I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[James DiEugenio]

I stopped clicking through to DVP's site when I found out he was still using the CBLA test to prop up the WC BS.

When he knows that its been discredited.  Which is sort of like saying, "I don't have a case, so I have to cheat; if not I am stuck with that ridiculous CE 399."

If you want to learn about Leave it to Beaver and fifties TV he does have a good site. 

PS And a good old time radio site with Jack Benny etc. 

https://www.youtube.com/user/DVPOldTimeRadio?disable_polymer=1

Edited October 6, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[François Carlier]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

LOL!  

Ruby shooting Oswald as a mission is actually one of the strongest parts of our case today.  

Why?  Because of new work by the HSCA and some private researchers.  Plus revelations from the WC.

But first, i must note how Carlier cut off my post so he would not have to deal with the rest of the clear implication that Ruby was stalking Oswald for three days.  This is his M.O.

I did a lot of work on this in my last book since I really wanted to show just how bad Bugliosi was on this key point. Vince did little except recite the WC verdict on this.  Which, IMO, is just not being honest with the reader.

Let us begin with the fact that Carlier wants to edit out.  Patrick Dean flunked his polygraph even though he wrote his own questions. Roy Vaughn passed his with flying colors.  Get this, even the WC, in the form of Burt Griffin, though Dean was lying.  In fact Griffin actually accused him of such to his face.  Which created a real brouhaha with the Dallas Police.  Earl Warren backed down . So just on that evidence, one would suspect that Ruby did not come down the Main Street ramp.

But there is more.  The HSCA found a witness that the DPD tried to hide from the WC. His name is Sgt. Don Flusche.  He told the HSCA that he had moved his car across the street from the Main Street ramp at the time LHO was supposed to leave the building.  He was waiting for the transfer.  So he saw the whole thing.  He swore that there was no way Ruby came down that ramp, or walked down Main Street. Because he knew Ruby and was standing right across the street. That is what is called a game changer.  But there is more.

Its always important when a witness lies about a key point.  Dean was the chief of security that day.  He swore that no one could come in the back door, which faced Western Union from the outside. He said the doors were all secured and Ruby would have needed a key to get in. The HSCA found this was false.  They were not secured and Ruby would not have needed a key to get in. And they concluded that this is how Ruby got into the basement.  DVP knows this since he once said he was not aware of it,  then someone went ahead and posted that section of the report. (The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, 222-32)

Then there is Ruby's polygraph which was rigged by the FBI. Again, the HSCA proved this.  And it is a key piece of evidence.  Carlier and DVP do not like it.  Neither did VB so he covers it up. Why? Too late to ask him.  (Ibid pp. 267-70)

Then there is Ruby's excuse for being at the Western Union office--right behind the DPD at the key time. This was one of the worst parts of the WC cover up.  I discuss it for two pages in my book.  But suffice it to say, even the WC knew that the whole scenario of Ruby telegramming the small amount of money to Karen Carlin Sunday morning  was instigated by Ruby. Leon Hubert was a good lawyer who essentially dropped out of the WC since he figured--like Francis Adams--that the fix was in. (ibid p. 226)

Again, you can deny this stuff to the day you die, like VB did.  But its not going away; and I left out Billy Grammar.  He said Ruby called and warned them to change the plan or "we are going to kill him." (ibid p. 224)

Finally, what about the horns being edited out of the TV pickup? Should we even go into that?

Mister DiEugenio,
You remind me of the movie JFK when Judge Haggerty says : "If that's your case, you didn't have a case !".
Indeed, if one of the "strongest" part of your case is the make-believe idea that Ruby shot Oswald on a mission, then, as David Von Pein puts it, it shows how lousy your case is !
Let me reply to you.
First of all, I did not cut off your post in order to avoid anything. I am easily ready to deal with anything you say, as it is wrong 99% of the time…
(Which is sad, as you are a hard-working person. You could spend your time working on true historic mysteries, instead of wasting it on a wild-goose chase. Anyway…)
Was Ruby "stalking" Oswald ? I don't know, and you don't either. Yes, Ruby was at the DPD that week-end, nobody denies it. For one thing, he lived in Dallas, which made it easy for him to be at the DPD. I'm sure that a lot of Americans would have loved to be there too, just as much as Jack Ruby, but those living in California or Florida, for instance, would have found the "commuter" trip a bit time-consuming !
Secondly, there were quite a few people who wanted Lee Oswald dead that fateful week-end. You know that there had been death threats against Oswald. He was despised. He had killed the President. Some people shouted "revenge" ! Jack Ruby may have been such a person.
I do believe that Jack Ruby came down the main ramp. I say so in my book. I went there myself more than once.
Remember that the Commerce Street exit ramp was blocked by a truck at that moment. Therefore a DPD officer (I forgot his name, and I am not writing from my desk right now) had to drive out through the main ramp, which is normally an entrance. Therefore (and that is important) the police officer who was guarding the main ramp entrance (his name was Vaughn, I think, I am not sure and can't check, so please bear with me) had to stop the traffic, because a car going out of the DPD building there and merging into traffic was something unusual and unexpected. So, when the police officer went to stop traffic, it would have been easy for Ruby to walk down the ramp unnoticed.
That's easy to understand.
Having said, that, I have no problem with the idea of Ruby taking another path and walking through stairs and doors which may not have been as secured as we had been told.
Though I doubt it, since he himself said that he recognized the driver of the police car that went up the main street ramp.
One way or another, he went there on an impulse.
Again, you are grasping at straws. When Jack Ruby arrived at the DPD that day, Lee Oswald was supposed to have already left.
Some plot…
Besides, as some researchers have said, the conspirators decide to have Oswald silenced by Ruby. Then, someone has to silence Ruby. And then someone has to silence the guy who silenced Ruby.
I mean, silencing Oswald at the DPD, being certain to be arrested on the spot by the police ? Some plot…
Now, wait a minute. Are you denying that Ruby went to the Western Union office ?
If not, why did he go there ? Was it part of the plot ? "Go and kill Oswald in front of the whole police department, please, but make sure you send a non-important telegram beforehand !".
Some plot…
If you admit that Ruby did go to the Western Union office, how did he know how long it would take, and how many customers were in front of him waiting in line ?
As to the rest of your post, well, as far as the interviews being rigged by the FBI, well, I wonder what was not rigged in the investigation, according to you.
You are conveniently setting aside the fact that Jack Ruby did not talk only to FBI agents. He talked to a lot of people over the years. A lot. He even talked to his brother and his rabbi. So whatever the FBI rigged could not prevent us from knowing what Ruby had to say.
Lastly, I see that you take hand-picked bits of sentences by witnesses to try to prove your point, when you know very well that there were hundreds of people who gave testimony, amounting to thousands of sentences. A good researcher should know about the vulnerability of human memory.
A good researcher should not only collect information, he should synthetize that information !
The key is to get the general picture, no to hand-pick some tiny bits here and there out of context just because they suit your preconceived beliefs.
You should understand that by now !

[W. Tracy Parnell]

6 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

How does the LN theory fare with these data? Fred did not answer. And so I still do not know what a LN theorist thinks about data which so clearly disprove the LN view.

In a case with literally millions of pieces of information, it is impossible to deal with all of it. Professional investigators (FBI, Police agencies) know this and instead look to what the preponderance of the evidence shows happened to determine facts. This is especially true regarding witness statements which can (and will) vary significantly.

(scroll down to "Eyewitness testimony Questionable")

http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/h&l1.htm

[W. Tracy Parnell]

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Ruby killed Oswald on orders from Civello via Campisi. 

It's not enough to theorize, you have to prove it.

[Micah Mileto]

6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Andrej,

Bill & Gayle Newman are hardly the rock-solid "conspiracy" witnesses that CTers have made them out to be for over 50 years....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html

Jean Hill, as everybody should know, changed her story completely in later years....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/jean-hill.html

And when we examine all of Lee Bowers' statements (instead of just the stuff that Mark Lane would like to have us look at), it's pretty clear that Bowers' observations don't really bolster the "conspiracy" scenario very much (if at all)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/lee-bowers.html

And Ed Hoffman's account is pretty ludicrous....

http://educationforum.com/topic/22840/comment=329603

 

Your post on Bowers is missing the information from Beyond The Fence Line.

 

And IMO the best evidence for multiple shooters begins with evidence for shots from behind, a la Connally's statements, EOP wound, etc.

[James DiEugenio]

In Carlier's whole mishmash above, he somehow cannot bring himself to write the words: Sgt. Don Flusche.

Maybe because his name just happens to negate everything he wrote there about how Vaughn could have missed Ruby.

Francois, get this through your head:  Flusche was parked right across the street.  He had a view of not just the entryway, but the street leading into it.  He knew Ruby.  Therefore if he says that Ruby never came down the street or the ramp, then he did not.  And this is why the totally corrupt DPD kept him away from the WC.  

If this is a sample of your critical thinking skills?  

But further, there is the matter of Dean and his polygraph.  How on earth can you fail  a polygraph when you write your own questions?  Well he did. And the fact the FBI rigged Ruby's polygraph tells us something does it not?

Plus Dean lied about the rear door being secured which looks out at Western Union.  Do you also fail to comprehend that point?  I mean how many lies will your side put up with?

What about the horn noises that were later edited out of the NBC feed?  Which happen to coincide with Oswald arriving in the foyer and Ruby jumping forward to kill him. I mean when you see the unedited version of this, its positively eerie.  I am not saying that they mean anything, but I am saying its something people should be allowed to watch. Apparently someone thought otherwise.

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Guest]

I've been on self-imposed hiatus for almost 6 months.  I suppose it's comforting in a way to see that absolutely nothing has changed.  Same old, same old.

My intellectual trajectory has been the same as Fred Litwin's, but for somewhat different reasons.  For those who don't know who I am, I've been a lawyer for 35+ years (now retired), with most of my practice devoted to researching and writing complex motions and appellate briefs.

I was 13 when JFK was assassinated.  I started buying conspiracy books in the early 1970's and for the next 35 years devoured them like an addict.  For me it was not an issue as to whether there had been a conspiracy but merely which of the seemingly plausible theories was correct.  At one time I actually thought David Lifton made sense.  I even gobbled up Harvey and Lee.

My disillusionment began not with the JFK case itself.  I was deeply involved with many other areas where conspiracy theories abound - notably ufology, but also many other areas which I lump into the broad category of Weirdness.  This broader exposure caused me to become intimately familiar with the conspiracy mindset, way of thinking and way of analyzing evidence.

I gradually came to realize how truly bizarre the conspiracy mindset is, to such an extent that I became more interested in questions such as "Why do seemingly sane and intelligent people believe such patently goofy things?" than in, for example, what actually happened at Roswell in July of 1947.  The conspiracy mindset carries across all fields in which conspiracies abound, and it's always the same.  Every discrepancy in the testimony or evidence becomes evidence of a conspiracy; every undeniable fact receives a conspiracy spin; when speculation and inference are necessary, they inevitably tilt in the direction of conspiracy; the best evidence is deemphasized while every minor piece that can be used to support a conspiracy looms huge; anyone who disagrees must be an idiot or disinformation agent.

In essence, conspiracy theories are self-fulfilling prophecies.  If you start with a conspiracy mindset, you're always going to find a conspiracy and no one will ever talk you out of it.  To account for all the facts, your conspiracy may have to become so ornate and convoluted that it's comical to someone who doesn't share the conspiracy mindset, but you'll continue to love and nurture it with an almost religious zeal.

The conspiracy theorists in the JFK assassination community may laugh at the conspiracy theorists in ufology (and vice versa), and one JFK conspiracy theorist may laugh at another JFK conspiracy theorist's theory, but no conspiracy theorist ever sees the silliness in his own position.  It's all deadly serious and very important, which is why posts like Fred Litwin's generate such over-the-top responses.  The psychology of all this remains something of a mystery to me, but it's very real.

The one thing that really struck me was how conspiracy theorists seem to be sadly lacking in logic, common sense and real-world perspective.  Conspiracy theorists can never see that their theories simply don't make sense, that no real-world conspiracy ever could or would operate the way they theorize.  They become so bogged down in details and tangents that they can no longer see the forest for the trees.

When I stepped back and took a hard look at the various JFK assassination theories, I could see that none of them really made any sense at all.  Yes, a diversity of powerful people and organizations hated JFK and would have welcomed his death.  A conspiracy to assassinate him would have been entirely plausible.  But none of those powerful people and organizations would have conspired to assassinate JFK in the absurdly elaborate, clumsy way that conspiracy theorists suggest.

I suppose it was Harvey and Lee that finally pushed me over the edge and caused me to dive deeply for the first time into the Lone Nut literature and the specifics of Oswald's life and psychology.  Once I was as deeply steeped in that area as in the conspiracy literature, I could see that it had what the conspiracy theories lacked:  logic, common sense, plausibility.  I don't need to promote my ideas here, which would just stir up a hornet's nest anyway, but I am satisfied in my own mind that the assassination is entirely consistent with who LHO actually was during the week of the assassination.  Yes, there are many loose ends; there always are.  Yes, there are facts that might point toward a conspiracy of some sort; this is inevitable when the victim is despised by as many powerful people and organizations as JFK was.  But as someone who has made his living dealing with testimony, evidence and inferences, I believe like Fred Litwin that the Lone Nut explanation is the one that best squares with the most solid evidence, logic, common sense and real-world perspective.

The Lone Nut explanation is no fun.  You can't build a rollicking discussion forum around the Lone Nut explanation.  It isn't emotionally satisfying either, especially for those who more or less worship JFK.  It would be fascinating to me if the assassination were the product of an elaborate, multi-faceted conspiracy involving everyone from LBJ to grunts on the DPD, just as it would be fascinating if an alien craft actually did crash at Roswell.  But being pretty thoroughly steeped in both the conspiracy and Lone Nut literature and having given the subject a great deal of thought, I like Fred Litwin have evolved from Conspiracy Freak to Lone Nutter through a process of nothing more complicated than serious study, intellectual honesty and a refusal to be sucked into a conspiracy mindset. 

[François Carlier]

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I've been on self-imposed hiatus for almost 6 months.  I suppose it's comforting in a way to see that absolutely nothing has changed.  Same old, same old.

My intellectual trajectory has been the same as Fred Litwin's, but for somewhat different reasons.  For those who don't know who I am, I've been a lawyer for 35+ years (now retired), with most of my practice devoted to researching and writing complex motions and appellate briefs.

I was 13 when JFK was assassinated.  I started buying conspiracy books in the early 1970's and for the next 35 years devoured them like an addict.  For me it was not an issue as to whether there had been a conspiracy but merely which of the seemingly plausible theories was correct.  At one time I actually thought David Lifton made sense.  I even gobbled up Harvey and Lee.

My disillusionment began not with the JFK case itself.  I was deeply involved with many other areas where conspiracy theories abound - notably ufology, but also many other areas which I lump into the broad category of Weirdness.  This broader exposure caused me to become intimately familiar with the conspiracy mindset, way of thinking and way of analyzing evidence.

I gradually came to realize how truly bizarre the conspiracy mindset is, to such an extent that I became more interested in questions such as "Why do seemingly sane and intelligent people believe such patently goofy things?" than in, for example, what actually happened at Roswell in July of 1947.  The conspiracy mindset carries across all fields in which conspiracies abound, and it's always the same.  Every discrepancy in the testimony or evidence becomes evidence of a conspiracy; every undeniable fact receives a conspiracy spin; when speculation and inference are necessary, they inevitably tilt in the direction of conspiracy; the best evidence is deemphasized while every minor piece that can be used to support a conspiracy looms huge; anyone who disagrees must be an idiot or disinformation agent.

In essence, conspiracy theories are self-fulfilling prophecies.  If you start with a conspiracy mindset, you're always going to find a conspiracy and no one will ever talk you out of it.  To account for all the facts, your conspiracy may have to become so ornate and convoluted that it's comical to someone who doesn't share the conspiracy mindset, but you'll continue to love and nurture it with an almost religious zeal.

The conspiracy theorists in the JFK assassination community may laugh at the conspiracy theorists in ufology (and vice versa), and one JFK conspiracy theorist may laugh at another JFK conspiracy theorist's theory, but no conspiracy theorist ever sees the silliness in his own position.  It's all deadly serious and very important, which is why posts like Fred Litwin's generate such over-the-top responses.  The psychology of all this remains something of a mystery to me, but it's very real.

The one thing that really struck me was how conspiracy theorists seem to be sadly lacking in logic, common sense and real-world perspective.  Conspiracy theorists can never see that their theories simply don't make sense, that no real-world conspiracy ever could or would operate the way they theorize.  They become so bogged down in details and tangents that they can no longer see the forest for the trees.

When I stepped back and took a hard look at the various JFK assassination theories, I could see that none of them really made any sense at all.  Yes, a diversity of powerful people and organizations hated JFK and would have welcomed his death.  A conspiracy to assassinate him would have been entirely plausible.  But none of those powerful people and organizations would have conspired to assassinate JFK in the absurdly elaborate, clumsy way that conspiracy theorists suggest.

I suppose it was Harvey and Lee that finally pushed me over the edge and caused me to dive deeply for the first time into the Lone Nut literature and the specifics of Oswald's life and psychology.  Once I was as deeply steeped in that area as in the conspiracy literature, I could see that it had what the conspiracy theories lacked:  logic, common sense, plausibility.  I don't need to promote my ideas here, which would just stir up a hornet's nest anyway, but I am satisfied in my own mind that the assassination is entirely consistent with who LHO actually was during the week of the assassination.  Yes, there are many loose ends; there always are.  Yes, there are facts that might point toward a conspiracy of some sort; this is inevitable when the victim is despised by as many powerful people and organizations as JFK was.  But as someone who has made his living dealing with testimony, evidence and inferences, I believe like Fred Litwin that the Lone Nut explanation is the one that best squares with the most solid evidence, logic, common sense and real-world perspective.

The Lone Nut explanation is no fun.  You can't build a rollicking discussion forum around the Lone Nut explanation.  It isn't emotionally satisfying either, especially for those who more or less worship JFK.  It would be fascinating to me if the assassination were the product of an elaborate, multi-faceted conspiracy involving everyone from LBJ to grunts on the DPD, just as it would be fascinating if an alien craft actually did crash at Roswell.  But being pretty thoroughly steeped in both the conspiracy and Lone Nut literature and having given the subject a great deal of thought, I like Fred Litwin have evolved from Conspiracy Freak to Lone Nutter through a process of nothing more complicated than serious study, intellectual honesty and a refusal to be sucked into a conspiracy mindset. 

Congratulations for a very good post !
Well written.
Intelligent.
Right on the mark.
Well thought.
And so true !
I enjoyed reading it. I think the same way.
Good-quality posts like yours are rare in this forum.
Thank you very much.

[Andrej Stancak]

6 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Congratulations for a very good post !
Well written.
Intelligent.
Right on the mark.
Well thought.
And so true !
I enjoyed reading it. I think the same way.
Good-quality posts like yours are rare in this forum.
Thank you very much.

Interesting. I took it as a complete intellectual resignation by Lance who explains why he wishes to live in a state of a limbo.

[James DiEugenio]

The Single Bullet Fantasy has logic, common sense and plausibility says Lance.

Yeah sure, ask Carlos Hathcock.

 

Well, you cannot right now.  But his friend Craig Roberts did ask him before he passed on.  We all know what he said.

[Mathias Baumann]

9 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I've been on self-imposed hiatus for almost 6 months.  I suppose it's comforting in a way to see that absolutely nothing has changed.  Same old, same old.

My intellectual trajectory has been the same as Fred Litwin's, but for somewhat different reasons.  For those who don't know who I am, I've been a lawyer for 35+ years (now retired), with most of my practice devoted to researching and writing complex motions and appellate briefs.

I was 13 when JFK was assassinated.  I started buying conspiracy books in the early 1970's and for the next 35 years devoured them like an addict.  For me it was not an issue as to whether there had been a conspiracy but merely which of the seemingly plausible theories was correct.  At one time I actually thought David Lifton made sense.  I even gobbled up Harvey and Lee.

My disillusionment began not with the JFK case itself.  I was deeply involved with many other areas where conspiracy theories abound - notably ufology, but also many other areas which I lump into the broad category of Weirdness.  This broader exposure caused me to become intimately familiar with the conspiracy mindset, way of thinking and way of analyzing evidence.

I gradually came to realize how truly bizarre the conspiracy mindset is, to such an extent that I became more interested in questions such as "Why do seemingly sane and intelligent people believe such patently goofy things?" than in, for example, what actually happened at Roswell in July of 1947.  The conspiracy mindset carries across all fields in which conspiracies abound, and it's always the same.  Every discrepancy in the testimony or evidence becomes evidence of a conspiracy; every undeniable fact receives a conspiracy spin; when speculation and inference are necessary, they inevitably tilt in the direction of conspiracy; the best evidence is deemphasized while every minor piece that can be used to support a conspiracy looms huge; anyone who disagrees must be an idiot or disinformation agent.

In essence, conspiracy theories are self-fulfilling prophecies.  If you start with a conspiracy mindset, you're always going to find a conspiracy and no one will ever talk you out of it.  To account for all the facts, your conspiracy may have to become so ornate and convoluted that it's comical to someone who doesn't share the conspiracy mindset, but you'll continue to love and nurture it with an almost religious zeal.

The conspiracy theorists in the JFK assassination community may laugh at the conspiracy theorists in ufology (and vice versa), and one JFK conspiracy theorist may laugh at another JFK conspiracy theorist's theory, but no conspiracy theorist ever sees the silliness in his own position.  It's all deadly serious and very important, which is why posts like Fred Litwin's generate such over-the-top responses.  The psychology of all this remains something of a mystery to me, but it's very real.

The one thing that really struck me was how conspiracy theorists seem to be sadly lacking in logic, common sense and real-world perspective.  Conspiracy theorists can never see that their theories simply don't make sense, that no real-world conspiracy ever could or would operate the way they theorize.  They become so bogged down in details and tangents that they can no longer see the forest for the trees.

When I stepped back and took a hard look at the various JFK assassination theories, I could see that none of them really made any sense at all.  Yes, a diversity of powerful people and organizations hated JFK and would have welcomed his death.  A conspiracy to assassinate him would have been entirely plausible.  But none of those powerful people and organizations would have conspired to assassinate JFK in the absurdly elaborate, clumsy way that conspiracy theorists suggest.

I suppose it was Harvey and Lee that finally pushed me over the edge and caused me to dive deeply for the first time into the Lone Nut literature and the specifics of Oswald's life and psychology.  Once I was as deeply steeped in that area as in the conspiracy literature, I could see that it had what the conspiracy theories lacked:  logic, common sense, plausibility.  I don't need to promote my ideas here, which would just stir up a hornet's nest anyway, but I am satisfied in my own mind that the assassination is entirely consistent with who LHO actually was during the week of the assassination.  Yes, there are many loose ends; there always are.  Yes, there are facts that might point toward a conspiracy of some sort; this is inevitable when the victim is despised by as many powerful people and organizations as JFK was.  But as someone who has made his living dealing with testimony, evidence and inferences, I believe like Fred Litwin that the Lone Nut explanation is the one that best squares with the most solid evidence, logic, common sense and real-world perspective.

The Lone Nut explanation is no fun.  You can't build a rollicking discussion forum around the Lone Nut explanation.  It isn't emotionally satisfying either, especially for those who more or less worship JFK.  It would be fascinating to me if the assassination were the product of an elaborate, multi-faceted conspiracy involving everyone from LBJ to grunts on the DPD, just as it would be fascinating if an alien craft actually did crash at Roswell.  But being pretty thoroughly steeped in both the conspiracy and Lone Nut literature and having given the subject a great deal of thought, I like Fred Litwin have evolved from Conspiracy Freak to Lone Nutter through a process of nothing more complicated than serious study, intellectual honesty and a refusal to be sucked into a conspiracy mindset. 

Hello Lance,

Saying that extraterrestrials from another solar system have visitied Earth is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. In the case of UFOs there's no extraordinary evidence for their existence - at least none that I'm aware of. Also, the laws of physics show that space ships can't travel at the speed of light, not even close to it, so a journey from here to the closest star would take millennia.

In comparison saying that President Kennedy was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy is NOT an extraordinary claim. In fact throughout history we've seen numerous examples of political conspiracies to kill heads of state. Think of Caesar, Lincoln, the Austrian Archduke etc.

On the other hand the laws of physics tell us that bullets travel in a straight line unless they are deflected by a solid object. And we have physical evidence (the holes in Kennedy's clothes) that strongly suggests that a trajectory from the 6th floor was just not possible. We also have scientific evidence of a shot on the grassy knoll, which is supported by the testimony of dozens of witnesss who either heard a gunshot, saw smoke or smelled gun powder there. Also, scientific experiments show that bullets are deformed considerably when they hit solid objects, unlike the "magic" bullet.

We also have strong evidence that Oswald met with people who had the means and the motive to kill the President (Cuban exiles, David Ferrie). We know that Jack Ruby, Oswald's murderer, had ties to people who had the means and the motive to kill the President (La Cosa Nostra).

So I think a better comparison would be the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II. It's also surrounded by many wild conspiracy theories. Who pulled the strings? Was it the Mafia? Gladio, NATO's secret army? The KGB? Arab terrorists? Turkish Intelligence? We don't know. But what we DO KNOW is that there WAS a conspiracy. Because other gunmen were caught in St Peter's square. (And by the way there's a peculiar similarity between Oswald and Ali Agca. Both had traveled abroad shortly before the respective assassinations, thus creating false leads... Agca supposedly met with a Turkish Mafia boss in Bulgaria.)

So just because some people concoct "wild" conspiracy theories does NOT necessarily mean there was no conspiracy at all. The actual conspiracy may have been very small, possibly just a handful of people. But Oswald was carefully chosen for his "Communist" background. The conspirators most certainly knew of his meeting with Kostikov and that this trail would lead the investigators to Moscow and Havana. So there was no need for them to cover up anything, the authorities would take care of that in order to prevent an international crisis and possibly a nuclear war. To explain the Kennedy assassination you do NOT have to presume that the conspirators controled all levers of power.

However, some of the conspirators probably had access to confidential information on Oswald (the Kostikov meeting).

We know that the Mafia, Cuban exiles, and CIA agents had co-operated in political assassinations before. And each of these groups had their own respective reasons to get rid of Kennedy. So in my mind it is perfectly reasonable to assume that individuals from each group might have conspired to carry out an assassination on Kennedy. In fact I'd be very surprided if that topic had never come up in those circles.

In other words I think you don't need to have "conspiracy mindset" to make a reasonable case for conspiracy.

 

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The Single Bullet Fantasy has logic, common sense and plausibility says Lance.

Yeah sure, ask Carlos Hathcock.

 

Well, you cannot right now.  But his friend Craig Roberts did ask him before he passed on.  We all know what he said.

Hello James,

do you know where I can find detailed information on the tests Hathcock performed? All I can seem to find on the Internet is that quote from "Killzone". Do you have the book? What was Roberts' original source?

Edited October 8, 2018 by Mathias Baumann

[W. Tracy Parnell]

9 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I like Fred Litwin have evolved from Conspiracy Freak to Lone Nutter through a process of nothing more complicated than serious study, intellectual honesty and a refusal to be sucked into a conspiracy mindset. 

Great post Lance. Hopefully, you won't be a stranger here.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

28 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

In comparison saying that President Kennedy was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy is NOT an extraordinary claim.

It is when there exists a perfectly rational alternate explanation with evidence to back it up. The burden of proof then shifts in this case to the conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately, very few of them agree about anything regarding this case. Take the H&L theory for example. An informal poll here showed the majority do not agree with it. Another case is the umbrella man who was the subject of a recent thread. For some reason I can't discern, some people here still believe there is something to this even though Louie Witt came forward to ID himself and he looks exactly like photos of the UM as Jerry Organ showed. I am willing to bet there are many (again probably a majority) who would discount this debunked theory. So, until an alternate CT theory is developed that refutes the WC/HSCA with evidence accepted by scientists, academia and the media, the CT community is resigned to speculation.

[Mathias Baumann]

6 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

It is when there exists a perfectly rational alternate explanation with evidence to back it up. The burden of proof then shifts in this case to the conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately, very few of them agree about anything regarding this case. Take the H&L theory for example. An informal poll here showed the majority do not agree with it. Another case is the umbrella man who was the subject of a recent thread. For some reason I can't discern, some people here still believe there is something to this even though Louie Witt came forward to ID himself and he looks exactly like photos of the UM as Jerry Organ showed. I am willing to bet there are many (again probably a majority) who would discount this debunked theory. So, until an alternate CT theory is developed that refutes the WC/HSCA with evidence accepted by scientists, academia and the media, the CT community is resigned to speculation.

The single bullet theory is NOT a rational explanation. It violates the laws of physics. Bullets travel in a straight line unless they are deflected by a solid object. But President Kennedy was not leaning forward when the "single" bullet hit him.

The involvement of other gunmen is NOT speculation. It is backed up by the testimony of numerous witnesses AND scientific evidence.

[Mathias Baumann]

17 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

 So, until an alternate CT theory is developed that refutes the WC/HSCA with evidence accepted by scientists, academia and the media, the CT community is resigned to speculation.

And by the way... are you aware that the HSCA concluded there was a high probability that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy?