• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

SKEPTIC: 50 Years of JFK Conspiracy Theories

dreitzes

Student
D
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.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
I have linked your paper for you (as new members cannot post links)
Click to expand...
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.

Regnad Kcin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.)
 
Brown said:
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.)
Click to expand...
The eternal problem with CT. Their "explanation" is always much more complex, unlikely and flat out dangerous (to the conspirators) than the "official story."
 
Robrob said:
The eternal problem with CT. Their "explanation" is always much more complex, unlikely and flat out dangerous (to the conspirators) than the "official story."
Click to expand...

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.
 
Brown said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Brown said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
carlitos said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Garrison said:
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.
Click to expand...
^This.
 
moondude said:
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
Click to expand...

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?"
 
Jetblast said:
Rapier dissection deftly done by James DiEugenio. Reitzes offers weak Bugliosi/McAdams denial porridge fare vs DiEugenio's eloquent banquet
Click to expand...
That's one blunt "rapier". :rolleyes:

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

Garrison said:
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.
Click to expand...
:D
 
Garrison said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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.
 
BStrong said:
Next up, Black Knight declares total victory:

Click to expand...



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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom