Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Border Reiver]

50+ years and what, 3 official investigations later, we still don't have access to all relevant documentation.

That comes along with the Zapruder film, which if combined with the official narrative -- three shots from one person from above and behind President Kennedy -- is certainly more than enough reason to question the official narrative and not take it as an accepted truth.

What evidence do you believe has not been released?

What gaps in the evidentiary picture do you see and can those gaps only be the result of deliberate suppression?

 

[turingtest]

...
And to answer another reply, just because those who reject the lone-gunman theory do not all agree on a specific conspiracy theory for the assassination, does not mean that the lone-gunman theory remains intact. Furthermore, the vast majority of JFK assassination conspiracy theorists agree on a general theory about what happened: multiple gunmen, fake Secret Service agents, medical evidence cover-up, and involvement of some high-level government figures, possibly in cooperation with the Mafia. Most WC critics accept that theory.

Accepting plot devices that are needed to keep your narrative intact and moving along is not the same thing as having an actual coherent theory.

 

[RoboTimbo]

50+ years and what, 3 official investigations later, we still don't have access to all relevant documentation.

That comes along with the Zapruder film, which if combined with the official narrative -- three shots from one person from above and behind President Kennedy -- is certainly more than enough reason to question the official narrative and not take it as an accepted truth.

50+ years and thousands of conspiracy theories later and we still don't have an alternative coherent theory for the assassination.

-- is certainly more than enough reason to question the CTist motivation and not take them seriously.

Jango, what parts do you want to question?

 

[Belz...]

These folks are nothing if not predictable.

I knew you would say that.

 

[JayUtah]

50+ years and what, 3 official investigations later, we still don't have access to all relevant documentation.

What documentation do you suppose must exist that will materially change the story? What about 50-plus years of waffling about by conspiracy theorists who get no closer to any better answer than "The official story is wrong!"

That comes along with the Zapruder film, which if combined with the official narrative -- three shots from one person from above and behind President Kennedy -- is certainly more than enough reason to question the official narrative and not take it as an accepted truth.

Why?

And why is the answer always just "Question the official narrative." Don't simply nit-pick away at details. Show me a more convincing comprehensive narrative.

 

[JayUtah]

Accepting plot devices that are needed to keep your narrative intact and moving along is not the same thing as having an actual coherent theory.

I was trying to find a way to say that elegantly, thank you. These are not even plot devices -- they're categories of plot devices.

"Multiple gunmen" include incompatible theories about gunmen in other buildings, gunmen on the Grassy Knoll, gunmen on the overpass, gunmen in the sewers -- heck, even that a Secret Service guy shot Kennedy with his service pistol. If you accept all the "multiple gunmen" theories, Dealey Plaza would have been a turkey shoot.

No, bobtaftfan, you can't smudge the detail away from all the competing theories and smoosh them together into a meaningless gray list of vague notions and call that consistency. Show me a narrative (not the names of pieces of a narrative) that all the conspiracy authors have gotten behind.

 

[turingtest]

I was trying to find a way to say that elegantly, thank you. These are not even plot devices -- they're categories of plot devices.
"Multiple gunmen" include incompatible theories about gunmen in other buildings, gunmen on the Grassy Knoll, gunmen on the overpass, gunmen in the sewers -- heck, even that a Secret Service guy shot Kennedy with his service pistol. If you accept all the "multiple gunmen" theories, Dealey Plaza would have been a turkey shoot.

No, bobtaftfan, you can't smudge the detail away from all the competing theories and smoosh them together into a meaningless gray list of vague notions and call that consistency. Show me a narrative (not the names of pieces of a narrative) that all the conspiracy authors have gotten behind.

Good point- they're really not much more than memes. It's kind of similar to Bobby Jindal's fearmongering about "non-assimilation" of Muslims in American culture leading to creeping sharia law here - and then, as evidence, pointing to examples of "no go zones" in Europe which he can't specify and don't actually even exist. So...a meme built on a meme.

 

[JayUtah]

Good point- they're really not much more than memes.

And they're just the memes from The Bourne Identity. If you squint hard enough, Ansel Adams' work looks like Pablo Picasso's. That doesn't mean you hang them in the same room at the gallery. You don't get to blur the lines until everything is one gray blur and call that a meaningful consenus.

Nope, if your defense includes the phrase "...possibly in cooperation with the Mafia" (emphasis added), that means some theories say the Mafia was involved and others say the Mafia wasn't involved. When your theories differ on a point as important as whodunnit, it's madness to claim they've converged. Similarly "high-level government figures" blurs contradicting theories that LBJ was the mastermind, or alternatively that he was threatened to be next unless he played ball.

It's kind of similar to Bobby Jindal's fearmongering...

I like this one better. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/aliens_avatar (warning: profanity). His memes are even more concrete that bobtaftfan's, and you still end up with two things that aren't the same narrative.

Conspiracy theories are founded upon details. Any JFK conspiracy theory is a huge bag of details the author says don't fit the conventional story. And upon that basis, he says, you have to reject the official narrative. Well then what narrative better explains all those details? None, it turns out. In order to get a "story" (if you can call that vague orbital fly-by a story) you have to remove all the details by which you presumed to dismiss the conventional narrative. The huge bag of details doesn't point any better toward any other conclusion, so you're left with fifty years of detractive whining.

 

[mikegriffith1]

What documentation do you suppose must exist that will materially change the story? What about 50-plus years of waffling about by conspiracy theorists who get no closer to any better answer than "The official story is wrong!"

Why?

And why is the answer always just "Question the official narrative." Don't simply nit-pick away at details. Show me a more convincing comprehensive narrative.

This is just silly logic. Your "comprehensive narrative" is full of holes from one end to the other. But if no one can show you a detailed alternative narrative, you'll just keep believing in the ridiculous lone-gunman story.

If Theory A is shot full of holes and contradicted by mountains of hard evidence, a different theory must be true, even if we don't have enough information to provide a comprehensive, point-by-point narrative of that alternative theory but only a general outline of it.

There are lots of crimes where we don't know the whole story and can't provide details about many elements but where the general picture is clear. Such is the case with the JFK assassination conspiracy. It's clear there were multiple gunmen and that a cover-up followed, but we can't lay out a point-by-point, element-by-element narrative for what happened.

For instance, we KNOW from the released HSCA files, and from certain WC files, that Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City. But we don't know who did the impersonating, who hired the impersonator, etc., etc.

We also have multiple accounts of Oswald being impersonated in Dallas before the assassination. We know the intent was to frame Oswald as a rabid, Kennedy-hating communist (actually, by nearly all accounts, Oswald liked JFK). But, we don't know who the impersonator(s) was/were, who sent him/them, etc., etc.

When the core element of your theory--that a gunman with Oswald's limited marksmanship skills hit Kennedy two out of three shots in 5-9 seconds--has NEVER been duplicated in any reenactment, one would think this would give the theory's advocates some pause, and perhaps a little humility. And by "duplicated," I don't meant where world-class, expert riflemen managed to score two hits out of the three shots on the second, third, or fourth attempts while firing under easier conditions than those Oswald would have faced.

Was Oswald A Poor Shot?

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is just silly logic. Your "comprehensive narrative" is full of holes from one end to the other. But if no one can show you a detailed alternative narrative, you'll just keep believing in the ridiculous lone-gunman story.

If Theory A is shot full of holes and contradicted by mountains of hard evidence, a different theory must be true, even if we don't have enough information to provide a comprehensive, point-by-point narrative of that alternative theory but only a general outline of it.

Ok, what's your general outline of what happened that all of the evidence agrees with?

 

[JayUtah]

This is just silly logic. Your "comprehensive narrative" is full of holes from one end to the other. But if no one can show you a detailed alternative narrative, you'll just keep believing in the ridiculous lone-gunman story.

No, I'll believe the narrative that is the most complete and has the fewest holes. You can't even reach the completeness criterion.

If Theory A is shot full of holes and contradicted by mountains of hard evidence, a different theory must be true...

No, that's not how logic works. No amount of detractive argument establishes some other affirmative claim by itself. The best theory (however perforated) is still the best theory until it's supplanted by a better one. You have no better one. You don't even have a "one."

 

[BStrong]

This is just silly logic. Your "comprehensive narrative" is full of holes from one end to the other. But if no one can show you a detailed alternative narrative, you'll just keep believing in the ridiculous lone-gunman story.

If Theory A is shot full of holes and contradicted by mountains of hard evidence, a different theory must be true, even if we don't have enough to provide a comprehensive, point-by-point narrative of that alternative theory beyond a general outline of it.

There are lots of crimes where we don't know the whole story and can't provide details about many elements but where the general picture is clear. Such is the case with the JFK assassination conspiracy. It's clear there were multiple gunmen and that a cover-up followed, but we can't lay out a point-by-point, element-by-element narrative for what happened.

For instance, we KNOW from the released HSCA files, and from certain WC files, that Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City. But we don't know who did the impersonating, who hired the impersonator, etc., etc.

We also have multiple accounts of Oswald being impersonated in Dallas before the assassination. We know the intent was to frame Oswald as a rabid, Kennedy-hating communist (actually, by nearly all accounts, Oswald like JFK). But, we don't know who the impersonator(s) was/were, who sent them, etc., etc.

Opinion doesn't constitute "mountains of hard evidence," and what you assert to be facts establishing conspiracy can just as easily be dismissed as common mistakes of human frailty.

You're bringing Donahue and his theory into the mix here, so which is it, did the SS kill JFK and cover it up, or did the guy with the rifle that already took a potshot at someone (Walker) and confessed to his wife and worked at the TSBD where the rifle was found do the shooting? And Tippit was shot and killed by who exactly, and how did the piece used end up on LHO?

As much as the CTists hate to admit it, their various versions kind of fade when you look at the actual established evidence, and my personal involvement with life has taught me it's hard enough trying to hide a surprise party from your wife to make the notion of grand conspiracy in the assassination of JFK a bad joke at best.

 

[BStrong]

This is just silly logic. Your "comprehensive narrative" is full of holes from one end to the other. But if no one can show you a detailed alternative narrative, you'll just keep believing in the ridiculous lone-gunman story.

If Theory A is shot full of holes and contradicted by mountains of hard evidence, a different theory must be true, even if we don't have enough information to provide a comprehensive, point-by-point narrative of that alternative theory but only a general outline of it.

There are lots of crimes where we don't know the whole story and can't provide details about many elements but where the general picture is clear. Such is the case with the JFK assassination conspiracy. It's clear there were multiple gunmen and that a cover-up followed, but we can't lay out a point-by-point, element-by-element narrative for what happened.

For instance, we KNOW from the released HSCA files, and from certain WC files, that Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City. But we don't know who did the impersonating, who hired the impersonator, etc., etc.

We also have multiple accounts of Oswald being impersonated in Dallas before the assassination. We know the intent was to frame Oswald as a rabid, Kennedy-hating communist (actually, by nearly all accounts, Oswald liked JFK). But, we don't know who the impersonator(s) was/were, who sent him/them, etc., etc.

When the core element of your theory--that a gunman with Oswald's limited marksmanship skills hit Kennedy two out of three shots in 5-9 seconds--has NEVER been duplicated in any reenactment, one would think this would give the theory's advocates some pause, and perhaps a little humility. And by "duplicated," I don't meant where world-class, expert riflemen managed to score two hits out of the three shots on the second, third, or fourth attempts while firing under easier conditions than those Oswald would have faced.

Was Oswald A Poor Shot?

Your man Howard Donahue did, and that's what led him to believe that LHO couldn't have done the shooting:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/19...1_donahue-ballistics-expert-warren-commission

"Under nearly identical conditions, Mr. Donahue became the only man on record to re-create the three shots that occurred within the much-debated 6.5 seconds captured on the famed Zapruder film."

Facts - check 'em and lose 'em.

 

[JayUtah]

Opinion doesn't constitute "mountains of hard evidence,"...

Nor does inference. There is no "hard evidence" of another gunman. As I wrote above, "hard evidence" of such a thing would be the identity of the gunman and persuasive proof that that identified person fired shots at Kennedy. And actually under criminal law, the standard I named would be only probable cause to allow the charge to continue to trial. So I'm being charitable. "Hard evidence" is an even higher standard than that.

No, what the conspiracy theorists have instead is a field of evidence that they can't make fit a certain narrow interpretation. That narrow goalpost is what they insist the conventional narrative must and can only be. Then following that predestined failure to fit, they infer that there "must" be some other gunman. But when they go looking for those additional gunman, no one agrees who or where they were. Everyone has a different idea.

Inferences are not evidence, no matter how much they're polished.

 

[JayUtah]

Your man Howard Donahue did, and that's what led him to believe that LHO couldn't have done the shooting...

Indeed, bobtaftfan cites Donahue as saying Oswald can't have fired the fatal shot. (Donahue claims it was one of Kennedy's Secret Service agents who fired the fatal head shot.) But then out of the other side of his mouth bobtaftfan cites HSCA as alleged proof that the U.S. government believes there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. But HSCA identifies Oswald as the firer of the fatal shot (regardless of what other conspirators there may have been), in direct contradiction to Donahue.

Which is it? See, this isn't a question of "details about many elements," or some other bit of acceptable ambiguity. Just among the sources cited by bobtaftfan there is a direct contradiction on the central question of who actually fired the fatal shot. You can't have a mess of competing theories any more full of holes than that. So for that reason I still think the conventional narrative best explains the majority of evidence with the fewest holes. The competing field of "investigation" is a massively contradictory fiasco on even the most basic points. It shows no sign (or even intent) of improvement over five decades -- two generations of authors.

 

[JayUtah]

Ok, what's your general outline of what happened that all of the evidence agrees with?

Well, we need a narrative that not only agrees with all the evidence, but which all the authors who reject the lone-gunman theory agree best fits all the evidence. Keep in mind each author smokes his own brand.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Furthermore, the lone-gunman theory is not "complete." There are a number of things that the WC admitted it did not know about Oswald, starting with something as basic as his motive--you know, why he shot JFK--since he adamantly denied committing the crime (and his denial that was captured on video has been subjected to voice stress analysis and found to be consistent with truthfulness).

The lone-gunman theory also can't explain:

* How a guy who barely managed to qualify at the middle of three marksmanship levels in the Marines could perform a shooting feat that even WC counsel Wesley Liebeler admitted was not duplicated in the WC's shooting reenactment, which was done by three Master-rated riflemen.

* How Oswald would have known to adjust his aim because he was firing from an elevation and how elevation would alter the bullet's trajectory.

* Why Oswald didn't open fire when he had a much easier shot as the limo came up Houston Street.

* Why the Dallas police repeatedly, over and over again, failed to follow basic, standard procedure in documenting and handling evidence in the most important case of the century.

* Why, if the DPD truly found Oswald's palm print on the rifle, they didn't immediately announce it to the world, as they did with every other piece of alleged "evidence" that they supposedly found.

* Why the DPD acted for several days as if they had no idea that Lt. Day had found a visible palm print on the rifle. This was such an obviously suspicious matter that it even caused the WC to doubt the palm print's authenticity.

* Why the DPD would have been making versions of the backyard rifle photos with the personage whited out. Gee, what in the devil was that all about?

And so many parts of the WC's narrative are based on flimsy, pitiful evidence and reasoning, such as how Oswald went from the TSBD to his house, Oswald's location in the building in the 45 minutes before the shooting, how Oswald could have gone down the stairs and not been seen by Roy Truly and Officer Baker, why the supposedly cool and calm Oswald would have suddenly spun around and changed direction at the mere sight of a police car in Oak Cliff, the police car that drove to the front of Oswald's house and tapped its horn before he left to supposedly kill Tippit, etc., etc., etc.

And on and on we could go.

And, oh, by the way, regarding the HSCA firearms panel's claim that one of the shells from their tests emerged with a dent "similar" to CE 543's, why didn't they show a picture of that shell during their testimony? Why didn't they bring the shell with them? Where is this shell now? Donahue saw no such shell among the HSCA exhibits. And how is it that nobody else, that no other reenactment, has been able to produce that kind of dent from merely firing the shell, with a bullet in it, one time?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Furthermore, the lone-gunman theory is not "complete." There are a number of things that the WC admitted it did not know about Oswald, starting with something as basic as his motive--you know, why he shot JFK--since he adamantly denied committing the crime (and his denial that was captured on video has been subjected to voice stress analysis and found to be consistent with truthfulness).

The lone-gunman theory also can't explain:

* How a guy who barely managed to qualify at the middle of three marksmanship levels in the Marines could perform a shooting feat that even WC counsel Wesley Liebeler admitted was not duplicated in the WC's shooting reenactment, which was done by three Master-rated riflemen.

* How Oswald would have known to adjust his aim because he was firing from an elevation and how elevation would alter the bullet's trajectory.

* Why Oswald didn't open fire when he had a much easier shot as the limo came up Houston Street.

And so many parts of the WC's narrative are based on flimsy, pitiful evidence and reasoning, such as how Oswald went from the TSBD to his house, Oswald's location in the building in the 45 minutes before the shooting, how Oswald could have gone down the stairs and not been seen by Roy Truly and Officer Baker, why the supposedly cool and calm Oswald would have suddenly spun around and changed direction at the mere sight of a police car in Oak Cliff, the police car that drove to the front of Oswald's house and tapped its horn before he left to supposedly kill Tippit, etc., etc., etc.

And on and on we could go.

And, oh, by the way, regarding the HSCA firearms panel's claim that one of the shells from their tests emerged with a dent "similar" to CE 543's, why didn't they show a picture of that shell during their testimony? Why didn't they bring the shell with them? Where is this shell now? Donahue saw no such shell among the HSCA exhibits. And how is it that nobody else, that no other reenactment, has been able to produce that kind of dent from merely firing the shell, with a bullet in it, one time?

So what is your alternate coherent hypothesis which accounts for all of the evidence?

 

[JayUtah]

Furthermore, the lone-gunman theory is not "complete."

Give us your end-to-end narrative and we'll decide for ourselves which of the two is more complete.

As I wrote elsewhere, your methodology is nonsensical. You want to look only at one side of the question and consider detractive arguments alone as some sort of affirmative support for something else. Proof doesn't work that way.

You seem to have already admitted that you don't have any such narrative. In a bizarre admission of double standards, you insinuate that it's perfectly okay for there to be big holes in a conspiracy theory, but holes in the conventional narrative inevitably doom it. How can you possibly be any more biased in your judgment?

The lone-gunman theory also can't explain:

The points you raise are little more than supposition. I've asked you several times why your personal standards of correctness, propriety, convenience, and so forth should be the standard against which the evidence should be measured for everyone. Are you really just going to continue to pretend that results in objectively convincing proof?

And on and on we could go.

And you do. Detractive arguments against the Warren Commission are all we ever get. The same detractive arguments, in an endless circle of desperate pleas for attention and legitimacy.

And, oh, by the way, regarding the HSCA firearms panel's claim...

Oh, please. You're preaching a gospel that says a minor difference in a dent constitutes "hard evidence," while at the same time telling me that all your sources identifying different murders is only a "detail." We don't share your sense of perspective. Each author identifying his own different murder suspect is not a "clear picture." Who actually killed Kennedy is the important question. If you have no clear answer for that, then your field is as fractious as it can possibly be. It is the antithesis of consensus.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It's morbidly entertaining to watch yet another CTist beat the now 50-year-old dead horse, somehow clinging to the belief it's actually the most glorious of piñatas, just one thwack away from raining down its treats to all the happy children.