The Common Potato
Muse
Shocking!
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VIII
- Thread starter JTF
- Start date
Shocking!
HSienzant
Philosopher
The Future of Freedom Foundation is offering a seminar on the assassination. As you know, Bob, Jacob Hornberger of the FFF has asserted:
"The biggest breakthrough came in the 1990s, when the evidence that the ARRB uncovered established beyond any reasonable doubt that the national-security establishment had performed a fraudulent autopsy on President Kennedy’s body. There is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy, and no one — including no one in the mainstream press — has ever been able to come up with one. A fraudulent autopsy can only mean one thing — a cover-up in the assassination itself. Nothing else makes any sense."
https://www.fff.org/2021/02/05/our-upcoming-jfk-conference/
The conference, “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination.”, will begin on March 3. and consist of an online presentation on each subsequent Wednesday.
Hornberger recommends a list of books for the conference listeners to read beforehand, including his books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2 and the ever-popular JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass:
https://www.fff.org/2021/02/09/jfk-conference-homework/
If you think you've decisively refuted such accusations, well you have. In your circle. And they believe that these accusations have been thoroughly established. In their circle. And of course you shut each other off, secure in being correct.
Organized skepticism is unable to assert itself.
Major Major:
It appears you have bailed on the discussion. If that's true, I'm only putting this point out there for the lurkers:
Your argument is that there are two unwavering sides, and we're talking only within our own circles and are only talking past each other.
I know for a fact in my own case that's untrue. You see, from the publication of the earliest critical books on the assassination, I was a conspiracy believer. I read Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane, Whitewash by Harold Weisberg, Six Seconds in Dallas by Josiah Thompson and Accessories After the Fact by Sylvia Meagher in the mid-1960s and was convinced of a conspiracy. I read of lot of other stuff as well by lesser known authors.
It was only when I decided to find the conspirators and started by reading the 26 Warren Commission volumes and the 12 HSCA Volumes of supporting evidence (first doing this every Saturday at a major metropolitan public library -- then shelling out $2500 to The President's Box Bookshop to purchase the 26 Warren Commission volumes (the HSCA volumes cost considerably less from the Government printing office) -- that I began to be convinced otherwise. I can't count how many days I went to work dog-tired from reading and re-reading the testimony until one, two, or three in the morning.
By reading everything - twice - I saw how the sleight of hand by the conspiracy authors was done. I saw behind the curtain. I discovered how they took stuff out of context, how they ignored contrary evidence, and how they used supposition and innuendo in place of facts to fill in the gaps in what they believed happened. I could cite a multitude of examples, but I will cite only two.
Mark Lane entitled Chapter Five of his book Rush to Judgment "Why Oswald Was Wanted", and then proceeds in that chapter to suggest there are a lot of reasons Oswald shouldn't have been wanted. The trick? The chapter title is a straw man argument -- Oswald was NEVER wanted for the assassination. His first and second paragraph sets up the logical fallacy this way:
A description of the suspect in the assassination, matching Lee Harvey Oswald's description was broadcast by the Dallas police just before 12.45 p.m. on November 22, 15 minutes after the shots were fired at President Kennedy.
. . .
Tippit was slain at 1.15 or 1.16 p.m., according to the Commission. Why then did the Dallas police want Oswald at least 30 minutes before Tippit was shot?
. . .
Tippit was slain at 1.15 or 1.16 p.m., according to the Commission. Why then did the Dallas police want Oswald at least 30 minutes before Tippit was shot?
He went from "a description of a suspect matching Oswald" to "Oswald was wanted" in the space of two paragraphs. Oswald was never wanted by name prior to his arrest in the theatre for shooting officer Tippit. His question of why Oswald was wanted is a straw man argument. No broadcast went out at 12:45 seeking Oswald. No policeman thought Oswald should be arrested or sought at 12:45pm. All that went out at 12:45pm Dallas time (15 minutes after the assassination) was a generic description of the shooter, as reported by one or more witnesses to the police.
His second paragraph in his fifth chapter, stating Oswald was wanted at 12:45 is a flat-out lie. If you didn't catch his subtle switch of argument, you can actually buy into it. I know I did when I first read his books in the mid-1960s.
The second example is from Jean Davison who wrote the long out of print Oswald's Game. It's a very good book, and I recommend it wholeheartedly. She wrote of when the veil fell from her eyes here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane2.txt
Give it a reading. I'll wait. Go ahead, click on the link. It's a short summation.
Lane, using the ellipses, eliminated everything Ruby said that pointed elsewhere to leave a false impression to his readers that Ruby was begging to expose the conspiracy. Central to this, Lane even omitted the key words from Ruby where Ruby attested: "There was no conspiracy [in Ruby's shooting of Oswald]."
Davison summed it up this way:
I remember feeling outraged when I realized what Lane had done. Evidently, the Warren records were like a vast lumberyard. By picking up a few pieces here and there, and doing some cutting and fitting, any theory could be built for which someone had a blueprint.
All the conspiracy authors do this to argue for a conspiracy. They must. The evidence points to Oswald and points to no conspiracy.
Hank
Last edited:
My favorite Kennedy Conspiracy Theories, (Fantasies), is 1), that John Kennedy hired Oswald and others to stage a fake Presidential Assassination attempt in order to get rid of Kennedy's wife Jackie, who would be considered "accidental", "collateral" damage resulting from a failed assassination attempt on himself. Kennedy would have done this in order to Marry Marilyn Monroe. Of course this plan went horribly wrong?!
2), Jackie Kennedy, tired of her husband's endless affairs and his actually amazingly awful love making, hires Oswald and others to off her douchebag husband. Once it was done Jackie then arranges for Jack Ruby to help clean up loose ends by offing Oswald.
3), In a variation of No. 1 Oswald is indeed hired by Kennedy to off Jackie, but Oswald decides at the last minute that Kennedy doesn't deserve an awesome woman like Jackie and blows Kennedy's brains out instead.
Of course these "theories" are nuts but not much nuttier than a lot of the Kennedy Conspiracy insanity. (See JFK the film.)
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
I'll say this again: I'm happy to entertain any CT which leaves Oswald as the lone shooter. The forensics is clear - he made both shots, and it was his rifle.
The big hurtle is linking Oswald to anyone else in Dallas. He didn't have more than three friends, not counting his wife. He didn't socialize except when visiting his wife.
His rooming house had a curfew - but he had a ground-floor room. While it is possible he could have slipped in and out of his window the issue remains of proving that he did. There are no reliable witnesses who can place Oswald anywhere else in Dallas with other people. The only time he's seen at night was in the days leading up to JFK's visit where he went to a paring garage which overlooked the parade route, and asked about getting a job there. Later he asked about being a bellhop at a hotel which overlooked the parade route. Literally the only times Oswald is seen out of the house at night he is looking for locations to shoot at the motorcade. But each time he is alone.
In the end, Oswald remains the lone gunman.
The big hurtle is linking Oswald to anyone else in Dallas. He didn't have more than three friends, not counting his wife. He didn't socialize except when visiting his wife.
His rooming house had a curfew - but he had a ground-floor room. While it is possible he could have slipped in and out of his window the issue remains of proving that he did. There are no reliable witnesses who can place Oswald anywhere else in Dallas with other people. The only time he's seen at night was in the days leading up to JFK's visit where he went to a paring garage which overlooked the parade route, and asked about getting a job there. Later he asked about being a bellhop at a hotel which overlooked the parade route. Literally the only times Oswald is seen out of the house at night he is looking for locations to shoot at the motorcade. But each time he is alone.
In the end, Oswald remains the lone gunman.
HSienzant
Philosopher
The second biggest problem with Oswald as a co-conspirator (first is his lack of friends and acquaintances to conspire with, as you point out) - is the fact that he never received any calls at the rooming house. How does one coordinate a conspiracy with a co-conspirator who can't be reached? Oswald received one call at the rooming house. It was from Ruth Paine at the behest of Marina Oswald. She asked for Lee Oswald, but was told there was no one at the rooming house by that name (Oswald had registered at the rooming house as O.H.Lee but failed to tell Marina that).
Hank
Allen773
Graduate Poster
The thing about conspiracy theories like those involving the JFK assassination, or 9/11, or QAnon, etc. is that they manufacture controversy and confusion when there actually isn’t any. The idea is planting the “ultimately, we can’t know either way - who’s to say?” narrative and undermining the basics of critical thinking, because conspiracy theorists aren’t actually interested in the truth - they’re interested in what’s politically convenient. In other words, propaganda.
In all of these instances, there is no actual controversy that hasn’t been introduced and promoted by conspiracy theorists (which makes said “controversy” inherently suspect). We do know that Oswald was the lone gunman who killed JFK. We do know that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. We do know that QAnon is a bunch of malarkey (to quote the new President of the United States). There is no debate to be had. No mystery. The truth is out there.
Facts are stubborn things - but then again, so are conspiratorial narratives.
In all of these instances, there is no actual controversy that hasn’t been introduced and promoted by conspiracy theorists (which makes said “controversy” inherently suspect). We do know that Oswald was the lone gunman who killed JFK. We do know that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. We do know that QAnon is a bunch of malarkey (to quote the new President of the United States). There is no debate to be had. No mystery. The truth is out there.
Facts are stubborn things - but then again, so are conspiratorial narratives.
Last edited:
Allen773
Graduate Poster
But Axxman, Allen Dulles was fired, anti-Castro exiles felt betrayed, and the Mafia were mad at the Kennedys. And Oliver Stone made a major Hollywood film with Eisenhower’s Farewell Address at the beginning. Per conspiracy theories, that alone is enough to prove that The Deep State(TM) did it.
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Exactly.
And his actions are those of a man who made his mind up last-minute. Sure, he scouted other locations, but it seems that he just decided that since the President was going to drive right under the TSBD he figured "Why not?". He had no way to know if the bubble-top would be on, and he wouldn't have known that there would be no Secret Service agents posted to the rear of the limo. So many things had to line up just right to give Oswald the one chance he got.
Axxman300
Philosopher
The whole point of a Conspiracy Theory is to frame the theorist's personal bogey man/men. To do that the actual perpetrators must be innocent. This is why the list of suspects who are alleged to have conspired to kill JFK is so long and diverse. If you hate LBJ - he did it. If you hate the CIA- they did it. If you hate Hoover - he did it. If you hate Castro - he did it. If you hate Hunt Oil, the KKK, anti-Castro Cubans, or Mossad then they obviously must be behind it.
Mark Lane was hired by Oswald's mother, and his job was to muddy the waters, which he did. His claim that the Warren Commission rushed to judgement is hilarious because he was the one who rushed them.
The other issue was that so many people refused to believe that a nobody like Oswald could kill a man like JFK, so it must have been someone else, or he was part of a larger conspiracy. You see this with 911 Truthers. You see this with people who think the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. No matter how many investigations, no matter WHO does the investigations, it is not enough for those to surrender logic to embrace foolishness.
The Common Potato
Muse
I read Quassim Cassam's Conspiracy Theories a week or two ago. Although I think he overegged it, that was the point he was making in his short book.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Raul Castro
Ruth Paine
A few of his Secret Service detail.
Buell Wesley Frazier.
Probably a few more. The big names are long gone.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Marina Oswald is still alive; she'll be 80 this July. CTists have a pretty fluid idea of what it takes to consider somebody in on it- I'm sure at least a few think she was.
Re: the autopsy, my impression was that RFK was attempting to move it along at a pace, as he didn't want any embarrasing details about JFK's actual physical state to leak out. They had already broken protocol in the first place, pissing off the local Dallas county coroner in the process, by taking the body away from the state.
It's a funny thing really, it's "only" been 57 years and a bit, so even someone in their thirties at the time would stand a good chance of still being alive.
Marina was only 22 at the time, and Oswald was 24.
It's a funny thing really, it's "only" been 57 years and a bit, so even someone in their thirties at the time would stand a good chance of still being alive.
Last edited:
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,513
My brother and I were watching TV when we got a phone call from the local gossip. She said, "Kennedy has been shot". I said, "No he hasn't. It's not on TV". and then it was.
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,214
Yes it seems like it was much longer ago. I was nine at the time - we were let out of school and went home. My mother was crying as my Dad had called and said he might not be home tonight as he was part of Intel community at the time. He was at The U.S. Army Intelligence School at Holabird in Baltimore teaching a class on Soviet patrolling methods. At that time it wasn't known if it had been a Soviet plot.
Last edited:
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,513
I got started thinking, is this memory true? Why would we be home of Friday? There's no one left in my family to ask but I would have been 12 and he 9 and both going to the local public school. We probably went home for lunch (I have no memories of taking lunch to school or eating there). I can visualize the scene with the TV in the middle of the room and my bro along side me.
Axxman300
Philosopher
You must understand that the true 500lb Gorilla in this story is Jackie Kennedy. Jackie didn't want the autopsy done in Parkland because as far as she was concerned the entire city of Dallas had just murdered her husband. It was Jackie who chose Bethesda because JFK was a US Navy veteran. It was Jackie who insisted that the autopsy be done ASAP so that the body be prepared to lie in state, and to be interred within three days per JFK's Catholic beliefs, ceremonies, and traditions.
Nobody, even JFK, EVER TOLD JACKIE "NO".
Nobody.
The Texas trip was Jackie's first public appearance since her miscarriage. The entire Kennedy staff would have broken arms to make her comfortable.
And sure as hell no one was going to tell her no after her husband was murdered.
This is how it was.
Major Major
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 438
If I've "bailed" it's because you don't get the point. You have assembled the detail why from your point of view you are right. And Hornberger has assembled the detail from his point of view that he is right. You put it forth to your circle. He puts it forth to his. You consider that you have decisively made your case. He considers he has decisively made his case.
And meanwhile, the majority of people seem to think, "gee, there must be something to that."
It all dates back to Jackie Kennedy. She couldn't believe that a lone nut Marxist could have done it all by himself, not in that city full of right-wing anti-Kennedy hate. And that fit so well with the opinions of the Kennedy people that they took it up. (For more on this see Camelot and the Cultural Revolution by James Piereson.)
Meanwhile the Soviets discovered that oh govno, this was a man who had defected to them (and whom they were glad to be rid of), we had better deflect the focus. So they too publicized conspiracies. Not in coordination or cooperation or association with the Kennedy people, but they were pushing it too. (For the beginning of this read Operation SOLO by John Barron, wherein he describes how utterly consternated the Soviets were by all this.)
So conspiracy, pushed by two different groups, each for their own purpose, was founded. Then it got picked up by those, not of either group, but with their own purposes, and since there was no point in just reiterating one person's book something new was always added. Jim Garrison was neither a KGB asset not a Kennedy supporter, just a guy with a failing reputation trying to find something to grab the headlines. And so on.
And they don't have to show how you are wrong. They say that you are wrong. The next level up. No need to confront the evidence.