• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

SKEPTIC: 50 Years of JFK Conspiracy Theories

dreitzes

Student
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
36
Hi, all.

My name is Dave Reitzes. I contributed the cover story, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters," to the latest issue of SKEPTIC Magazine. It's available at finer newsstands now, and you can also purchase the electronic version online at the Skeptic's Society's website.

To ensure you get the proper bang for your buck, the issue also includes "Tracking Science: The Origin of Scientific Thinking in Our Paleolithic Ancestors," by Louis Liebenberg; "The Rejection of Reality: How the Denial of Science Threatens Us All," by Donald Prothero; "The Great Radium Craze," by Ray Sutera; "The Sovereign Citizen Scam," by Joseph Tsidulko; an assortment of interesting columns and reviews, including James Randi's musings on L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology; and, last but definitely not least, JUNIOR SKEPTIC's in-depth look at (yes!) mermaids.

I hope you will check it out, and I would be pleased to answer any reasonable questions people may have about my article. (Unreasonable and/or off-topic questions will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.)

If anyone is interested in reading more about what the skeptical methodology of people like Michael Shermer and Carl Sagan can teach us about conspiracy theories, please check out a web article of mine, "JFK at the Fringe of Reason: Pseudoscience and Pseudohistory in the John F. Kennedy Assassination." I can't post the URL, but if you Google "reitzes jfk fringe," it will come right up.

Thanks. I hope to hear from you.

Dave
 
I have the issue, and have read your article. It is very well done. As someone who isn't into JFK conspiracies I thought it was very succinct in dealing with some of the most common conspiracy claims.
 
As an aside, I find text that spreads the entire width of my computer screen difficult to endure, to say nothing of reverse-color print.
 
I have linked your paper for you (as new members cannot post links)
I'm always impressed when I see a "new" member who has single-digit posts, and has joined years ago. In my opinion, that shows admirable restraint.

As an aside, I find text that spreads the entire width of my computer screen difficult to endure, to say nothing of reverse-color print.
Perhaps the rebuttal of conspiracy theories is packaged in the manner of a conspiracy site, in order to lure the conspiracists in? Wheels within wheels...
 
I've found it interesting how various tales come into and out of fashion over the years, some disappearing and some staying alive in spite of being shot down over and over again.

Whenever a new proposal is proffered, it is always interesting to ask whether it actually solves anything or whether it actually less likely to occur than the scenario it supposedly supplants.

For example, it has been said that no one could have made the shots from the sixth floor window, and this is a "problem" for the single-assassin view. Since it is universally agreed that SOMEBODY was shooting from SOMEWHERE, where did the shots actually come from? What have been put forth as "solutions" are that there were one or more other shooters who were further away than Oswald, who had less visibility of the target, who had less time to fire, who had inferior weapons and who had far trickier shots to make. Since it has also been suggested that the goal was to frame Oswald and make him take the blame for the true assassins' crimes, these shooters would have to know in advance that they would not be seen at any time before, during or after the shooting, and that none of their bullets would ever be recovered in an examinable condition.

In other words, it was proposed that the "problem" was "solved" by a "solution" that had far more serious difficulties than the original problem ever had. (And it turns out that the "problem" was not much of a problem in the first place; a trained shooter of Oswald's skill could have done the shooting from the window in question.)
 
In other words, it was proposed that the "problem" was "solved" by a "solution" that had far more serious difficulties than the original problem ever had. (And it turns out that the "problem" was not much of a problem in the first place; a trained shooter of Oswald's skill could have done the shooting from the window in question.)
The eternal problem with CT. Their "explanation" is always much more complex, unlikely and flat out dangerous (to the conspirators) than the "official story."
 
The eternal problem with CT. Their "explanation" is always much more complex, unlikely and flat out dangerous (to the conspirators) than the "official story."

True, the "explanation" almost always multiplies the complexities in terms of practical difficulties. What often seems to be overlooked is that some scenarios require a degree of foreknowledge that is unlikely in the extreme, if not completely ridiculous. How can an assassin ever be completely sure that his bullets, if they strike the target, will be retrieved before they can be examined? How can two shooters coordinate the timing of their shooting so that they hit the target at virtually the same time? How can plotters ever be sure they will convince an innocent patsy to go to work one morning carrying a suspicious package? How can they possibly guarantee that the patsy won't intentionally or inadvertently wind up with a really good alibi? How could a shooter standing just a few paces away from Zapruder guarantee that Zapruder wouldn't turn toward him and take his picture? How could anyone possibly know in advance precisely where the bullets would strike, and WHICH ones would be fatal? How could the plotters know what sort of wound alteration would be necessary to create a false impression about the shooting? How could conspirators know that one wound would be in a position that it could be credibly altered by a tracheotomy? How could conspirators planning a "hit" in Dealey Plaza several months in advance ever be certain that the President will even be there, or that the motorcade route will go where they want it to go, or that they will have a patsy in place by the time the President arrives? How can assassins know in advance where innocent spectators in an open public area will or will not be, or how many cameras may or may not be taking pictures? How could they possibly know that a good vantage point for shooting won't be taken by a citizen who just wants to see the motorcade? What could they possibly say to Oswald to persuade him to murder a policeman, or how could they set up an impromptu frame of him to this effect? How could they know in advance what things Oswald, once in custody, would or would not tell the police?

Lest anyone think I'm being ridiculous myself, I can say that I have seen various tales told by "theorists" in all sincerity--including some of them told by Lane, Lifton and Garrison--that require the plotters to have a stunning ability to predict the future with extreme accuracy. Nearly EVERY major "theory" has the premise, for example, that the plotters knew ahead of time that no bullets would be ever found except those that could be tied to Oswald's gun. Without the ability to predict the future exactly, the supposed plot--to make the crime appear to be the work of a single shooter--will simply not work.
 
True, the "explanation" almost always multiplies the complexities in terms of practical difficulties. What often seems to be overlooked is that some scenarios require a degree of foreknowledge that is unlikely in the extreme, if not completely ridiculous. How can an assassin ever be completely sure that his bullets, if they strike the target, will be retrieved before they can be examined? How can two shooters coordinate the timing of their shooting so that they hit the target at virtually the same time? How can plotters ever be sure they will convince an innocent patsy to go to work one morning carrying a suspicious package? How can they possibly guarantee that the patsy won't intentionally or inadvertently wind up with a really good alibi? How could a shooter standing just a few paces away from Zapruder guarantee that Zapruder wouldn't turn toward him and take his picture? How could anyone possibly know in advance precisely where the bullets would strike, and WHICH ones would be fatal? How could the plotters know what sort of wound alteration would be necessary to create a false impression about the shooting? How could conspirators know that one wound would be in a position that it could be credibly altered by a tracheotomy? How could conspirators planning a "hit" in Dealey Plaza several months in advance ever be certain that the President will even be there, or that the motorcade route will go where they want it to go, or that they will have a patsy in place by the time the President arrives? How can assassins know in advance where innocent spectators in an open public area will or will not be, or how many cameras may or may not be taking pictures? How could they possibly know that a good vantage point for shooting won't be taken by a citizen who just wants to see the motorcade? What could they possibly say to Oswald to persuade him to murder a policeman, or how could they set up an impromptu frame of him to this effect? How could they know in advance what things Oswald, once in custody, would or would not tell the police?

Lest anyone think I'm being ridiculous myself, I can say that I have seen various tales told by "theorists" in all sincerity--including some of them told by Lane, Lifton and Garrison--that require the plotters to have a stunning ability to predict the future with extreme accuracy. Nearly EVERY major "theory" has the premise, for example, that the plotters knew ahead of time that no bullets would be ever found except those that could be tied to Oswald's gun. Without the ability to predict the future exactly, the supposed plot--to make the crime appear to be the work of a single shooter--will simply not work.

I've posted it at JREF before, but it bears repeating.

Multiple shooters on a single target don't multiply the chances of success, they multiply the chance for failure, and if we're talking about different flavors of conspiracy, it multiplies the chances of disclosure.
 
True, the "explanation" almost always multiplies the complexities in terms of practical difficulties. What often seems to be overlooked is that some scenarios require a degree of foreknowledge that is unlikely in the extreme, if not completely ridiculous. How can an assassin ever be completely sure that his bullets, if they strike the target, will be retrieved before they can be examined? How can two shooters coordinate the timing of their shooting so that they hit the target at virtually the same time? How can plotters ever be sure they will convince an innocent patsy to go to work one morning carrying a suspicious package? How can they possibly guarantee that the patsy won't intentionally or inadvertently wind up with a really good alibi? How could a shooter standing just a few paces away from Zapruder guarantee that Zapruder wouldn't turn toward him and take his picture? How could anyone possibly know in advance precisely where the bullets would strike, and WHICH ones would be fatal? How could the plotters know what sort of wound alteration would be necessary to create a false impression about the shooting? How could conspirators know that one wound would be in a position that it could be credibly altered by a tracheotomy? How could conspirators planning a "hit" in Dealey Plaza several months in advance ever be certain that the President will even be there, or that the motorcade route will go where they want it to go, or that they will have a patsy in place by the time the President arrives? How can assassins know in advance where innocent spectators in an open public area will or will not be, or how many cameras may or may not be taking pictures? How could they possibly know that a good vantage point for shooting won't be taken by a citizen who just wants to see the motorcade? What could they possibly say to Oswald to persuade him to murder a policeman, or how could they set up an impromptu frame of him to this effect? How could they know in advance what things Oswald, once in custody, would or would not tell the police?

Lest anyone think I'm being ridiculous myself, I can say that I have seen various tales told by "theorists" in all sincerity--including some of them told by Lane, Lifton and Garrison--that require the plotters to have a stunning ability to predict the future with extreme accuracy. Nearly EVERY major "theory" has the premise, for example, that the plotters knew ahead of time that no bullets would be ever found except those that could be tied to Oswald's gun. Without the ability to predict the future exactly, the supposed plot--to make the crime appear to be the work of a single shooter--will simply not work.

Excellent synopsis of major difficulties inherent in the CT way of thinking. Another aspect that has always perplexed me and has been discussed in many of the CT threads, is how do CT proponents think such massive plots could ever be kept quiet? Three names show that even highly classified information is leaked; Ellsberg, Manning and Snowden. If the NSA can't keep its secrets from a contract worker then how can the multitude of people necessary to pull off a conspiracy such as the JFK assassination, Apollo, 911 and so on be expected to forever remain silent? Such abject refusal to apply any degree of logic by the CTers is simply incomprehensible to me.

Moon
 
I'm always impressed when I see a "new" member who has single-digit posts, and has joined years ago. In my opinion, that shows admirable restraint.


Perhaps the rebuttal of conspiracy theories is packaged in the manner of a conspiracy site, in order to lure the conspiracists in? Wheels within wheels...

I just always found the light-on-dark text easier on the eyes, although I gather some people disagree.

Dave
 
What I find odd is that the CTs believe that someone devised a plan that could have been thwarted by a bad weather report. Kennedy is in the back of a hardtop and all that elaborate planning and work setting up Oswald as a patsy is for nothing.
 
What I find odd is that the CTs believe that someone devised a plan that could have been thwarted by a bad weather report. Kennedy is in the back of a hardtop and all that elaborate planning and work setting up Oswald as a patsy is for nothing.
^This.
 
Excellent synopsis of major difficulties inherent in the CT way of thinking. Another aspect that has always perplexed me and has been discussed in many of the CT threads, is how do CT proponents think such massive plots could ever be kept quiet? Three names show that even highly classified information is leaked; Ellsberg, Manning and Snowden. If the NSA can't keep its secrets from a contract worker then how can the multitude of people necessary to pull off a conspiracy such as the JFK assassination, Apollo, 911 and so on be expected to forever remain silent? Such abject refusal to apply any degree of logic by the CTers is simply incomprehensible to me.

Moon

The whole presumption is that the evil doers have an never ending supply of professional sociopaths and psychopaths that carry out orders without question and without failure and without remorse.

Just like in the movies, which is a funny coincidence because that's the only place such things truly exist.

There's a very funny story if someone is aware of it from the inside, but even though it was long ago, I'll omit details except for the (100% true) punchline:

"Hey Mike! over here! or you wanna make a liar out of the 'ol lady?"
 
Rapier dissection deftly done by James DiEugenio. Reitzes offers weak Bugliosi/McAdams denial porridge fare vs DiEugenio's eloquent banquet
That's one blunt "rapier". :rolleyes:

As an aside, I find text that spreads the entire width of my computer screen difficult to endure,
OK.
to say nothing of reverse-color print.
Personally I prefer it.

What I find odd is that the CTs believe that someone devised a plan that could have been thwarted by a bad weather report. Kennedy is in the back of a hardtop and all that elaborate planning and work setting up Oswald as a patsy is for nothing.
:D
 
What I find odd is that the CTs believe that someone devised a plan that could have been thwarted by a bad weather report. Kennedy is in the back of a hardtop and all that elaborate planning and work setting up Oswald as a patsy is for nothing.

"Could have been..." If I remember right, this scenario almost was; there was rain in Dallas earlier that day, and there was a possibility that the limo's "bubbletop" would be needed.
 
By the way, it does not necessarily disprove a conspiracy to analyze a scenario by asking, "What would the plotters HAVE to know in advance to make their scheme work, and COULD they actually know these things?" What such an analysis does do is help sort out the plausible theories from the theories that are implausible, just plain stupid or drop-dead nuts.

A conspiracy theory that holds that Oswald was somehow put up to the crime by others, but that he was the only one who participated in the crime itself, may be plausible. But a scenario that involves multiple shooters, while trying to frame a single guy for the crime, is in the stupid-nuts range of the spectrum.
 
Next up, Black Knight declares total victory:




BStrong, Your level of discourse is extremely low. I consider it revealing.

If you read DiEugenio you'll see he backs what I say. Or do you just offer ridicule in front of well-researched sources?
 
BStrong, Your level of discourse is extremely low. I consider it revealing.

If you read DiEugenio you'll see he backs what I say. Or do you just offer ridicule in front of well-researched sources?

Will you retract all your premature declarations of victory so you can bolster your case for accusing others of a low level of discourse?
 
I've found it interesting how various tales come into and out of fashion over the years, some disappearing and some staying alive in spite of being shot down over and over again.

Whenever a new proposal is proffered, it is always interesting to ask whether it actually solves anything or whether it actually less likely to occur than the scenario it supposedly supplants.

For example, it has been said that no one could have made the shots from the sixth floor window, and this is a "problem" for the single-assassin view. Since it is universally agreed that SOMEBODY was shooting from SOMEWHERE, where did the shots actually come from? What have been put forth as "solutions" are that there were one or more other shooters who were further away than Oswald, who had less visibility of the target, who had less time to fire, who had inferior weapons and who had far trickier shots to make. Since it has also been suggested that the goal was to frame Oswald and make him take the blame for the true assassins' crimes, these shooters would have to know in advance that they would not be seen at any time before, during or after the shooting, and that none of their bullets would ever be recovered in an examinable condition.

In other words, it was proposed that the "problem" was "solved" by a "solution" that had far more serious difficulties than the original problem ever had. (And it turns out that the "problem" was not much of a problem in the first place; a trained shooter of Oswald's skill could have done the shooting from the window in question.)




Which is exactly why the conspiracy has been exposed over the years. Thank you for publicly sensing the correct situation but then bizarrely coming to the wrong conclusion at the end. The shooters behind the fence were seen by Lee Bowers and Ed Hoffman. The extra hands upstairs in the 6th floor window were also witnessed.

How do you know the CIA pros hired to kill Kennedy had "inferior" weapons as you say?
 
Which is exactly why the conspiracy has been exposed over the years.

No. The conspiracy literature does not speak of "a" conspiracy. Rather, the literature shows a 50-year history of numerous disparate theories, disparate accusations, and contradictory interpretations of selectively chosen evidence. This is not a convergence toward truth. This is not the result of paring away layers of deception and coverup. Instead, such a result is more characteristic of people trying to make pet theories fit evidence that just doesn't fit.
 
Which is exactly why the conspiracy has been exposed over the years. Thank you for publicly sensing the correct situation but then bizarrely coming to the wrong conclusion at the end. The shooters behind the fence were seen by Lee Bowers and Ed Hoffman. The extra hands upstairs in the 6th floor window were also witnessed.

And of course, in your fantasy three real shooters from two separate locations makes sense because...? :rolleyes:
 
Which is exactly why the conspiracy has been exposed over the years. Thank you for publicly sensing the correct situation but then bizarrely coming to the wrong conclusion at the end. The shooters behind the fence were seen by Lee Bowers and Ed Hoffman. The extra hands upstairs in the 6th floor window were also witnessed.

How do you know the CIA pros hired to kill Kennedy had "inferior" weapons as you say?
Jetblast, I know you've made great sport of trying to peddle your nonsense here (but your forum name is certainly apt), but I'm not going to spend a lot of time with you.

Lee Bowers and Ed Hoffman did not see shooters. At least, they didn't say so when they were first interviewed. There were others who later claimed to see a fence shooter as well, but when first asked (when their memories were freshest), said nothing about seeing any shooter at all. And you know what? That's a pretty goddamned big thing.

As for the "inferior weapons," this comes from some of the more prominent conspiracy theorists themselves, who maintain that at least one more difficult shot was made with a weapon that had no telescopic sight, had less accuracy for a given distance and was not being held steady against any fixed object when fired. The point remains: you don't address a "problem" by proposing a "solution" that is far less probable.
 
True, the "explanation" almost always multiplies the complexities in terms of practical difficulties. What often seems to be overlooked is that some scenarios require a degree of foreknowledge that is unlikely in the extreme, if not completely ridiculous.



Pure sophist bunk.





How can an assassin ever be completely sure that his bullets, if they strike the target, will be retrieved before they can be examined?



A bullet would necessarily have to be retrieved before it could be examined. I think what you are trying to say is how could he be sure any second bullets wouldn't be found? The answer is that the total scene was under covert control. If you had more credible knowledge you would realize the plotters panicked and replaced a pointed hunting round found at Parkland with a magic bullet. The plotters panicked and assumed an errant bullet was found so the desperately swapped it. Ironic because most likely it was a totally unrelated bullet found on another stretcher. If you watch Bob Harris' Magic Bullet You-Tube video you'll see another errant bullet was lost from Connally's stretcher. Finally, Buddy Walthers and some intel agents ditched a bullet they picked-up on the south lawn. There's plenty of evidence showing how they did it for people who are actually looking for it instead of entering useless ruminating diversions.



How can two shooters coordinate the timing of their shooting so that they hit the target at virtually the same time?



Why would they need to? That was just coincidence.




How can plotters ever be sure they will convince an innocent patsy to go to work one morning carrying a suspicious package?




Frazier might be going along under intimidation. Do you know he was hunted as a suspect at first and interrogated? Dougherty said he saw Oswald arrive that morning without any such package. But Oswald was a covert agent, so he could have been ordered to do that and was just following orders.




How can they possibly guarantee that the patsy won't intentionally or inadvertently wind up with a really good alibi?




By ordering him into the lunch room where he was during the shooting. And by having a CIA double just in case they needed to put his face somewhere.





How could a shooter standing just a few paces away from Zapruder guarantee that Zapruder wouldn't turn toward him and take his picture?



By only taking one shot and pulling the gun back behind the fence. The pros know all attention will be focused on the visiting president. Do you think CIA is so dumb as to not have a plan B where they frame Cuban shooters as being in league with Oswald in case they got caught? Remember, they confiscated Zapruder's film and sent it to the CIA's NPIC lab saturday night.



How could the plotters know what sort of wound alteration would be necessary to create a false impression about the shooting?




All they had to do was the covert pre-autopsy Lifton and Horne discovered at Bethesda. After they were done with this criminal wound altering observers at the second autopsy commented that there was obvious surgery done to the head.






How could conspirators know that one wound would be in a position that it could be credibly altered by a tracheotomy?



What kind of question is that? They just altered the wounds as needed. Go to You-Tube and watch the doctors say that the gaping 2-3 inch neck wound was much rougher and wider than when it left Parkland.





How could conspirators planning a "hit" in Dealey Plaza several months in advance ever be certain that the President will even be there, or that the motorcade route will go where they want it to go, or that they will have a patsy in place by the time the President arrives?




By means of the total control of government that occurred. Deniers are in denial that the US government could be so deeply corrupted. JFK's assassination was a successful 7 Days In May.







How can assassins know in advance where innocent spectators in an open public area will or will not be, or how many cameras may or may not be taking pictures?




By having a kill zone triangulation at the very end of the motorcade route where the crowd eased. VietNam vets commented that they were often ambushed nearer to camp where they relaxed and thought they were home free. This shows military planning. Did you know they confiscated all films of the event? One photo showed someone other than Oswald in the Depository window. It was sent to a Canadian newspaper and disappeared.






How could they possibly know that a good vantage point for shooting won't be taken by a citizen who just wants to see the motorcade?




You're ignorant of the fact bogus Secret Service agents chased people from behind the picket fence prior to the assassination. Dallas Police officer Weitzman identified one of those bogus SS agents as being Bernard Barker, an E Howard Hunt Cuban involved in Watergate. Reitzes won't tell you that. Instead he'll offer you sincere side talk.





What could they possibly say to Oswald to persuade him to murder a policeman, or how could they set up an impromptu frame of him to this effect?




The real evidence shows that Oswald did not murder Tippit.





How could they know in advance what things Oswald, once in custody, would or would not tell the police?




Ah, maybe by not taking notes during the interrogation of a presidential assassin? After all, why bother recording the most important interview ever done in Dallas police history. Especially when the mayor is the brother of an important CIA officer.




Lest anyone think I'm being ridiculous myself, I can say that I have seen various tales told by "theorists" in all sincerity--including some of them told by Lane, Lifton and Garrison--that require the plotters to have a stunning ability to predict the future with extreme accuracy. Nearly EVERY major "theory" has the premise, for example, that the plotters knew ahead of time that no bullets would be ever found except those that could be tied to Oswald's gun. Without the ability to predict the future exactly, the supposed plot--to make the crime appear to be the work of a single shooter--will simply not work.




Mushy bunk that contemptuously ignores the real evidence. An honest view will see that the scene was tightly controlled up to the point of having Allen Dulles do the investigation.
 
By means of the total control of government that occurred. Deniers are in denial that the US government could be so deeply corrupted.

So you dismiss skepticism over elaborate conspiracy scenarios as "sophist bunk," propose an inevidently omnipotent government, and then tell people they're in denial when they refuse to accept your blatantly begged question.

<dr-evil>Riiiiiiight</dr-evil>
 
Mushy bunk that contemptuously ignores the real evidence. An honest view will see that the scene was tightly controlled up to the point of having Allen Dulles do the investigation.
Squirm, baby, squirm.

As I say, I have no time for your childish nonsense. You're out of your league and it really is rude of you to keep polluting the threads with your delusional junk. Dulles himself said something like, "If they've found another assassin, let them name names and produce their evidence." Dulles had his issues, but his point is valid. Long ago the challenge was to put up or shut up. And a lot of folks don't have the evidence to put up or the personal integrity to shut up.

So, enjoy your time on my ignore list. Don't bother replying to this post. I won't read it.
 
Squirm, baby, squirm.

As I say, I have no time for your childish nonsense. You're out of your league and it really is rude of you to keep polluting the threads with your delusional junk. Dulles himself said something like, "If they've found another assassin, let them name names and produce their evidence." Dulles had his issues, but his point is valid. Long ago the challenge was to put up or shut up. And a lot of folks don't have the evidence to put up or the personal integrity to shut up.

So, enjoy your time on my ignore list. Don't bother replying to this post. I won't read it.



He says while so obviously scooting and running from the real evidence. While offering a name-calling level of discourse and infantile analysis. James DiEugenio eats these deniers for lunch.


Reitzes is a McAdams follower denial propagandist.


Dulles murdered American citizens who witnessed the evidence he called for. That includes JFK by the way.
 
BStrong, Your level of discourse is extremely low. I consider it revealing.

If you read DiEugenio you'll see he backs what I say. Or do you just offer ridicule in front of well-researched sources?

I think what you might be trying to say is that you believe what Dieugenio wrote, and want it to be true.

That doesn't take precedence over the established facts, based on the evidence examined first hand by the investigators involved - all this 30 years on stuff based on what somebody supposedly saw or said that someone overheard when their cousin....rational readers will get the idea, but all these after the fact "investigators" never had any evidence in hand, never have been trained as investigators, criminal or otherwise and their only pov in the subject matter is that (and I love this...) "things don't add up"

The evidence and facts do add up, to the conclusion that LHO was the shooter, he acted alone (that 25 years on "investigation" ******** was a great sideshow) and he killed JFK and Officer Tippet of DPD, and he took a shot at Walker before that in his warm-up to the main event.

All this conspiracy ******** makes for great fiction, I particularlly recommend James Ellroy's version of events, but the real world facts do not show that anyone other than LHO squeezed that trigger.
 
He says while so obviously scooting and running from the real evidence.

"Oops, you caught me selectively considering Dulles. I'll beg another question."

James DiEugenio eats these deniers for lunch.

"I read one conspiracy book and now I know everything."

Reitzes is a McAdams follower denial propagandist.

"I don't know what to say, so I'll just call the OP names and make typical irrelevant digs at MacAdams."

Dulles murdered American citizens who witnessed the evidence he called for. That includes JFK by the way.

"I'd better repeat my claims again."

Wait, where's your ubiquitous declaration of victory?
 
Pure sophist bunk.

A bullet would necessarily have to be retrieved before it could be examined. I think what you are trying to say is how could he be sure any second bullets wouldn't be found? The answer is that the total scene was under covert control. If you had more credible knowledge you would realize the plotters panicked and replaced a pointed hunting round found at Parkland with a magic bullet. The plotters panicked and assumed an errant bullet was found so the desperately swapped it. Ironic because most likely it was a totally unrelated bullet found on another stretcher. If you watch Bob Harris' Magic Bullet You-Tube video you'll see another errant bullet was lost from Connally's stretcher. Finally, Buddy Walthers and some intel agents ditched a bullet they picked-up on the south lawn. There's plenty of evidence showing how they did it for people who are actually looking for it instead of entering useless ruminating diversions.

Why would they need to? That was just coincidence.

Frazier might be going along under intimidation. Do you know he was hunted as a suspect at first and interrogated? Dougherty said he saw Oswald arrive that morning without any such package. But Oswald was a covert agent, so he could have been ordered to do that and was just following orders.

By ordering him into the lunch room where he was during the shooting. And by having a CIA double just in case they needed to put his face somewhere.

By only taking one shot and pulling the gun back behind the fence. The pros know all attention will be focused on the visiting president. Do you think CIA is so dumb as to not have a plan B where they frame Cuban shooters as being in league with Oswald in case they got caught? Remember, they confiscated Zapruder's film and sent it to the CIA's NPIC lab saturday night.

All they had to do was the covert pre-autopsy Lifton and Horne discovered at Bethesda. After they were done with this criminal wound altering observers at the second autopsy commented that there was obvious surgery done to the head.

What kind of question is that? They just altered the wounds as needed. Go to You-Tube and watch the doctors say that the gaping 2-3 inch neck wound was much rougher and wider than when it left Parkland.

By means of the total control of government that occurred. Deniers are in denial that the US government could be so deeply corrupted. JFK's assassination was a successful 7 Days In May.

By having a kill zone triangulation at the very end of the motorcade route where the crowd eased. VietNam vets commented that they were often ambushed nearer to camp where they relaxed and thought they were home free. This shows military planning. Did you know they confiscated all films of the event? One photo showed someone other than Oswald in the Depository window. It was sent to a Canadian newspaper and disappeared.

You're ignorant of the fact bogus Secret Service agents chased people from behind the picket fence prior to the assassination. Dallas Police officer Weitzman identified one of those bogus SS agents as being Bernard Barker, an E Howard Hunt Cuban involved in Watergate. Reitzes won't tell you that. Instead he'll offer you sincere side talk.

The real evidence shows that Oswald did not murder Tippit.

Ah, maybe by not taking notes during the interrogation of a presidential assassin? After all, why bother recording the most important interview ever done in Dallas police history. Especially when the mayor is the brother of an important CIA officer.

Mushy bunk that contemptuously ignores the real evidence. An honest view will see that the scene was tightly controlled up to the point of having Allen Dulles do the investigation.

You have enough posts now that you can have an avatar. May I make a suggestion?

 
Dulles murdered American citizens who witnessed the evidence he called for. That includes JFK by the way.

Can you please provide evidence for this serious accusation. Physical material evidence placing him at any murder scene.
 
Pure sophist bunk.

No, an honest determination that each of the layers people keep putting into the JFK Assassination, increases the complexity exponentially and decreases the odds of such a plan being undetected for any length of time.

Multiple shooters - how to explain bullet tracks from multiple angles as coming from a single shooter;
how to time the shots;
why put people in really bad angles for shooting (the grassy knoll is not a good vantage point for the shot); and
why have shooter who are exposed?

Wounds altered - photos end up being taken throughout the process, so how do you modify the wounds in such a way so as not to cause suspicion at the time and later?
Why bother at all

Selection of a "patsy" - how do you prevent the patsy from having an airtight alibi (the conspirators would have looked awfully silly if LHO had been in the hospital that day for instance);

Ease of countering - this whole matter could have been stopped by three things:

1. The weather - rain would have caused them to use either a hard-top or to put the top on the convertible at a minimum - LHO or any other shooter would not have been able to get a shot;
2. Choice of vehicle - the choice of the convertible was JFK's idea, the secret Service wanted him in a hard-top, and JFK overruled them. Or was JFK in on it as well;
3. Different routes - any route other than through Dealy Plaza and LHO isn't going to be useful

A bullet would necessarily have to be retrieved before it could be examined. I think what you are trying to say is how could he be sure any second bullets wouldn't be found? The answer is that the total scene was under covert control. If you had more credible knowledge you would realize the plotters panicked and replaced a pointed hunting round found at Parkland with a magic bullet. The plotters panicked and assumed an errant bullet was found so the desperately swapped it. Ironic because most likely it was a totally unrelated bullet found on another stretcher. If you watch Bob Harris' Magic Bullet You-Tube video you'll see another errant bullet was lost from Connally's stretcher. Finally, Buddy Walthers and some intel agents ditched a bullet they picked-up on the south lawn. There's plenty of evidence showing how they did it for people who are actually looking for it instead of entering useless ruminating diversions.

Not sure where you keep getting this "pointed hunting round" nonsense from. The bullet in the photos and reports is a full metal jacket round. Hunters do NOT use FMJ rounds for hunting, they prefer to use ones that will deform and remain in the body doing maximum tissue damage.

The bullet recovered matches the type found in LHO's rifle.

Why would they need to? That was just coincidence.

Not having the shooters shooting at the same time ends up being pretty conclusive evidence of multiple shooters.

Frazier might be going along under intimidation. Do you know he was hunted as a suspect at first and interrogated? Dougherty said he saw Oswald arrive that morning without any such package. But Oswald was a covert agent, so he could have been ordered to do that and was just following orders.

You have a skewed view of how people in military or para-military organizations work. In my experience, very few people are so committed to an organization that they will allow themselves to be implicated in obviously criminal activity. If I were to tell one of my soldiers to do something that would get them arrested I would be encouraged to perform an unnatural act with my hat (might be worded more crudely though).

By ordering him into the lunch room where he was during the shooting. And by having a CIA double just in case they needed to put his face somewhere.

There's a whole new level of complexity - now in addition to making sure that LHO doesn't spill the beans, etc. you also need to ensure that the double doesn't, and the surgical team that did the plastic surgery.

By only taking one shot and pulling the gun back behind the fence. The pros know all attention will be focused on the visiting president. Do you think CIA is so dumb as to not have a plan B where they frame Cuban shooters as being in league with Oswald in case they got caught? Remember, they confiscated Zapruder's film and sent it to the CIA's NPIC lab saturday night.

What about the other people behind the fence? the people on the egress route?

Had the shot from there not been fired at the exact time as the one from the TBD, then people would have known the shot came from behind the fence, and then the shooter's escape gets that much more difficult.

The Zapruder film was developed first by Kodak, then turned over 2 of the three first gen copies (Zapruder kept one) to the Secret Service who then sent a copy to the FBI Lab. If this is going to be faked, it had to have been faked before Zapruder got it to Eastman Kodak lab on the day of the shooting for development, as all copies of the film do not show any signs of tampering

All they had to do was the covert pre-autopsy Lifton and Horne discovered at Bethesda. After they were done with this criminal wound altering observers at the second autopsy commented that there was obvious surgery done to the head.

Ask yourself the question, why would a "secret" pre-autopsy need to be done, and if so, where and when was it done?


What kind of question is that? They just altered the wounds as needed. Go to You-Tube and watch the doctors say that the gaping 2-3 inch neck wound was much rougher and wider than when it left Parkland.

Again, where and when would this have been done? JFK's body was under observation the whole time - when did this happen, and why would it need to be done?

By means of the total control of government that occurred. Deniers are in denial that the US government could be so deeply corrupted. JFK's assassination was a successful 7 Days In May.

If the government was so corrupt that this happened, why have they permitted the evidence to come out, and why have they not silenced the people who leaked it?

By having a kill zone triangulation at the very end of the motorcade route where the crowd eased. VietNam vets commented that they were often ambushed nearer to camp where they relaxed and thought they were home free. This shows military planning. Did you know they confiscated all films of the event? One photo showed someone other than Oswald in the Depository window. It was sent to a Canadian newspaper and disappeared.

You've never been in on the planning for an ambush, have you?

First, this wasn't like a ambush where the target was hit right before they got to a safe point and were relaxed. JFK was shot right after his vehicle had to slow for a turn, and if you look at they angles, the only spot with a decent line of fire was LHO in the TBD. Someone on the grassy knoll would have had about two seconds to acquire and shoot (while not impossible, it isn't likely).

Which newspaper? The first Canadian reporter on the ground was Peter Worthington - who didn't arrive until the evening of the 23rd. None of the other reporters there (all Americans) would be sending any of their photos out of the country.

The real evidence shows that Oswald did not murder Tippit.

Again, witneses put him at the scene, and ballistics say it was the weapon that LHO had that did it - you want to try again?
 
Why bother at all...

Why, if the Powers That Be determined that the President must die, did they do so in full view of the public where it could be independently observed and recorded, in a way that was so very obviously a murder?

Food poisoning. Heart attack. Accident.

This is what I find so silly about the whole JFK assassination scenario as a conspiracy. It's not that the alleged conspirators chose the silliest way to shoot the President in public; it's that they chose the silliest way to get rid of him -- by shooting him in public.
 
At some point in the near future people will stop obsessing over a murder that happened decades ago.

The real world is not the one depicted by Fetzer and White.

Oswald killed him. End of.
 
Just for the record, the business about simultaneous shooters comes from a number of back-and-to-the-lefters who are trying to deal with a teeny-weeny problem in their model of what occurred: no bullet hole on the front of the head, but instead there's a bullet hole on the back of the head.

Hmm. How to solve that problem?

Answer: two shooters shoot simultaneously. One shooter in the back, and one in the front (and maybe a little off to the side). The one from the back shoots a split-second earlier, to cause the entrance wound in the back of the head and to create a gaping exit wound on the side. The shooter from the front then fires into the exit wound, causing the head to move back and to the left. Problem solved, right?

This is not a strictly kooky model. It has been proposed by some pretty serious folks, and was backed up by Dr. Wecht.

But could it actually work? Would REAL plotters trying to frame an innocent man ever do it?

The coordination of timing is an immediate difficulty, as is the accuracy needed for the scheme to work. (If the rear shooter was THIS accurate on this shot, why did he not simply kill the target on his earlier shots? In fact, why have multiple shooters AT ALL?) If the front shooter was a wee bit off and hit the target in, say, the shoulder or the cheek, that would give the whole thing away. (No way you could disguise such wounds with a tracheotomy, is there?) And then there is the matter of erasing all evidence of the existence of a second bullet. And there are other serious difficulties with the scenario as well.

About all you can say about the scenario is this: IF plotters planned to have essentially simultaneous shots from different directions, then they could NOT plan to deceive the world about the the plurality of shooters, nor could they plan to frame someone else for the crime. There are simply too many unknowns, too many things to go wrong, too many ways for the frame to be exposed. They might shoot the target, and they might get away (and if they did, wouldn't the mission be "accomplished?"), but they wouldn't be able to make if look as though it was a single shooter, and they wouldn't be able to frame anyone.
 
Pure sophist bunk.
And yet 100% true. If you have evidence to contradict it, could you address the actual point?

The answer is that the total scene was under covert control. If you had more credible knowledge you would realize the plotters panicked and replaced a pointed hunting round found at Parkland with a magic bullet. The plotters panicked and assumed an errant bullet was found so the desperately swapped it.
Many leaps to a conclusion without any actual evidence.

Ironic because most likely it was a totally unrelated bullet found on another stretcher.
So now your "theory" relies on multiple panicky assassins using a found bullet to replace the real one? :rolleyes:

Finally, Buddy Walthers and some intel agents ditched a bullet they picked-up on the south lawn. There's plenty of evidence showing how they did it for people who are actually looking for it instead of entering useless ruminating diversions.
You will be providing some of this evidence, soon?

Why would they need to? That was just coincidence.
From the CT who doesn't accept anything as "just coincidence?" :rolleyes:

Frazier might be going along under intimidation. Do you know he was hunted as a suspect at first and interrogated? Dougherty said he saw Oswald arrive that morning without any such package. But Oswald was a covert agent, so he could have been ordered to do that and was just following orders.
More leaps to conclusion without evidence.

By ordering him into the lunch room where he was during the shooting. And by having a CIA double just in case they needed to put his face somewhere.
More leaps to conclusion without evidence.

By only taking one shot and pulling the gun back behind the fence. The pros know all attention will be focused on the visiting president. Do you think CIA is so dumb as to not have a plan B where they frame Cuban shooters as being in league with Oswald in case they got caught? Remember, they confiscated Zapruder's film and sent it to the CIA's NPIC lab saturday night.
Argument from Incredulity. Not to mention, Zapruder didn't hear the rifle go off just a few paces away from him? :rolleyes:

All they had to do was the covert pre-autopsy Lifton and Horne discovered at Bethesda. After they were done with this criminal wound altering observers at the second autopsy commented that there was obvious surgery done to the head.

What kind of question is that? They just altered the wounds as needed. Go to You-Tube and watch the doctors say that the gaping 2-3 inch neck wound was much rougher and wider than when it left Parkland.
You are talking about things you don't understand and pretending this means "something."

By means of the total control of government that occurred. Deniers are in denial that the US government could be so deeply corrupted. JFK's assassination was a successful 7 Days In May.
Yes, the Illuminati control the weather... :rolleyes:

By having a kill zone triangulation at the very end of the motorcade route where the crowd eased. VietNam vets commented that they were often ambushed nearer to camp where they relaxed and thought they were home free. This shows military planning.
More leaps to conclusion without evidence.

Did you know they confiscated all films of the event? One photo showed someone other than Oswald in the Depository window. It was sent to a Canadian newspaper and disappeared.
Evidence please?

The real evidence shows that Oswald did not murder Tippit.
Evidence please?

Ah, maybe by not taking notes during the interrogation of a presidential assassin? After all, why bother recording the most important interview ever done in Dallas police history. Especially when the mayor is the brother of an important CIA officer.
So it is your contention police interviews were routinely recorded at that time?

Mushy bunk that contemptuously ignores the real evidence. An honest view will see that the scene was tightly controlled up to the point of having Allen Dulles do the investigation.
You will be providing some of this "real evidence" soon?
 
Back
Top Bottom