JFK's assassination: your thoughts

[dreitzes]

So, you're saying that Clay Shaw was NOT Bertrand and was never a CIA contract agent?

To me, if someone accuses me of being someone else, specifically and I refute that I'd pretty damn well be sure. It would be absolutely fine if I was portraying another identity, so long as it wasn't the one I was specifically accused of.

As it turns out, there's good evidence Shaw was Bertrand and he was a contract agent for the CIA. But, I'm not going to provide any of that evidence here. I simply don't care whether people get this information who don't themselves take the time to find it. And, what is evidence anyway?

In the end, it's your choice to hold Clay Shaw and his fancy parties in such high regard. I hold no one in high regard.

One of the areas of specialty at my website is the Garrison case and Shaw prosecution. I can't posts URLs here yet, but Google "who speaks for clay shaw reitzes." The first hit will be an old draft. Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the version at jfk-online.com.

Dave

 

[SpitfireIX]

One of the areas of specialty at my website is the Garrison case and Shaw prosecution. I can't posts URLs here yet, but Google "who speaks for clay shaw reitzes." The first hit will be an old draft. Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the version at jfk-online.com.

Dave

http://www.jfk-online.com/clayshaw1.html

 

[BStrong]

So, you're saying that Clay Shaw was NOT Bertrand and was never a CIA contract agent?

To me, if someone accuses me of being someone else, specifically and I refute that I'd pretty damn well be sure. It would be absolutely fine if I was portraying another identity, so long as it wasn't the one I was specifically accused of.

As it turns out, there's good evidence Shaw was Bertrand and he was a contract agent for the CIA. But, I'm not going to provide any of that evidence here. I simply don't care whether people get this information who don't themselves take the time to find it. And, what is evidence anyway?

In the end, it's your choice to hold Clay Shaw and his fancy parties in such high regard. I hold no one in high regard.

Who made any such assertion?

Shaw was probably no different from any other businessman of the era that the CIA spoke with about their observations of individuals/events they encountered while outside the US or in business at home.

That doesn't make him any different from any run-of-the-mill source, and certainly doesn't qualify him as an intelligence officer.

 

[JayUtah]

As it turns out, there's good evidence Shaw was Bertrand and he was a contract agent for the CIA. But, I'm not going to provide any of that evidence here.

Then no one is really obligated to take your claims seriously.

I simply don't care whether people get this information who don't themselves take the time to find it.

Again, I would like for just one JFK conspiracy theorist to present his case without the ubiquitous, "You don't know as much as I do about this," preface. This is such an invariable line of rhetoric that I don't wonder it's the only reason behind the JFK conspiracism.

Consider the possibility that your critics are very familiar with the conspiracy literature and claims. But that still does not absolve you of the responsibility to identify which ones are your sources and to defend the lines of reasoning and speculation that you've borrowed from them. Forcing others to guess at what your sources may be, or hiding them in order to keep them from being critically examined, is indelibly poor argumentation.

When people ask you for your evidence, it is not because they are ignorant of the claims. They ask for your evidence to see whether you have done your homework.

And, what is evidence anyway?

Pseudo-philosophy is not an argument. You have flatly stated you will not support your points. Hence there is no need also to obfuscate.

In the end, it's your choice to hold Clay Shaw and his fancy parties in such high regard. I hold no one in high regard.

You do Garrison, apparently. But that's neither here nor there. Nor does rejecting your wild claims regarding Shaw and others constitute "holding them in high regard" -- again, irrelevant.

The goal here is not to determine who is or is not highly regarded, but rather who killed President Kennedy. You're taking us on a stroll through the margins of history, speculation, and innuendo. But you are unwilling to connect it back to anything that matters.

 

[FrederickEason]

As it turns out, there's good evidence Shaw was Bertrand and he was a contract agent for the CIA. But, I'm not going to provide any of that evidence here.

Then we shall assume you have no evidence.

 

[Robrob]

Shaw was probably no different from any other businessman of the era that the CIA spoke with about their observations of individuals/events they encountered while outside the US or in business at home.

That doesn't make him any different from any run-of-the-mill source, and certainly doesn't qualify him as an intelligence officer.

Remember, this is from the same POV which regularly claims LHO was a 007 super spy. It's spies all the way down...

Again, I would like for just one JFK conspiracy theorist to present his case without the ubiquitous, "You don't know as much as I do about this," preface. This is such an invariable line of rhetoric that I don't wonder it's the only reason behind the JFK conspiracism.

Is it just me or of all the CT, do the JFK conspiracy theorists do this the most?

 

[JayUtah]

Is it just me or of all the CT, do the JFK conspiracy theorists do this the most?

All conspiracy theorist to some extent or another assume they are better informed than any of their critics. However, in the JFK conspiracy tradition I've found that those conspiracists tend to make it a prominent, overt part of their argumentation. Most even open with it. All JFK conspiracy theorists I've encountered argue strenuously that anyone who considers Oswald the lone assassin is uninformed and that any disputation of a conspiracy claim arises from ignorance of "the facts."

I think there is a particular hubris among JFK conspiracy theorists, more so than in other conspiracy genres. I've argued that most if not all conspiracy theories basically just try to bolster the self-esteem of the proponent. But this seems more the case for JFK conspiracy theorists. It is more apparent in their writings that they just want to be seen as smarter and more clever than everyone else.

Certain common arguments among their theories lend weight to that interpretation. Most JFK conspiracy theories traverse the backwaters of marginal evidence, connecting the dots among obscure items relating to Kennedy, Oswald, and other prominent figures. They assume most people are familiar only with the basic facts of the case, and the lines of reasoning espoused in Warren et al. Hence a conspiracy theory becomes a way to show off obscure knowledge. "I bet you didn't know that Clay Shaw..." etc. Ironically while conspiracy theorists often know more about the assassination that the general public, they rarely know as much as their more adherent critics. Most JREFers who have gone through the monumental Robert Prey thread have demonstrated considerably more "obscure" understanding than any of the conspiracy claimants.

 

[Hans]

Most JREFers who have gone through the monumental Robert Prey thread have demonstrated considerably more "obscure" understanding than any of the conspiracy claimants.

I believe JREF should give out campaign medals to all the participants of that epic troll fest

 

[jaydeehess]

Herbert Hoover died in '64
J.Edgar Hoover in '72

,,,,,,,,, and continue...........

 

[JTF]

Garrison Was A Complete Failure

The connection between the assassination of JKF and Clay Shaw's work with the CIA is what, exactly? The connection between the assassination of JFK and Shaw's ALLEGED use of an alias is what, exactly? Connections cultivated by conspiracy theorists are always dubious and defy logic.

Garrison's case against Shaw follows this thought process. His own investigators were looking for ways out of this mess and Garrison's chronic instability resulted in a trial presentation that reached the heights of black humor.

Clay Shaw found none of this to be the least bit funny and his legal fees drained most of his life savings. To add insult to injury, Shaw died before his civil suit reached the courtroom.

The burden of proof was on Garrison, and he failed to meet that burden at every level. He failed to prove that there was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. He failed to prove that Clay Shaw or David Ferrie were a part of this mythical conspiracy. He failed to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy. The only thing that Garrison proved was that he was an incompetent boob whose paranoia destroyed the life of an innocent man.

 

[Robrob]

All conspiracy theorist to some extent or another assume they are better informed than any of their critics. However, in the JFK conspiracy tradition I've found that those conspiracists tend to make it a prominent, overt part of their argumentation. Most even open with it. All JFK conspiracy theorists I've encountered argue strenuously that anyone who considers Oswald the lone assassin is uninformed and that any disputation of a conspiracy claim arises from ignorance of "the facts."

I think there is a particular hubris among JFK conspiracy theorists, more so than in other conspiracy genres. I've argued that most if not all conspiracy theories basically just try to bolster the self-esteem of the proponent. But this seems more the case for JFK conspiracy theorists. It is more apparent in their writings that they just want to be seen as smarter and more clever than everyone else.

I encountered that on Facebook almost word for word from a JFK CT. Being unfamiliar at the time with that particular CT, I asked him to give me his three most convincing points of evidence. That he led off with three common LHO canards, easily and long disproven surprised me.

Then he mentioned he was 60, living in a drug rehab and unemployed.

 

[Jetblast]

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

Anyone who reads 'Destiny Betrayed' would see it proves the conspiracy and shows CIA was forced to illegally interfere with New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's exposing of it.

This site calls for high quality debate and evidence but then allows it to be trolled when it appears.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This site calls for high quality debate and evidence but then allows it to be trolled when it appears.

Actually, we're just batting you around like a cat toy until someone with an argument shows up.

 

[JayUtah]

Anyone who reads 'Destiny Betrayed' would see it proves the conspiracy...

No, your single-sourced claims are not convincing simply because they exist.

This site calls for high quality debate and evidence but then allows it to be trolled when it appears.

Please make the actual argument. Don't keep popping up every two or three days to tell us all how clever you are because you read a book and how disingenuous JREF is because it challenges your beliefs and doesn't let you get away with sophomore debate tricks.

We get it. You hate JREF. That was obvious from your first posts months ago. Why on Earth do you keep coming back solely to belabor those expressions of distaste?

 

[Dcdrac]

If you actually did produce any discussion at all Jetblast or any evidence then maybe you would be taken seriously as you have not, you are not.

 

[BStrong]

Anyone who reads 'Destiny Betrayed' would see it proves the conspiracy and shows CIA was forced to illegally interfere with New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's exposing of it.

This site calls for high quality debate and evidence but then allows it to be trolled when it appears.

If Dieugenio in fact has evidence (as opposed to assertion and presumption) let him bring it into a courtroom.

What he has in reality is a opinion of events - he at most can assert that the later HSCA hearings came to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, but he can't take the rifle out of Oswald's hands, he can't name names with evidence to prove same, and he can't provide a coherent provable motive for conspiracy.

I'd love to see a panel discussion where the "LBJ did it" camp v "the MIC did it" v the "reds did it" groupies, but that will never come to pass.

Could be entertaining to listen to three or more dedicated supporters of CT's going at each other to prove their position true, as opposed to those charlatans that support (fill in the blank)

 

[Tolls]

Anyone who reads 'Destiny Betrayed' would see it proves the conspiracy and shows CIA was forced to illegally interfere with New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's exposing of it.

This site calls for high quality debate and evidence but then allows it to be trolled when it appears.

Are you being paid to shill this book?
It seems to be the sole source of your arguments...

 

[FrederickEason]

Anyone who reads 'Destiny Betrayed' would see it proves the conspiracy and shows CIA was forced to illegally interfere with New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's exposing of it.

I'm not going to buy your book. If you can't give your argument without asking everyone to waste their money on a book, then you have no argument.

 

[skepticidal]

Wow! I forgot he lived so long.

Anyway, the real point was I'm not going to bother with someone who doesn't know the difference between Hebert Hoover or J. Edgar Hoover.

OK, it appears that I mixed up the famous Hoovers. Does that prove I don't know the difference between them? I think it points to my having written what I did as a stream of consciousness, in which case I mixed up Hoovers. At least my comments weren't cut-and-pastes.

 

[JayUtah]

OK, it appears that I mixed up the famous Hoovers. Does that prove I don't know the difference between them? I think it points to my having written what I did as a stream of consciousness, in which case I mixed up Hoovers.

A cogent, coherent, historically correct argument would have been preferred over a "stream of consciousness" spewage. The latter is more akin to speculation, which has little useful place here. If you don't know your history, then you aren't likely to be listened to with bated breath as you try to explore an historical question.

At least my comments weren't cut-and-pastes.

Meaningless and conjectural jibe. My responses weren't cut and pastes. But even if they were, they'd be cited, relevant excerpts from reliable sources, which are infinitely preferred over streams of consciousness.