That Stat

[Paul Baker]

I'm listening to Mark Lane talking to Len Osanic on Black Op Radio (Show #622, March 21 2013). He says:

36:42: Why does every survey, Gallup poll [...] all these surveys show that between 75 and 80 percent of the American people believe there was a conspiracy to kill the President.

Time and again we hear this statistic, or variations of it. However, it is meaningless because the vast majority of American people do not know enough about the assassination to make an informed decision. What they do know is what they learn from mostly conspiracy orientated documentaries and books.

There's no balance here, so that statistic proves absolutely ziltch. I just wish you CT lot would stop using it

Here are some of Mark Lane's words in the same interview:

31:46: The question is 'Why would Oswald kill Tippit?' and the answer is no reason at all. Tippit was a police officer. Why would he [LHO] have to, having just killed the President, go out and find a police officer. He wasn't even a suspect, Oswald, so it wasn't like anybody was trying to track him down. [They were] not sending out his description or anything and so why that took place, we don't know, but we know that the Government blamed Lee Harvey Oswald for that.

I find it incredible that one of the most respected, perhaps even revered, individuals in the realm of JFK conspiracy research could come out with something like that.

So, you see, between 75 and 80 percent of American people believe in a conspiracy not because there was one, but because they're getting fed xxxx like this.

Paul.

[Blair Dobson]

did you want a serious answer to that or are you just trolling?

since we are painting with a really wide brush here, Americans believe a long list of things, most of them as erroneous as they are irrational...same can be said of people in other countries as well.

but what Lane says is true, whatever brand of nut you are...

regardless of what side of the knoll your theory on Oswald is from, the Tippit killing would not have held up in court, nor would the evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy and you can base that on the WCR being true OR false. had Oswald lived of course...

if you were to hold a trial today with the presented extant materials from both WCR, CT and LN community it is so inconclusive all across the board that it would get tossed. unless of course it was for a tv special or a book that doesn't have to adhere to legal precidents or liable laws.

heck, you can even dig the poor guy up if you have enough money....

so, you have a single entity (FBI) investigating an entire crime that was never tried in court and never an independent investigation or PROPER investigation for that matter.

THEN on top of that, you have a dead suspect and a number of different stories from unreliable witnesses..

"there were two men!"

"it was Oswald!" etc etc etc...

different bullets for different guns. no report of Oswald made by police to Tippit previous to his shooting..

so what are you left with?

conjecture presented as fact by the Warren Commision that wouldn't hold up in court. lost or destroyed evidence and cherry picked testimony...

a laugh riot from beginning to end.

again, 80% or more of it inadmissable in any court then or now. ( except in dirty ol Dallas perhaps...)

but it was good enough to sell that same unqualified American public on the story that Oswald killed Tippit and JFK...

so which is it? this stupid unqualified American public you mention...which story SHOULD they believe? they aren't qualified for either according to you.

the other thing is that whether or not "Americans" are as "qualified" or "informed" in that lack of evidence or not, they know that they are lied to on a constant basis by the government, because everyone can smell a racket. the people who are in on the racket don't complain because they benefit.

so when they get asked "do you think X is a sham?" they usually side with the sham.

but by all means, go on with your indignant hurt.

as with the WCR in specific regards to the Tippit killing, you have no case.

feel free to prove me wrong though.

please post your conclusive evidence that Oswald killed Tippit.

-post the DPD reports, the FBI reports, the witness interviews starting from 12:35 that day onward to the death of Tippit...post it up..

then, since you are so positive of the evidence,

-let everyone know where Tippet was all day from the beginning of his shift until the end and

-provide transcripts of the radio calls to his car...

-provide all the eyewitness testimony

oh...riiiiight..you can't... and neither can the CT community...because there isn't enough hard evidence.

even outside of all that, your whole argument makes little to no sense...from either side.

to restate your point, these idiots are getting fed misinformation....but wouldn't know good information from bad...so you're indignant that they don't believe what you think they should believe.

also, you are providing a specific piece of the case (the Tippit murder ) in regards to a generalized question about the overall case... they probably weren't asked about Tippet at all. Then you blame CT...

so my initial reaction is correct..you are trolling.

if not, whip out your copy of the reports, WR, HSCA any of them and get cracking...show us the proof.

i'll provide a criminal lawyer and you and i can go over your case from top to bottom and you can watch as it gets tossed.

all of it is either faulty as to not be compelling or completely inadmissable.

make sure you do your homework because i'll eat you alive, point for point on admissabilty. which will be an easy task.

cheers

Edited April 5, 2013 by Blair Dobson

[Paul Baker]

did you want a serious answer to that or are you just trolling?

I was interested in how different people interpret that meaningless statistic, I suppose. I used a quote from Mark Lane to help reinforce my point, which I thought was reasonably concise. Perhaps I could have been clearer.

You've responded with a spattering of disjointed crap and an accusation of trolling.

Aren't you the clever one?

Edited April 5, 2013 by Paul Baker

[Blair Dobson]

did you want a serious answer to that or are you just trolling?

I was interested in how different people interpret that meaningless statistic, I suppose. I used a quote from Mark Lane to help reinforce my point, which I thought was reasonably concise. Perhaps I could have been clearer.

You've responded with a spattering of disjointed crap and an accusation of trolling.

Aren't you the clever one?

don't hit any points there, skirt the issues i presented and then whine.

good work expert researcher...

the glib version again...so it isn't disjointed for you...

"Time and again we hear this statistic, or variations of it. However, it is meaningless because the vast majority of American people do not know enough about the assassination to make an informed decision. What they do know is what they learn from mostly conspiracy orientated documentaries and books.

There's no balance here, so that statistic proves absolutely ziltch. I just wish you CT lot would stop using it"

and

"I find it incredible that one of the most respected, perhaps even revered, individuals in the realm of JFK conspiracy research could come out with something like that.

So, you see, between 75 and 80 percent of American people believe in a conspiracy not because there was one, but because they're getting fed xxxx like this."

so, how then, if these people who have never read Mark Lane or anyone else , these uninformed people, supposed to make a decision?

how is it you have the psychic ability to attribute "what they know" exactly? HOW DO YOU ATTRIBUTE IT TO YOUR EXAMPLE?

did the pollster ask about Mark Lane and his Len Oseanic interview? nooo

how is it you know what it is that informs their uninformed opinion?

so again, my original vodka fuelled reply aside, your inane xxxxx still doesn't hold any water . you can use any example you like from "Closet Case Closed" to " I Married Manson " and it doesn't matter... your whole whine here is this:

"I just wish you CT lot would stop using it" waaaaahhhhhhh wahhhhh

give everyone a break.

[Pat Speer]

I'm listening to Mark Lane talking to Len Osanic on Black Op Radio (Show #622, March 21 2013). He says:

36:42: Why does every survey, Gallup poll [...] all these surveys show that between 75 and 80 percent of the American people believe there was a conspiracy to kill the President.

Time and again we hear this statistic, or variations of it. However, it is meaningless because the vast majority of American people do not know enough about the assassination to make an informed decision. What they do know is what they learn from mostly conspiracy orientated documentaries and books.

There's no balance here, so that statistic proves absolutely ziltch. I just wish you CT lot would stop using it

Here are some of Mark Lane's words in the same interview:

31:46: The question is 'Why would Oswald kill Tippit?' and the answer is no reason at all. Tippit was a police officer. Why would he [LHO] have to, having just killed the President, go out and find a police officer. He wasn't even a suspect, Oswald, so it wasn't like anybody was trying to track him down. [They were] not sending out his description or anything and so why that took place, we don't know, but we know that the Government blamed Lee Harvey Oswald for that.

I find it incredible that one of the most respected, perhaps even revered, individuals in the realm of JFK conspiracy research could come out with something like that.

So, you see, between 75 and 80 percent of American people believe in a conspiracy not because there was one, but because they're getting fed xxxx like this.

Paul.

I understand your point, Paul, and share your dismay when researchers overstate the case for Oswald's innocence. But there's a problem with your analysis of the situation, and it is this...

You assume that the 75 to 80% of the public saying they suspect there was a conspiracy are coming to this suspicion based upon information provided by conspiracy theorists, and that they have not heard the other side of the story. This misses that for every kernel of info reaching the public suggesting there was a conspiracy, the public is exposed to five to ten kernels suggesting Oswald acted alone. The vast majority of historians and biographers, including those writing school textbooks (which by some incredible coincidence have to be approved by a board of conservative parents in Texas) tell us Oswald acted alone, or that the evidence is that he acted alone, but that some questions remain. Now, in England, if I understand the situation correctly, it is not unusual for articles suggesting a conspiracy to be published in the mainstream media. But in the States, evidence suggesting a conspiracy is hardly ever mentioned in the mainstream news. This leaves a void, a void filled with films like Stone's JFK, or TV programs like The Men Who Killed Kennedy. People watching these movies and programs would not so readily accept them, it seems clear, if the information provided, much of it subjective, had not been concealed from them for so long.

It's kinda like this. Your dog Spot has run away, and no one will talk to you about it. You ask your parents about this. They say "Why, no, Spot was spotted just the other day crossing the bridge to the next county, and he is almost certainly enjoying a few days off in the countryside." You ask your uncle about this. He says "Well, we're not sure about Spot. There's reason to think he's just fine." And then you ask your cousin, and she says "Well, I heard your parents and your uncle talking before you came in the room, and they agreed that you shouldn't be told the truth." So WHO are YOU going to believe? The cousin, right? And who is at fault if your cousin adds in a few details which just aren't true, that you also come to believe? Your parents, right?

It is an undeniable fact that the Johnson Administration and its friends in the media fed the public a lot of nonsense in the aftermath of the assassination (such as the back wound being a neck wound, or Jack Ruby's being a distraught Kennedy admirer), and that this nonsense has had a corrosive effect on the public's trust in the government. So who's at fault?

Mark Lane? I don't think so.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Pat Speer

[David G. Healy]

did you want a serious answer to that or are you just trolling?

I was interested in how different people interpret that meaningless statistic, I suppose. I used a quote from Mark Lane to help reinforce my point, which I thought was reasonably concise. Perhaps I could have been clearer.

You've responded with a spattering of disjointed crap and an accusation of trolling.

Aren't you the clever one?

I should of known... a Dale *wanna see my emmy* Myers fan! Oh Gawd!

Say, if you have a real problem with Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, jump in at alt.conspiracy.jfk, there's been 236 seperatethreads started concerning Lane's RTJ. Beginning from pg.1.

.john mcadams lone nut wannabe's are pulverized on a regular basis...

Come by, show your stuff, of course, if you prefer trolling...

[Paul Baker]

What rubbish.

How many copies did O'Reilly's book on JFK sell? (In which, by the way, he told a provable lie about himself.)

How many did Lane's most recent book sell?

How many people watch O'Reilly's show?

How many people listen to BOR?

Jimbo, I'm sure even you and I could agree on this point: The vast majority of JFK assassination literature is conspiracy oriented. I'm simply proposing that it is that fact which, in turn, skews the results of surveys.

How is that rubbish?

Paul.

[Paul Baker]

I should of known... a Dale *wanna see my emmy* Myers fan! Oh Gawd!

Say, if you have a real problem with Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, jump in at alt.conspiracy.jfk, there's been 236 seperatethreads started concerning Lane's RTJ. Beginning from pg.1.

.john mcadams lone nut wannabe's are pulverized on a regular basis...

Come by, show your stuff, of course, if you prefer trolling...

If you think you somehow irritate me with your inane drivel, David, I'm afraid you're wrong. If truth be told, I feel sorry for you.

[Paul Baker]

You assume that the 75 to 80% of the public saying they suspect there was a conspiracy are coming to this suspicion based upon information provided by conspiracy theorists, and that they have not heard the other side of the story. This misses that for every kernel of info reaching the public suggesting there was a conspiracy, the public is exposed to five to ten kernels suggesting Oswald acted alone. The vast majority of historians and biographers, including those writing school textbooks (which by some incredible coincidence have to be approved by a board of conservative parents in Texas) tell us Oswald acted alone, or that the evidence is that he acted alone, but that some questions remain. Now, in England, if I understand the situation correctly, it is not unusual for articles suggesting a conspiracy to be published in the mainstream media. But in the States, evidence suggesting a conspiracy is hardly ever mentioned in the mainstream news. This leaves a void, a void filled with films like Stone's JFK, or TV programs like The Men Who Killed Kennedy. People watching these movies and programs would not so readily accept them, it seems clear, if the information provided, much of it subjective, had not been concealed from them for so long.

Thanks Pat, for a reply that is considered and not a rant. You're in a special minority here.

I see your point, and I confess that I don't know what American children are taught at school. So the history textbooks that children read say categorically that Oswald did it alone? That's interesting. I'd suggest though that a mind that has been exposed to the subject briefly at school could be easily swayed by the general consensus.

So if what you say is correct, i.e. children are taught the official story, why do three-quarters of the American public believe in a conspiracy? I can't imagine for a moment it's because all of those people have thought about it, in the same way that some of the people on this forum have. Maybe it's simply because there is still this automatic disbelief that one little scumbag could do something so drastic on his own, almost on a whim. I guess once you factor in Jack Ruby, for some people it's almost a no-brainer.

Paul.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Paul Baker

[Pat Speer]

You assume that the 75 to 80% of the public saying they suspect there was a conspiracy are coming to this suspicion based upon information provided by conspiracy theorists, and that they have not heard the other side of the story. This misses that for every kernel of info reaching the public suggesting there was a conspiracy, the public is exposed to five to ten kernels suggesting Oswald acted alone. The vast majority of historians and biographers, including those writing school textbooks (which by some incredible coincidence have to be approved by a board of conservative parents in Texas) tell us Oswald acted alone, or that the evidence is that he acted alone, but that some questions remain. Now, in England, if I understand the situation correctly, it is not unusual for articles suggesting a conspiracy to be published in the mainstream media. But in the States, evidence suggesting a conspiracy is hardly ever mentioned in the mainstream news. This leaves a void, a void filled with films like Stone's JFK, or TV programs like The Men Who Killed Kennedy. People watching these movies and programs would not so readily accept them, it seems clear, if the information provided, much of it subjective, had not been concealed from them for so long.

Thanks Pat, for a reply that is considered and not a rant. You're in a special minority here.

I see your point, and I confess that I don't know what American children are taught at school. So the history textbooks that children read say categorically that Oswald did it alone? That's interesting. I'd suggest though that a mind that has been exposed to the subject briefly at school could be easily swayed by the general consensus.

So if what you say is correct, i.e. children are taught the official story, why do three-quarters of the American public believe in a conspiracy? I can't imagine for a moment it's because all of those people have thought about it, in the same way that some of the people on this forum have. Maybe it's simply because there is still this automatic disbelief that one little scumbag could do something so drastic on his own, almost on a whim. I guess once you factor in Jack Ruby, for some people it's almost a no-brainer.

Paul.

When I talk to relatively blank slates about the assassination, they usually say one of the following 1) Ruby's killing Oswald led them to suspect a conspiracy, and the motion of Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film led them to think a shot was fired from the front; 2) they never trusted Johnson, and suspected the worst from the beginning, 3) they've hunted in the past and just can't believe CE 399 went through two grown men, 4) they saw Oliver Stone's film JFK and thought it fairly convincing; 5) they used to think there was a conspiracy, based upon JFK and what they heard from others, but then saw Beyond Conspiracy (or Beyond the Magic Bullet) on TV, and now think Oswald acted alone, and 7) they knew Oswald was guilty the moment they saw him on TV--he just had that look about him.

So, yeah, the uninformed public has been given a taste of conspiracy literature--through the widespread opinion the SBT is bunk, and films like JFK--but they have also been influenced by TV programs like Beyond the Magic Bullet. What it comes down to is a smell test, IMO. It's not that people think someone like Oswald couldn't kill someone like Kennedy as much as they think it smells to high heaven that someone like Jack Ruby would kill Oswald before he could stand trial. There's also the location of the killing. Few Americans, even today, trust the great state of Texas. There are a lot of seriously stupid Christians down there waving guns around and--even today--talking about leaving the union out one side of their mouths while bragging about their patriotism with the other. That the killing took place in Texas, and Texas was Johnson's home state, just smells...

Edited April 8, 2013 by Pat Speer