered Oswald live on tv. I saw it, and that is why . . .

. . . I will never ever forget that day.
This is what I was talking about the other day . . for some of us, it is not just cold, hard facts from a history book, it is a part of our lives.

The members of my immediate family were all sitting in the living room watching tv.
Except for my older brother, who couldn't deal very well with the assassination of JFK, so he went to his bedroom.

My dad and my grandfather were both sitting on the couch.
My mom was sitting on one of the easy chairs near the kitchen.
As was my grandmother.
I was sitting on the arm of the couch, next to my grandfather.
My little brother was sitting on the living room floor in front of the couch.

Link to the front page of The New York Times on Monday, November 25, 1963 --
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1124.html

[duffyduff]

17. I was a bit older than you, almost nine years old.

Never forgot it. My family "argued" politics all the time, so I was well aware of Kennedy, and I watched the events unfold that weekend.

I am glad CBS is live streaming the original coverage.

What I would like to see is CBS release the 55 hours of coverage on DVD. I am sure it would sell very well.

[Major Hogwash]

26. My family never talked about politics.

Until JFK was assassinated.

My mom didn't want me to watch the news because so much of it was bad news at the time.
She thought it would upset me, and cause me egregious harm of some sort.
Back then, I watched how Black people were being firehosed down in the South.
Later, I even watched tv when some Buddhists lit themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam War.
So, my mom told me that I wasn't allowed to watch the news.

Big mistake.

Because then I wondered why, why was the news so damned bad that I wasn't supposed to watch it.
So, I began to sneak in to the living room to watch the news whenever the news was on.
I would talk to my dad about what was going on sometimes.
My older brother would talk to him about the news, too, but he always put me down because he said I didn't know what I was talking about.

And so, later on I became a news junky of sorts, and I started reading the newspaper on a daily basis by the time I was in the 6th grade.
So I would kind of know what I was talking about.

The excuse that I used back then at that time was that I was just reading the comics.
Instead, I was reading most of the articles written by the reporters of those days, so I could discuss the current events taking place at the time with my dad and with my older brother and his friends.

[duffyduff]

36. My parents argued all the time about politics, mostly because my dad wanted to

get a "rise" out of my mom, and she almost always took the bait.

They were good people, though, and I miss them a lot.

My older sisters were big Kennedy supporters, and the assassination devastated them. I doubt they are watching any of the retrospectives.

What is hard is watching the funeral coverage. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to cry your eyes out over it.

We watched CBS almost exclusively back then. I am watching the rerun of the original coverage, and I truly miss reporters like Eric Severeid, Walter Cronkite, Robert Trout, Hughes Rudd, Charles Collingwood (probably my favorite of all of them), Nelson Benton, George Herman, Daniel Schorr, Mike Wallace, Winston Burdett, and many others. Marvin Kalb, Dan Rather, Roger Mudd, Richard C. Hottelet (the last of the original "Murrow boys" and is 96 years old) and whoever else I missed who is still alive are way up there in years. We just don't have people like anymore in broadcast journalism.

The coverage really was the high point in television history.

[oswaldactedalone]

59. Amen

Was saying this today after watching 3 hours last night. The reporting of the many aspects of the situation was terrific.

[citizenbfk]

13. RELEASE ALL THE EVIDENCE!

Until we get a release of ALL evidence how can we even expect to know the full truth...

IT'S SOMETHING THAT MAKES COMMON SENSE AND A STANDARD OF COMMON JUSTICE -- we can do a little bit ...On this 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John Kennedy there's still a strong grip to hide the evidence and truth behind that crime, that murder --- Right now there is now a White House petition about it. We have 30-days to get 100,000 signatures -- Please Share & Sign - http://wh.gov/lKCZT

[TalkingDog]

14. This week brought a new convert to the Conspiracy Theory fold.

The Spousal Unit says he finally became convinced of a JFK conspiracy this week when he suddenly realized that Texas, of all places, had a 6 story structure built solely to house educational text books for schools.

[duffyduff]

16. Mel and Norma Gabler did it. I knew it. n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

21. A little levity.

Thanks.

[duffyduff]

15. Not true. I was around then. I don't believe any conspiracy at all.

I know many people who remember the event and didn't subscribe to conspiracies, either.

What is truly scary are the people who actually believe Oliver Stone's bullshit of Jim Garrison's bullshit.

DU is not representative of public opinion anyway on this issue, and conspiracy thinking is declining because the science doesn't support it.

[Blue_In_AK]

20. I think DU is very representative

since my Googling shows that anywhere from 59 to 70 percent or more of Americans believe that Oswald did not act alone.

Of course, as we know, majorities of Americans believe all kinds of things, but to say DU's opinions aren't representative on this particular issue is simply not true.

[Ace Acme]

22. DU is very representative, and some people feel better when they invent their facts. nt

[Curmudgeoness]

27. I don't see it as inventing facts.

I see it as not having enough facts either way to make a determination. If you were around at the time, you know that there were a lot of facts that were not brought forward, and there was too much secrecy and things hidden. I just don't have enough facts to be sure that they were not lying to us.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

23. My father said that Edgar hoover had JFK killed

That's what he always said

[NaturalHigh]

24. Interesting theory.

I think you're probably right, since my parents and I have almost polar opposite opinions on the subject.

[zeemike]

29. I was 20 living in south Texas at the time

And every local I knew said right from the start that LBJ had him killed...that kind of stuck with me because at the time I thought it was just because they hated him there...but later I came to understand why they said that, and think they may have had a point.

I was watching when Oswald said "I'm a patsy" and my lie detector did not go off, and when I saw him shot and killed on live TV that convinced me he was....because that is the fate of a patsy, because once they realize they have been set up to take the fall they talk.

[WillyT]

30. Great Poll, Blue !!! - K & R !!!

Like your theory too.

I took a U.S. History class (1865 to the Present), from the view of African Americans, back in '74...

And when the professor was asked why Kennedy was killed, he answered:

"Because he thought he was President."

I've never forgotten that response.

[Agschmid]

35. Kick, I'd like to see more young votes!

[ScreamingMeemie]

37. Added my youngish vote.

[Agschmid]

40. Thanks!

[Blue_In_AK]

38. Yes, please, more young people

I am really, really curious if the official story has become "common knowledge" to the people born after 1963. A very small sampling of that age group has responded, but based on the comparison with older people who remember, it seems they are more likely to believe what the government has told them.

[Agschmid]

39. For me it is.

I think it has been well established that it was absolutely possible for Oswald to take the shots, I think he went off the edge of mental stability and the assassination was the outcome of that lack of stability.

I feel like we see this all the time, think of Gabby Giffords shooter... A lone gunmen, no major motive except for insanity.

[Blue_In_AK]

41. Which I might agree with except for all the weirdness in Oswald's background

and, as I've stated multiple times, the fact that he himself was murdered two days later. Had he been killed during the course of his apprehension by an overzealous cop or if he had turned the gun on himself, then we might assume that he just went off the edge, suicide by cop, whatever, but to have some non-law enforcement person be in that hallway two days later to take him out just seems entirely too convenient and planned. How was Oswald able to get in and out of the USSR so easily at the height of the Cold War? None of it makes sense -- to me, at least.

[alsame]

42. Exactly. For a 24 year old, he sure had a

lot of 'interesting' contacts and experiences.

[Blue_In_AK]

43. I think people tend to forget just how young he was.

[Agschmid]

44. I do see some issues with that...

My best guess is Jack Ruby thought he'd be a hero for shooting Oswald.

[Awknid]

86. Jack Ruby was tied to the mob. The thinking is that he was hired to kill Oswald.

But you should read this article in the Boston Globe today.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/24/his-brother-keeper-robert-kennedy-saw-conspiracy-jfk-assassination/TmZ0nfKsB34p69LWUBgsEJ/story.html

[RFKHumphreyObama]

45. As someone who was born almost 20 years after JFK's tragic and untimely death

I guess I'd describe myself as ambivalent and I voted as such in the poll. I got interested in JFK very young (from about 9-10 years old) after reading about him in my set of World Book encyclopedias and listening to my mother talking about him.

My mother was born and raised in South East Asia. She was 17 at the time and, despite the proximity of distance from her country and the US and the fact that she had no ties there, she some members of the younger generations don't quite realize how much JFK's death impacted upon people even in the furthest parts of the globe, let alone America

I grew up in the era where conspiracy theories seemed to be the predominant consensus about the JFK assassination and it influenced my thinking during my formative years. I read countless books about the potential conspiracy theories and actually dragged my family along to watch Oliver Stone in the cinema. I used to be convinced beyond doubt that JFK's death was a conspiracy. In recent years, I've swung more toward the lone gunman theory but am still not definitively sure. I really don't think we'll ever know for certain

[scarletwoman]

46. Giving this a kick before I shut down the ol' laptop.

Hopefully your poll will get some more younger folks weighing in tomorrow. It's Saturday night after all, they're out doing fun stuff - unlike us stay-at-home old codgers.

[Blue_In_AK]

47. You're probably right about that.

The results are interesting so far, though.

[scarletwoman]

48. Yes, they are.

I'll check back in the morning and give it a kick.

Have a lovely evening!

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

49. I'm logged in, but can't vote. (why?) I think Oswald was a patsy..... n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

50. And if I may ask your age group?

I don't know why you can't post.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

54. 63 and older... (I don't know why I can't vote, and I can't recommend either.)

When I used to log in I would get six or seven cookies, now I'm only getting two.

[El Supremo]

52. How about: I'm 62 and was there in Dallas and still don't know.

Show me the meat! (A 62 year old's term)

[BainsBane]

53. You may be right

I honestly can't get myself to care that much about it. I've never understood why people are so fixated on JFK.

[ScreamingMeemie]

56. I think the American public has a fascination with murders and crime.

Fictional television shows about crime-solving almost always are at the top of the ratings. The Kennedys were young and glamorous...and *I think* many are drawn to that.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. Because it is personal. I was a small boy, that was the day I learned this fact: Dads can die.

I heard the news on TV with my Mother, Dad was at work and my older sister at school. I was consumed by fear for my Dad, who was to me just like Jack, a Democrat who had kids about our age, an Irish guy, a good man. Good men, good fathers, can be murdered by bad men. Big fucking lesson to get. I stood watch by the window waiting for Dad for days after when he was gone to work.
A few days later we were at the home of family friends when Oswald was shot. Everyone was in the kitchen except for me and the Mom of the family we were visiting. We saw that murder happen live. We told the others, or she did.
So in the space of a few days, sub kindergarten me learned that his parents were mortal, saw a man shot to death on TV surrounded by 'protection' and also saw John Jr, who was my age, mourn his father on TV. I had a 'Jon Jon' haircut. We were the only Kennedy Democrats in our town.
Later, when RFK was shot, I was older and got semi beat up by Republican kids who thought it was hilarious that Bobby was murdered.
Personal in that those events were things that happened to us who were witnesses. JFK was the first person I mourned, first person I saw mourned, his death was the announcement to child me that mourning and life are partners.

[scarletwoman]

71. Great post! Yes, for those of us who were old enough to be aware of the JFK assassination

when it happened, it will always be "personal".

[Benton D Struckcheon]

55. The subsequent assassinations proved only that the right wing is the violent wing,

which is something you could figure out from, say, the Civil War (which ended in Lincoln's assassination), or maybe the KKK, or that the largest terror event prior to 9/11 was Oklahoma City.
That's what the subsequent assassinations prove. Left figures will always be more in danger of assassination, because the right wing is the violent wing.

[Blue_In_AK]

57. That makes sense.

Only the good die young.

[Android3.14]

58. Hypothesis

eom

[Blue_In_AK]

60. Word Nazi?

I was a legal secretary, not a scientist.

[Android3.14]

62. Nope. I just love language

Well, maybe just a bit of a word Nazi.

[Logical]

61. Wow, the DU has really been a huge disappointment on this. n-t

[scarletwoman]

67. How so? Are you really surprised?

It looks to me that the sentiments of DU around this issue pretty much reflect the sentiments of the U.S. population as a whole. Truly, American popular culture has come to take it as a given that the whole truth about the JFK assassination has never been revealed. It's actually come to be, for better or worse, a fairly mainstream view.

[DanTex]

72. I'm actually a little surprised.

Yes, DU sentiments pretty much represent US opinion as a whole in this issue. But on other issues where significant portions of the public are odds with reality, DUers tend to be better informed -- e.g. global warming, evolution.

[scarletwoman]

74. It's not about being "better informed" - DUers are plenty well-informed.

It's about the lense through which the information is viewed.

DUers are also well-informed about the history of government lies and cover-ups - especially, I would venture, those of us who lived through the Vietnam years.

Global warming and evolution are matters of science, the JFK assassination is a matter of trust. Trust that the highest levels of power in the government would tell the truth and the whole truth. There are good reasons for the absence of that kind of trust.

[DanTex]

75. They are clearly not well-informed about the JFK assassination.

The JFK assassination is no more a matter of trust than global warming or evolution. Almost no DUers are even close to qualified to judge the scientific evidence on their own. Instead, they trust that the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists who study the topic aren't part of some conspiracy to overturn capitalism, even the ones who participate in UN or US Government panels. They trust, implicitly at least, the scientific peer review process to weed out legitimate science from bogus speculation.

The JFK assassination, in fact, requires much less trust than global warming, because enough evidence to convince any reasonable person well beyond reasonable doubt is already out there, and doesn't require any advanced scientific knowledge, statistical mastery, or understanding of computer simulations to interpret.

[scarletwoman]

79. It is what it is. There have been dozens (hundreds?) of posts by DUers over the past week explaining

precisely why they think what they do about the JFK assassination. You have also made it clear why you think what you do.

I think you'll just have to be satisfied with that.

[BootinUp]

76. There is scientifically sound evidence that has been confirmed and reconfirmed many times

that Oswald was the shooter using the rifle he purchased. And that only bullets from that rifle hit Kennedy and Connally. As to a wider conspiracy, if it existed it was hidden better than any conspiracy we will ever know, which is another way of saying it is very very very unlikely based on current information. As to government secrecy and how it relates to all this. The JFK assassination has been used to press for less secrecy, I am ok with that. What I am not really ok with is the lies that have been foisted on us. I was in maybe 5th or 6th grade when I read my first book on the assassination. It was of course a CT book. It fucked up my understanding of the facts for a couple of decades. It turns out the Warren Commission had the science right all along.

[scarletwoman]

81. So, did you vote in the poll?

[BootinUp]

82. No I didn't. for the record

I am 50, at a young age after reading CT books and hearing other peoples opinions I thought there was likely a conspiracy and I doubted the WCR very highly. But I began to read more about it in the last 20 years and now I agree with the conclusions of the Warren Commission. My Dad, a life long liberal who is now 75, and lived in California all his adult life, always trusted the Warren Commission and speaks highly of Earl Warren. I never discussed it with him until the last 5 years or so. Did you know that Earl Warren was nominated by both parties for Governor of California in 1946? Fascinating no?

[snot]

63. I.e., given enough time, secrecy & propaganda work?

[scarletwoman]

65. Sunday morning kick - anybody up and online?

Big demographic bulge on this poll of 53 years old and up. Very interesting!

[Martin Eden]

66. Age 56 and not certain; therefore, ambivalent

The poll used the word "believe." For me to believe something requires a very persuasive set of facts that make sense within the context of events. I am very skeptical that Oswald was the only shooter, but I am also very skeptical of every conspiracy theory I've encountered.

Confronted with a choice between belief & ambivalence, I therefore must select the latter.

[scarletwoman]

68. That makes sense. I think it's an honest choice. (nt)

[Blue_In_AK]

77. I agree that makes sense.

I try to be ambivalent, but my "gut" won't let me. It's not very scientific, but I tend to trust my intuition.

[questionseverything]

89. oct posted this great link

http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/

all kinds of science in there

[CrispyQ]

73. I became convinced of a conspiracy in '68, when they killed ML King & R Kennedy,

just a few months apart. I was six & remember the JFK assassination, but I wasn't aware of politics. By ten, I was much more in tune. We still had six o'clock news that showed protests & scenes from VietNam, & newspapers with real stories, not what passes for mainstream news today.

[northoftheborder]

80. I don't have a "theory". And the ballistics studies shown on this blog....

....and elaborated on in television special coverage about the "miracle bullet" have proved to my mind to be plausible proof of that first shot's aim by Oswald. And the second shot, has been proved to my mind to be coming from Oswald's position in the rear hitting JFK in the back of his head and effectively killing him.

HOWEVER, other questions about other shots, other shooters, the killing of Oswald, RFK, and MLK, the fact that much data is still being held, the fact that Kathleen Kennedy Townsend has some doubts, John Kerry also, RFK expressed doubts before he was murdered, and others who are respected public figures keep a puzzling questioning instilled in my mind.

This one instance remains outstanding in my memory:

Years ago, there was a panel discussing the assassination, including Ben Bradley, ex editor of the Washington Post. I don't remember anyone else who was on the panel - various people prominent in public life, and alive back in the sixties. I can't remember the context or all of this statement by Bradley, but "if all the truth were known about Kennedy's death, it would destroy the country" or words to that effect. It was kind of a throwaway line, not questioned, not followed up with more explanation, the discussion went on just as he had not said that, but it indicated TO ME that he did know SOMETHING.

A lot of the stuff that's been published I think is bunk, much of it disproved. But I STILL have doubts of suspicion. And someone (or more) who knows the truth is still alive. That's all I have to say.

[questionseverything]

91. .....

Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 05:31 PM - Edit history (1)

this article oct posted yesterday has TONS of info

http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/

[questionseverything]

92. from that link

One such example occurs when Bugliosi attempts to rebut skeptics who claim that Parkland doctors said that JFK had a rearward skull defect that suggested a rearward bullet exit (whereas any bullets that Oswald fired would have exited the front). Bugliosi counters with a quote from one of the Parkland doctors: "Dr. Charles Baxter testified that the head exit wound was in the ‘temporal and parietal’ area." [48] The important word here is "parietal," which is a skull bone that extends from the crown of the head, well behind the hairline, toward the very rear of the skull. When Baxter specified "temporal and parietal," he was then reading his own handwritten notes into the record before the Warren Commission. But nowhere did Baxter say anything about that being the exit wound's location. Moreover, as David Lifton first pointed out in his 1980 book, Best Evidence, although Baxter did indeed say "parietal and temporal" when he read the notes he'd written on the day of the murder, that is not what Baxter actually wrote. [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.

Similarly, Bugliosi cites the testimony that autopsy witness and medical technologist, Paul O'Connor, gave at a mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald in London as evidence that a bullet hit JFK in the rear of the skull and exploded out the front. He writes, "I said to O’Connor, ‘You told me over the phone that this large massive defect to the right frontal area of the president’s head gave all appearances of being an exit wound, is that correct?’ O’Connor [replied,] ‘Yes, on the front.’" [51] Despite indicating that he was familiar with what O'Connor had told the HSCA in 1977, Bugliosi withholds it from his readers. The HSCA reported that O'Connor "believes that the bullet came in from the front and blew out the top." [52] O'Connor also told the HSCA that JFK's skull defect was in the region from the "occipital around the temporal and parietal regions." [53] [F-19] Furthermore, for Sylvia Chase's KRON television special on JFK, O'Connor described the wound as an "open area all the way across to the rear of the brain just like that," and with his hands demonstrated the rearward location of the defect. In his 1993 book, The Killing of a President, Robert Groden reproduced a photograph of O'Connor with his hand over the backside of his head, demonstrating the location of JFK's skull injury. [54] Bugliosi discloses none of this to his readers.

[scarletwoman]

84. Interesting age breakdown, eh?

I love that you did this poll!

[Raine1967]

87. Blue_In_AK I wrote this on Friday: (I've no first-hand recollection of the assassination/ambivalent)

(And I want to preface this that with these words, I mean no disrespect at all to anyone who believes standard line or believes other theories. It was not shared on DU, but rather on my blog. I am ambivalent. It's not that I don't care.

I think this is one of the most thoughtful polls I have seen on DU. As someone who loves history, social and political movements, I care abut this issue -- so having said that, I would like to share what I wrote here.)

================================================================

Living in a Post JFK World

A President was murdered 50 years ago today. I wasn't born yet. I grew up hearing great stories about this man President John F. Kennedy. I grew up around schools, libraries, and airports named after a much beloved President that had been killed one afternoon in Dallas Texas. I was taught about Camelot. I grew up seeing plates of Mr. Kennedy next to his wife. I grew up seeing things like this:




Images of President Kennedy were everywhere. He was the man who put us on the moon. He was exotic because he was Catholic. Everyone loved this man, I was told.

Yet, There was something else. I also grew up hearing about plots to kill the president; conspiracies were mentioned in hushed tones by the adults in my life. Words like communist, the Soviets, Castro, mafia, Hoover were mentioned in a way that I knew these were things not to be talked about. This was grown-up conversation, and it was private. Talk of what happened to the president was not encouraged. He had been assassinated, and what we may have heard as children was not to be discussed outside the home, if even that. We were children, we didn't need to know. It happened before I and my siblings were born. I have always lived in a post-JFK world. It was inferred that it was disrespectful to speak ill of a dead president. Still, the adults whispered about it. They whispered of affairs and Marilyn Monroe. They whispered because if they said it aloud, people might laugh at them... think that they were crazy. They whispered because it was considered too out there, too fringe.

As I grew up, these conspiracy theories became mainstream. With the onslaught of 24/7 news channels and my ability to go out in the world and read, I learned that the things I heard whispered quietly as a child had somehow became okay to discuss publicly, even the stranger theories about this man's murder, and subsequently, the murder of his brother, Robert. I've read the theories. Here on this blog there is ongoing debate. To me, he was a president that was killed before I was born. I have always lived in a post-JFK world. I never really identified with the red scare or the iron curtain. It was before my time. And, to be honest, I can say that I don't identify with those who were alive when President Kennedy was assassinated. Believing the Warren Commission or not is just not a priority for me. He was killed and the psyche of our nation was forever changed, so the historians say. I believe that, I saw it change again September of 2001. A new generation would now question: was it Mihop or Lihop?

I have always lived in a world where there are conspiracies everywhere. Perhaps it's because I live in a post-JFK world. What does it matter what I believe? Would it change anything? 50 years people have been claiming to know what happened, and 50 years things that were once considered fringe have now became the norm, Are we a better nation for it? Personally, I say no. Personally, I think my generation has suffered for it. This is what happens when the fringe is allowed to become normal.

A half-century later, few people are laughing. After Kennedy’s death in Dallas, the notion of conspiracy moved permanently into the political mainstream. The assassination and its unknown motive became a benchmark conundrum for anyone with even a faint interest in public life. Americans of all stripes found it difficult to accept that such a monumental tragedy could be the random act of one man. Theories, ranging from the Warren Commission’s Report’s official finding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone to speculation about additional shooters and Oswald being connected to the Mafia, CIA or other shadowy operatives, became part of American life.

The mainstreaming of conspiracy changed the political process in the U.S. by suggesting that candidates might win elections by running against government. The rhetoric of the Tea Party and the recent congressional attempts to bring down the administration of President Barack Obama at all costs are the legacy of JFK’s assassination.

Perhaps this is the remnant of a cold war paranoia that still lingers in our society today. Perhaps we are all crazy ourselves, and in our collective search for our truth, we have prevented ourselves from really seeing. That makes us suffer as a nation.

In the mean time, 50 years ago today, we had a great man taken away from the nation, his family and the world. Everyone I know that was alive and of a certain age can tell you exactly where they were when they learned of his tragic fate. One can only hypothesize what would have happened had he not been gunned down in Dallas on November 22, 1963. 50 years later, people are still doing just that.

================================================================

I honestly don't know what to believe. There are so many stories out there that it's hard to make sense.

Once again, thank you for this poll, I'm glad it was bumped and that I didn't miss it.

Raine

(edited to change my post title)

[IcyPeas]

88. Did Jackie Kennedy or Robert Kennedy or any other member

of that family ever say who they thought killed JFK? and why? Did Ted ever voice an opinion?

[ScreamingMeemie]

93. Here is an interesting article from the Boston Globe on Bobby

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/24/his-brother-keeper-robert-kennedy-saw-conspiracy-jfk-assassination/TmZ0nfKsB34p69LWUBgsEJ/story.html

snip-

In the five years between his brother’s murder and his own assassination in 1968, Bobby Kennedy voiced public support for the findings of the Warren Commission, namely that a pathetic, attention-seeking gunman had alone been responsible for the murder of President Kennedy. Privately, though, Bobby was dismissive of the commission, seeing it, in the words of his former press secretary, as a public relations tool aimed at placating a rattled populace. When the chairman of the commission, Chief Justice Earl Warren, personally wrote to the attorney general, asking for any information to suggest that a “domestic or foreign conspiracy” was behind his brother’s assassination, Bobby scrawled a note to an aide, asking, “What do I do?” Then, after stalling for two months, he sent along a legalistic reply saying there was nothing in the Justice Department files to suggest a conspiracy. He made no mention of the hunches that appeared to be rattling around in his own mind.

There is no indication that Bobby ever found evidence to prove a wider conspiracy. But judging from his actions after hearing the news out of Dallas, it’s clear that he quickly focused his attention on three areas of suspicion: Cuba, the Mafia, and the CIA. Crucially, Bobby had become his brother’s point man in managing all three of those highly fraught portfolios. And by the time the president was gunned down, Bobby understood better than anyone how all three had become hopelessly interwoven, and how much all three bore his own imprint.

-snip

[northoftheborder]

94. Jackie....

....left some writings not to be opened until 50 years after her own death, or 50 years after her children's death (can't remember).

[SheilaT]

90. I was 15 and in high school 50 years ago.

There is simply no proof that anyone else fired a gun at JKF that day. None. There's a lot of nonsensical speculation out there, but no proof.

As to Oswald's saying he was a patsy, well how many murderers actually admit their guilt? Remarkably few.

I suggest more people read the Bugliosi book. Also, The Death of a President by William Manchester, which allows you to relive that awful weekend, especially if you can read it in exactly four days, as I did once.

[zeemike]

95. How many of them call themselves a patsy?

None, because it implies you were somehow a part of it...and had a story to tell that you knew who did it...if you are guilty you don't want to implicate yourself in it if you are trying to beat the rap.

[scarletwoman]

97. Evening kick.

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 09:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Are there really that many more DUers who are older than 53 than are under 53?

(edited for missing word)

[Blue_In_AK]

98. I'm surprised by that, too.

Maybe one could read into their lack of response that they just don't give a care, that it doesn't affect them in any way one way or the other, so they're not going to participate in this poll. In other words, kind of strengthening my hypothesis that the assassination has been much more relevant to the world view of those of us who remember, whether or not we believe in a conspiracy.

I was commenting to a DUer on Facebook the other day that soon enough all of us who remember that horrible week in 1963 will be dead and gone and then November 22 will become just another day like June 6 or December 7 or April 14, a date when people know that something happened, but they can't quite remember what. History is like that.

[BainsBane]

100. It doesn't surprise me at all

The number of reactionary views on gender made that clear to me some time ago. It seems clear that many people here were educated in an era before the critiques of ideas of race and gender than have been common in higher education for at least the past 25 years.
Age is of course not an absolute determinant in such attitudes, but it is an important factor.

[ReRe]

101. By the end of the decade....

... wasn't it a giveaway that it WAS a conspiracy, as all the peacemakers were shot dead? It was the hardest period of time to live through, I tell you. Then, TPTB topped it off with the VietNam War in the middle of everything. We didn't know if we were coming or going. One crisis after another. Nixon, who swore he wasn't a crook, and lied through his teeth. Then the wool was pulled over everyones eyes with Ronald Reagan, who was lied to by the CIA, saying that the USSR had an exorbitant war machine, when it didn't. The MIC grew and grew by $4 trillion worth, $500 hammers and all. It's been all downhill from then to now. This really is NOT the same country I was born in. No more American Dream,
no more upward mobility, middle class pared way way down, and no way out of poverty for so many.

[alsame]

102. Overall DU results are similar to national polls:

[IMG][/IMG]


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/20/poll-62-percent-believe-broader-plot-killed-kennedy/