JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[I am Bigfoot]

If you haven't studied the Kennedy assassination in detail and want to read a book with a non-conspiratorial point of view, start with Gerald Posner's Case Closed. After you have a good overview of the case and Oswald's life history, I would recommend the two books by Gus Russo mentioned above.

Thanks. I'll look into them. But part of my hope was that with King's popularity, him sticking to reality for the most part could help disseminate truth and information to the masses a little bit. Get rid of some of this magic bullet/shooter in the sewer/grassy knoll/etc. kind of garbage that floats around in the minds of the general public. I would love it if popular writers would try harder to dispel myths and rumors, even if they did it casually through works of fiction or lite non-fic.

 

[Robrob]

If you haven't studied the Kennedy assassination in detail and want to read a book with a non-conspiratorial point of view, start with Gerald Posner's Case Closed. After you have a good overview of the case and Oswald's life history, I would recommend the two books by Gus Russo mentioned above.

You know, that's part of the larger problem with this (or really most CT). Not you (you make a reasonable point) but many if not most of the people promoting CT are zealots for their belief without actual impartial research to support what is essentially, wish fulfillment.

I had a discussion with a JFK CTer recently. He claimed to have "researched" the subject for 35 years. He boasted (common behavior for many CT believers) he knew more about the subject than anyone posting there, etc...

He claimed LHO was "not a loser" and actually had many accomplishments in his brief life. When I asked what they were, he provided me with a half dozen of the most well debunked and/or banal "accomplishments" imaginable. None of which stood up to 35 minutes worth of scrutiny.

I bring this up because I suspect most CT believers think reading other "pro-CT" blogs, articles, books and watching pro-CT videos = academic research.

 

[Tomtomkent]

There are CT authors whom I enjoy reading, and who do seem to research their subjects well. The two problems a lot of the armchair advocates in any discussion of any CT seem to suffer most often are:

1) Confirmation bias. Where as Walter suggests there are unanswered questions about Cuba others will see absolute proof of a larger conspiracy.

2) Mistaking repetition for confirmation. If they read something in one book, and it is repeated in another it must be fact. Even if the only research the author of the second book did was read the first book.

What really annoys me, as somebody who is not a buff, scholar or serious JFK researcher (and I note Bobbykins never did manage to quote me calling myself as such) I only advocate the Lone Gunman theory as where the evidence points now. With the totality of evidence as it stands i have no doubts.

But like any other historical subject, if new evidence comes to light i am open to reconsidering. And there are theories that fit with in the evidence we have, but offer no evidence to support the additional elements they add. I certainly dont tarnish all CTs with the same whacko brush as RP and his willingness to just dismiss the actual evidence out of hand for conflicting with the conclussion he wants.

 

[SpitfireIX]

When I was young and didn't know any better I bought into the idea of a conspiracy and a government cover-up, though I believed that Castro was the mastermind, and LBJ covered it up because he knew that if the facts became known the American public would demand an invasion of Cuba, which would lead to war with the Soviet Union.

The first time I seriously questioned my views was when I read the foreword to one of Tom Clancy's novels, in which he explained how obvious it is that Oswald could have acted alone.

 

[dafydd]

That wasn't a fluke. JFK shot himself from the grassy knoll to avoid his impeachment in 1965. Thought everyone knew this, but for those who don't know it is explained in the BBC documentary series Red Dwarf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikka_to_Ride

I was thinking of posting that link myself. It makes just as much sense as any conspiracy theory.

 

[Walter Ego]

When I was young and didn't know any better I bought into the idea of a conspiracy and a government cover-up, though I believed that Castro was the mastermind, and LBJ covered it up because he knew that if the facts became known the American public would demand an invasion of Cuba, which would lead to war with the Soviet Union.

The first part of your statement is incorrect. Castro was not the mastermind of the assassination. Oswald acted alone... but with encouragement from Cuban intelligence.

Castro and a small number of Cuban intelligence officers were complicit in Kennedy’s death but that their involvement fell short of an organized plot. Cuban intelligence officers in Mexico, carrying out standard operational procedures, exhorted Oswald. They encouraged his feral militance. Later they believed he would shoot at Kennedy. But it was his plan and his rifle, not theirs.

Brian Latell, Castro’s Secrets: The CIA And Cuba’s Intelligence Machine, p.231 (2012)

In Mexico City and Havana, Castro’s agents – and perhaps Fidel himself – hold their collective breath, wondering if their disturbed, newfound wunderkind [Oswald] will actually make the attempt on ‘that bastard’ Kennedy… The Cubans had been wise enough to minimize any links with Lee, while convincing him that he could commit the political crime of the century and get away with it. All he has to do, up to the point of exfiltration, is to proceed with his plan, as a solo act. At most, G2 will have to do little more than encourage him from the wings, in a stage whisper heard only by him.

Gus Russo and Stephen Molton, Brothers In Arms: The Kennedys, the Castros, and the Politics of Murder, pp.323-24 (2008)

The second part of your statement is correct. LBJ (and others) limited the scope of the investigation because they knew that if the facts became known the American public would demand an invasion of Cuba, which would lead to a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

 

[chris sutton]

I've looked into this subject a lot in the past 18 months or so and I'm not wholeheartedly convinced one way or another as to whether Oswald acted alone, as part of a conspiracy or was merely the patsy for a conspiracy.

I've noticed that several posters here are proponents of the findings of the Warren Commission. As this is a site which promotes free thinking and skepticism I will put my thoughts into words.

The one key thing that points to Oswald's guilt is the dicovery of the MC rifle (or to be exact 'Modello 1891' / M91 rifle) on the 6th floor of the TSBD with Oswald's partial palm print. Seems pretty incriminating.

There are however several anomalies to the case such as -

Deputy Constable Roger Craig's (and initially Seymour Weitzman's) insistence that a 7.65mm Mauser had been found on the 6th floor of the TSBD with '7.65 Mauser' stamped on the barrel. Weitzman later stated he was mistaken despite having owned a gunstore (which seems odd).
Craig also stated that he saw a man leave the book depository and get picked up by a green Nash Rambler station waggon which left west along Elm street. He stated that the man was the same as the man arrested (Oswald) and in police custody. A photo taken just after the assassination shows a Nash Rambler on Elm street and two witnesses also saw it.
This contradicts the movements of Oswald as determined by the Warren Commission.


Examination of the Zapruder film reveals anomalies which include - spectators on the south side of Elm street being 30% too large, spectators on the north side of Elm street showing no movement (and I mean no movement AT ALL) as the limo passes by and the strange 'cut out' appearance of the lamp post which suggests the film is an edited composite. On seeing the film for himself in 1969 Zapruder noted that there were frames missing. Jack White, researcher and photographic consultant to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, claimed that there are anomalies in the Zapruder film, including an "unnatural jerkiness of movement or change of focus in certain frame sequences.

The findings of the Warren Commission were that three shots had been fired from behind president Kennedy, the last of which struck him in the head. This conflicts with the statements of the Parkland Hospital doctors who all stated that the president had a large gaping (exit) wound to the right-rear of the head.
Years later when shown the official X rays of JFK's head, all but one said the X rays did not match with what they saw at Parkland Hospital on that day. Roy Kellerman, the Secret Service agent seated next to the driver in the presidential limousine, testified that he saw a 5-inch-diameter (130 mm) hole in the back right-hand side of the President's head.
Robert McClelland, one of the Parkland Hospital doctors who attended to Kennedy, testified that the back right part of Kennedy's head was blown out, with posterior cerebral tissue and some cerebellar tissue missing. He indicated that the wound was an exit wound, and that a second shooter from the front delivered the fatal head shot.

Several railroad workers watching the motorcade from the overpass heard a shot and saw a puff of smoke from the area of the picket fence - behind and to the right of Zapruder. None were called to testify by the Warren Commission.

In March 1965, Harold Feldman wrote that there were 121 witnesses to the assassination with 51 indicating that the shots that killed Kennedy came from the area of the grassy knoll. In 1967, Josiah Thompson examined the statements of 64 witnesses and found that 33 of them thought that the shots emanated from the grassy knoll.

On the day of the assassination, Nellie Connally was seated in the presidential car next to her husband, Governor John Connally. In her book 'From Love Field: Our Final Hours', Nellie Connally said that she believed that her husband was hit by a bullet that was separate from the two that hit JFK. John Connally believed he was hit at Zapruder frame 236. JFK was reacting to being hit at Z frame 224, 0.75 of a second earlier.

On the subject of the murder of Officer J.D.Tippet, -
Witness Domingo Benavides testified that he did not approach the car until "a few minutes" after the shooting, because he was afraid that the gunman might return. He was assisted in using the radio by witness T.F. Bowley who testified to Dallas police that he arrived at the scene after the murder, and that the time was 1:10 pm.
Warren "Butch" Burroughs, who ran the concession stand at the Texas Theater where Oswald was arrested, told author James Douglass in 2007 that Oswald came into the theater between 1:00 and 1:07 pm, which if true would make Oswald's alleged 1:16 pm shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit impossible.
Sergeant Gerald Hill examined one of the shells at the scene of the crime and radioed the police dispatcher, saying: "The shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol." However, Oswald was reportedly arrested carrying a non-automatic .38 Special revolver.

.....no smoking gun but certainly food for thought

 

[ComfySlippers]

.....no smoking gun but certainly food for thought

Nope. Food for people who have been reading CT sites filled with fifty year old BS.

spectators on the south side of Elm street being 30% too large

Oh dear. here we go.

Jack White, researcher and photographic consultant to the House Select Committee on Assassinations....

Ah, I see. You think the recently deceased Jack White had any clue what he was talking about... Hint - he didn't.

Getting addicted to reading silly CT sites will damage your brain. Stop it before you turn into a cabbage.

 

[chris sutton]

And I thought this site was for skeptical thinkers ?

What you call 'addiction' I call keeping an OPEN MIND. I am certainly not a believer in every two bit conspiracy theory but I will at least CONSIDER the possibility unlike some that wholeheartedly accept the findings of a commission that ignored the testimonies of anyone that contadicted it's clearly foregone conclusion that it subsequently set out to prove with SELECTIVE testimony.

" Ah, I see. You think the recently deceased Jack White had any clue what he was talking about... Hint - he didn't. "

-- actually what I have seen myself regarding the Zapruder film is NOT based on what Jack White said anyhow. It's obvious on studying the film. Don't take my word for it. Look at it yourself.

I merely raised several legitimate and valid anomalies - NON of which you seriously addressed.

 

[thedopefishlives]

And I thought this site was for skeptical thinkers ?

What you call 'addiction' I call keeping an OPEN MIND. I am certainly not a believer in every two bit conspiracy theory but I will at least CONSIDER the possibility unlike some that wholeheartedly accept the findings of a commission that ignored the testimonies of anyone that contadicted it's clearly foregone conclusion that it subsequently set out to prove with SELECTIVE testimony.

" Ah, I see. You think the recently deceased Jack White had any clue what he was talking about... Hint - he didn't. "

-- actually what I have seen myself regarding the Zapruder film is NOT based on what Jack White said anyhow. It's obvious on studying the film. Don't take my word for it. Look at it yourself.

I merely raised several legitimate and valid anomalies - NON of which you seriously addressed.

Open-mindedness does not mean accepting everything that comes down the pike as valid and demanding that it be treated seriously. You have not raised any "legitimate and valid anomalies" that have not been done to death, if not in this very thread, then elsewhere. Maybe you should spend some more time reading and less time rushing forth to present whatever half-assed research you do have.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I've looked into this subject a lot in the past 18 months or so and I'm not wholeheartedly convinced one way or another as to whether Oswald acted alone, as part of a conspiracy or was merely the patsy for a conspiracy.

I've noticed that several posters here are proponents of the findings of the Warren Commission. As this is a site which promotes free thinking and skepticism I will put my thoughts into words.

The one key thing that points to Oswald's guilt is the dicovery of the MC rifle (or to be exact 'Modello 1891' / M91 rifle) on the 6th floor of the TSBD with Oswald's partial palm print. Seems pretty incriminating.

There are however several anomalies to the case such as -

Deputy Constable Roger Craig's (and initially Seymour Weitzman's) insistence that a 7.65mm Mauser had been found on the 6th floor of the TSBD with '7.65 Mauser' stamped on the barrel. Weitzman later stated he was mistaken despite having owned a gunstore (which seems odd).
Craig also stated that he saw a man leave the book depository and get picked up by a green Nash Rambler station waggon which left west along Elm street. He stated that the man was the same as the man arrested (Oswald) and in police custody. A photo taken just after the assassination shows a Nash Rambler on Elm street and two witnesses also saw it.
This contradicts the movements of Oswald as determined by the Warren Commission.


Examination of the Zapruder film reveals anomalies which include - spectators on the south side of Elm street being 30% too large, spectators on the north side of Elm street showing no movement (and I mean no movement AT ALL) as the limo passes by and the strange 'cut out' appearance of the lamp post which suggests the film is an edited composite. On seeing the film for himself in 1969 Zapruder noted that there were frames missing. Jack White, researcher and photographic consultant to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, claimed that there are anomalies in the Zapruder film, including an "unnatural jerkiness of movement or change of focus in certain frame sequences.

The findings of the Warren Commission were that three shots had been fired from behind president Kennedy, the last of which struck him in the head. This conflicts with the statements of the Parkland Hospital doctors who all stated that the president had a large gaping (exit) wound to the right-rear of the head.
Years later when shown the official X rays of JFK's head, all but one said the X rays did not match with what they saw at Parkland Hospital on that day. Roy Kellerman, the Secret Service agent seated next to the driver in the presidential limousine, testified that he saw a 5-inch-diameter (130 mm) hole in the back right-hand side of the President's head.
Robert McClelland, one of the Parkland Hospital doctors who attended to Kennedy, testified that the back right part of Kennedy's head was blown out, with posterior cerebral tissue and some cerebellar tissue missing. He indicated that the wound was an exit wound, and that a second shooter from the front delivered the fatal head shot.

Several railroad workers watching the motorcade from the overpass heard a shot and saw a puff of smoke from the area of the picket fence - behind and to the right of Zapruder. None were called to testify by the Warren Commission.

In March 1965, Harold Feldman wrote that there were 121 witnesses to the assassination with 51 indicating that the shots that killed Kennedy came from the area of the grassy knoll. In 1967, Josiah Thompson examined the statements of 64 witnesses and found that 33 of them thought that the shots emanated from the grassy knoll.

On the day of the assassination, Nellie Connally was seated in the presidential car next to her husband, Governor John Connally. In her book 'From Love Field: Our Final Hours', Nellie Connally said that she believed that her husband was hit by a bullet that was separate from the two that hit JFK. John Connally believed he was hit at Zapruder frame 236. JFK was reacting to being hit at Z frame 224, 0.75 of a second earlier.

On the subject of the murder of Officer J.D.Tippet, -
Witness Domingo Benavides testified that he did not approach the car until "a few minutes" after the shooting, because he was afraid that the gunman might return. He was assisted in using the radio by witness T.F. Bowley who testified to Dallas police that he arrived at the scene after the murder, and that the time was 1:10 pm.
Warren "Butch" Burroughs, who ran the concession stand at the Texas Theater where Oswald was arrested, told author James Douglass in 2007 that Oswald came into the theater between 1:00 and 1:07 pm, which if true would make Oswald's alleged 1:16 pm shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit impossible.
Sergeant Gerald Hill examined one of the shells at the scene of the crime and radioed the police dispatcher, saying: "The shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol." However, Oswald was reportedly arrested carrying a non-automatic .38 Special revolver.

.....no smoking gun but certainly food for thought

No smoking gun... No evidence. If any of that could be supported by anything more than ill informed misconception or falliable witnesses then there might be a discussion worth having.

Sorry, but open minded sceptics should be expected to scrutinise this kind of offering and tofind unsubstaniated claims as lacking.

 

[I am Bigfoot]

I've looked into this subject a lot in the past 18 months or so and ... [edited for length]

Have you looked for refutations of any of these things? Like the specific part about the 7.62 Mauser. Have you looked at responses to that claim? How about all of the others? If so, could you post them and explain what you don't find convincing about them? If you''d prefer, you can stick to one or two particular claims to discuss in detail.

 

[ComfySlippers]

And I thought this site was for skeptical thinkers ?

What you call 'addiction' I call keeping an OPEN MIND. I am certainly not a believer in every two bit conspiracy theory but I will at least CONSIDER the possibility unlike some that wholeheartedly accept the findings of a commission that ignored the testimonies of anyone that contadicted it's clearly foregone conclusion that it subsequently set out to prove with SELECTIVE testimony.

" Ah, I see. You think the recently deceased Jack White had any clue what he was talking about... Hint - he didn't. "

-- actually what I have seen myself regarding the Zapruder film is NOT based on what Jack White said anyhow. It's obvious on studying the film. Don't take my word for it. Look at it yourself.

I merely raised several legitimate and valid anomalies - NON of which you seriously addressed.

Ah, that old chestnut... "Don't take my word. Look at it yourself".

Somewhat similar to the old "I am not here to provide evidence. Do the research yourself".

Believe it or not, over the past 43 years, I have seen that film several times.

Some bad news for you. This event happened 50 years ago and we have all seen every single piece of nonsense that has spewed forth over that time.

What you call "research" I call reading CT sites and watching crappy YouTube videos.

There is nothing new about the 50 year old nonsense you profess to have researched and to be interesting.

Do yourself a favour and stop pretending you didn't believe Jack White's nonsense and that you miraculously discovered anomolies in a 50 year old film.

 

[JayUtah]

I've looked into this subject a lot in the past 18 months or so...

You would save yourself and us a lot of time if you simply listed the conspiracy theory books and websites you've read. We're quite familiar with them.

I've noticed that several posters here are proponents of the findings of the Warren Commission.

No, that's standard JFK conspiracy theory rhetoric. None of the conspiracy theories really poses a viable alternative theroy. They just pick away at the Warren Commission and assume that the only criticism they'll get is a regurgitation of the Warren Commission. Please don't try to shoehorn your critics into the position you've predetermined for them.

There are however several anomalies to the case such as -

Most or all covered in this thread.

Jack White, researcher and photographic consultant to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, claimed that there are anomalies in the Zapruder film.

You didn't cite a reference for your earlier claims. Jack White was no kind of photographic analyst. He had absolutely no training, experience, or skill at it.

This conflicts with the statements of the Parkland Hospital doctors who all stated that the president had a large gaping (exit) wound to the right-rear of the head.

Covered at length in this thread.

.....no smoking gun but certainly food for thought

And we've thought about it extensively, as the length of this thread will testify. As you will discover when you finally get around to reading it, your "food for thought" turns out to be quite unsatisfying when examined by competent investigators.

And I thought this site was for skeptical thinkers ?

What you call 'addiction' I call keeping an OPEN MIND.

No. You're simply gullible. All these claims have been debunked long ago. You may have just discovered them anew in the past 18 months, but don't fall into the common conspiracy aficionado's trap of assuming that everyone else is just as new to the subject as you are.

I am certainly not a believer in every two bit conspiracy theory but I will at least CONSIDER the possibility...

And it's been considered at length here in this very thread, and by others elsewhere. Kindly don't assume that because your theory didn't pass a rational muster, it must not have been examined fairly.

...unlike some that wholeheartedly accept the findings of a commission

Yes, this is how your books and web sites tell you your critics will respond, and how they think. Unfortunately it's fiction. Not everyone who rejects your conspiracy theories does so simply because he has uncritically believed the Warren Commission.

-- actually what I have seen myself regarding the Zapruder film is NOT based on what Jack White said anyhow.

You raised his name as an expert. If you're not willing to accept or respond to criticism of his alleged expertise, on which at least part of your interpretation is based, then why should we waste our time talking to you.

It's obvious on studying the film. Don't take my word for it. Look at it yourself.

I have, and unlike you or White, I have training and adjudicated experience in photographic analysis. I've also had my findings on other photo analysis topics reviewed and published in Science. It's a little science magazine you may have heard of.

You say that the alleged "anomalies" are "obvious" in the film. And you say not to take your word for it. I assure you I don't, and I'll require you to state your education and experience in photographic analysis before I continue this further. I suspect by your reference to the alleged "obvious" nature of the evidence that you have no such training or experience and are relying on a layman's "common-sense" attempt.

State your qualifications.

I merely raised several legitimate and valid anomalies - NON of which you seriously addressed.

Nonsense.

First, you obviously haven't read this thread. Many of your claims are addressed at length in it, and it's highly revealing and disingenuous of you to accuse us all of mindless credulity when the debate that debunks your claims was right under your nose the whole time.

Second, in terms of anomalies, you bear the burden to prove that they are valid and legitimate. That is, you have the burden to show that your "obvious" evidence is not, like White's, merely the product of your ignorance of the relevant field.

Please commence. But first take a couple of days to read the thread. Because when you bring stuff up that's been addressed here, and claim that we're all closed minded for not wanting to revisit it again just because it's new to you, you reveal that you are just a mindless conspiracy believer.

 

[ComfySlippers]

You would save yourself and us a lot of time if you simply listed the conspiracy theory books and websites you've read. We're quite familiar with them...
/SNIP

I wish I could have said it so well.

Until the growth of the intertubes JFK CT's were the training ground for the gullible and paranoid.

Now, of course, we have Lizzard-Queens, FOTLism, is Obama American?, 9-11, Illuminati etc. Alex Jones should be humanely disposed of and all those awful websites created in 1998 about JFK and fake moon landings should be laid to rest along with Jack White.

He was shot by a man from a window. It was fifty years ago. You're probably only in your teens. Get a life.

 

[pgwenthold]

As far as I am aware, no one accepts all of the findings of the Warren commission anymore, do they? For example, the WC's proposed timing of the shots is currently believed to be wrong, yes? It was revised due to the recognition of the lapel flap and hat tilt, which is not part of the WR. Although IIRC the WC also were not very insistent on their timeline, and gave their best guess, admitting it could be in error.

Then again, we do agree with the conclusion that it was LHO acting alone.

So to say that we have accepted the conclusions of the WC is pretty meaningless, and depends on which conclusions one means.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I wish I could have said it so well.

I've been reading Jay's posts on CTs here, at BAUT, Apollohoax, and elsewhere for going on 10 years now. I wish I had a dime for every time I've thought the same thing.

 

[JayUtah]

As far as I am aware, no one accepts all of the findings of the Warren commission anymore, do they?

The report is massive. Few have read it, including most of the conspiracy theorists you'll run into on JREF. In any lengthy report that's followed by 50 years of additional research there will emerge inaccuracies, flaws, or outright errors. That's just the way history works. That doesn't mean that any alternative is necessarily better, or even good.

But we don't even get an alternative. We just get a laundry list of things some guy says are wrong with "the official story." In every conspiracy theory, and most of fringe thinking as a whole, the goal is not to say what is, but to say what isn't. Conspiracy theorists aren't groping toward some new and better truth, but instead running away from some conclusion they've pre-rejected. And when your philosophy is "anything but this," you realize there are an infinite number of incompatible directions you can run.

Most JFK conspiracy theorists don't get very far from "The Warren Commission was wrong!" That's pretty much all they have. This gets projected onto their critics. If they want to talk about a doctored Zapruder film and give you some nonsensical attempt at photo interpretation, and you dispute it, they immediately accuse you of being a non-thinking devotee of the Warren Commission. It's the straw man that cripples any attempt to have a rational discussion with JFK conspiracists. "We reject the Warren Commission, so the only reason you'd dispute us is if you unquestioningly accept the Warren Commission." On the contrary, I'm prepared to accept that the Warren Commission likely got some things wrong, but conspiracists are not prepared to accept that they are also wrong -- egregiously so.

The easiest way to make that argument is to identify some shocking piece of information that the Warren Commission apparently ignored or didn't investigate thoroughly. That's conspiracy gold, because fundamentally it comes down to a judgment call. The decision whether to follow up on something or not depends on many factors. But if the conspiracist can make it sound like the Warren Commission would have reached a radically different conclusion if they had only considered this or that sensationalist claim, then they can make it sound like the commission was hopelessly biased.

The conspiracy theorists beg the question of their own competence. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.

Then again, we do agree with the conclusion that it was LHO acting alone.

That's the thing: to date no one has come up with a better supported theory. All they can do is nit-pick the prevailing theory, wrongly thinking that this compels the world to believe something different or else forever be labeled sheeple.

So to say that we have accepted the conclusions of the WC is pretty meaningless, and depends on which conclusions one means.

Exactly. That's the rhetoric of JFK conspiracism. This guy has obviously read Jim Fetzer's book and now believes himself to be exceptionally well-informed on the topic, far better than we closed-minded sheeple who blindly put our faith in the Warren Commission. Or so Fetzer has painted the picture for him.

Here's another hint: Jim Fetzer isn't a photo analyst either. He and Jack White only pretend to be, and this basically only fools the drooling JFK conspiracy hounds. They worship the ground these guys walk (or in White's case, walked) on, and don't realize that they have absolutely zero credibility, skill, or recognition outside the little circle of conspiracy fanatics. There is a whole world of professional photographic analysis and interpretation that these men know absolutely nothing about. They just count on you also not knowing anything about it, so you can't catch them.

 

[SpitfireIX]

The easiest way to make that argument is to identify some shocking piece of information that the Warren Commission apparently ignored or didn't investigate thoroughly. That's conspiracy gold, because fundamentally it comes down to a judgment call. The decision whether to follow up on something or not depends on many factors. But if the conspiracist can make it sound like the Warren Commission would have reached a radically different conclusion if they had only considered this or that sensationalist claim, then they can make it sound like the commission was hopelessly biased.

Conspiracists are forever attempting to apply the methods described in Yes, Minister for discrediting an unwelcome report:

Sir Humphrey: . . . You say it leaves some important questions unanswered, that much of the evidence is inconclusive, that the figures are open to other interpretations, that certain findings are contradictory, and that some of the main conclusions have been questioned.

Minister Hacker: Suppose they haven’t?

Sir Humphrey: Then question them! Then they have.

Minister Hacker: But to make accusations of this sort – you’d have to go through it with a fine-tooth comb.

Sir Humphrey: No, no, no. You can say all these things without reading it. There’s always some questions unanswered.

Minister Hacker: Such as?

Sir Humphrey: Well, the ones that weren’t asked.

 

[Robrob]

I am certainly not a believer in every two bit conspiracy theory but I will at least CONSIDER the possibility...

If I told you little green men shot JFK, would you also "consider" the possibility or would you dismiss it out of hand as nonsense?

...unlike some that wholeheartedly accept the findings of a commission

Translation: the evidence and facts used to debunk my well worn myth are suspect because they were in the original report.