Jefferson Morley on JFK Revisited

[Pat Speer]

43 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Morley v. Reynolds ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

Jeez Louise. I started to read your article and quit about ten paragraphs in when you kept playing with the words "conspiracy theorist." Yes, in one definition a conspiracy theorist is someone who theorizes a conspiracy. But no, you can not paint someone as a "conspiracy theorist" unless this is a pattern in their behavior, such as someone who always blames the Jews or the Guv'ment for anything they don't like about their life. I, for one, am a conspiracy theorist when it comes the Kennedy assassination. And I'm on the fence on some other historical events. But, by and large, I reject most of the popular conspiracy theories, such as the moon landing being a hoax or Princes Di being murdered by the Queen or whatever. So, while I am a conspiracy theorist--small letters--regarding JFK--I am not a Conspiracy Theorist--in caps--in life. The CIA plan outlined in 67 was to ID and paint all conspiracy theorists on the Kennedy assassination as Conspiracy Theorists, and lump them in with the Birchers who thought putting fluoride in the water was a communist plot. It was an attempt to both discredit those making inroads into the public's awareness of the assassination, and AVOID an actual discussion of the evidence.

This tactic serves the same purpose today. The "Well, we can't trust him, he's a conspiracy theorist" is an embarrassing argument, and quite often a hypocritical one. If you recall, your hero John McAdams was a global warming denier who insisted all the experts saying the world was warming due to the actions of human were pressured into doing so by a Guv'ment out to control big business. He then later bullied a student teacher and went on TV crying about how the libs running Marquette had conspired against him, blah, blah, blah. In short, he was one of the biggest and whiniest conspiracy theorists I've ever come across. 

A number of those on the Oswald-did-it side of this argument are of a similar bent. A large number of the Oswald-did-it crowd have pushed that men like Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Oliver Stone were functioning as puppets of Russia, or at the very least victims of Russian propaganda. Some, like David Belin, and LBJ, for that matter, saw the discrediting of the WC as a plot against the government, and, more specifically, a plot to undermine faith in American institutions. LBJ even went so far as to say that RFK was behind all this for his own political gain. Others make the equally spurious claim that many of those doubting Oswald's guilt are doing so for the money (Yes, the vast sums of money one gets from selling 20 books at a conference...woohoo!). 

So quit with the smoke, will ya? If we can agree that many if not most people on both sides of the fence regarding Oswald's guilt are conspiracy theorists on one topic or another then maybe I can get up the nerve to finish your article. 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

25 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Jeez Louise. I started to read your article and quit about ten paragraphs in when you kept playing with the words "conspiracy theorist."

Thanks, Pat, for your comments. You are certainly one of the more reasonable (and respected) CTs. I realize the part about conspiracy theories may not be popular, but it is fact based-I went to an expert. Uscinski notes that he uses the phrase throughout his book "neutrally", but people seem to take great offense from it.  I've been called a "lone nutter" a CIA schill and other things I can't write. It's just part of the game.

Of course, I am not saying that Morley believes that 9/11 was an inside job or the moon landing was faked. I am hard on Morley because he is supposed to be a journalist and he is having a significant effect on public opinion because of the high-profile websites he often appears on. My point is that Morley wants to distance himself from the term but he really can't-he is promoting a theory that Oswald was innocent. Now, if he (or anyone) can prove it, he/they will be a hero.

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Morley wants to distance himself from the term but he really can't-he is promoting a theory that Oswald was innocent. Now, if he (or anyone) can prove it, he/they will be a hero.

Oswald was never convicted in a courtroom, so is technically legally “innocent”. The various mechanisms (i.e. the Warren Commission and mainstream media presentations) which have proclaimed Oswald’s certain guilt have relied almost entirely on prosecutor’s briefs, without benefit of a defence rebuttal or cross examination to their arguments. The cross examinations have required other forums, and are derided as “conspiracy theories”. The game being played here has been obvious for a rather long time.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Oswald was never convicted in a courtroom, so is technically legally “innocent”. The various mechanisms (i.e. the Warren Commission and mainstream media presentations) which have proclaimed Oswald’s certain guilt have relied almost entirely on prosecutor’s briefs, without benefit of a defence rebuttal or cross examination to their arguments. The cross examinations have required other forums, and are derided as “conspiracy theories”. The game being played here has been obvious for a rather long time.

Being technically legally innocent isn't the same as being innocent. And I disagree that there has been no rebuttal to the WC etc. Bugliosi calculated that as of 2007 there had been nearly 1000 books written exclusively on the assassination. Now, I've never counted but it is safe to assume that the majority of these were conspiracy oriented. Add to that Oliver Stone's enormous influence through his film JFK and his current documentary. And even people like yourself writing on JFK forums. So, all of these have functioned as a de facto defense team for Oswald. The epistemological authorities that Uscinski writes about have not been persuaded though.

[Jeff Carter]

28 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Being technically legally innocent isn't the same as being innocent. 

The legal definition of innocent is “not guilty of a crime or offence”. Oswald was never tried or found guilty.

28 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

And I disagree that there has been no rebuttal to the WC etc. 

You misrepresent the point: the tribunals which proscribed a presumption of Oswald guilt did so without benefit of cross-examination or rebuttal. So they weren’t really a proper constituted exercise in determining the facts, in that their structure more resembled what is generally known as a “kangaroo court”.

[Ron Bulman]

There was not a trial.  Innocent until proven guilty is still innoncent until proven guilty.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[Joseph McBride]

While watching the trial-by-television and televised execution of

Oswald from November 22-24, 1963, I first realized that in our country, despite

what the Constitution says, people accused of crimes

are guilty until proven innocent. As I write in my

new book POLITICAL TRUTH: THE MEDIA AND THE ASSASSINATION OF

PRESIDENT KENNEDY:

 

My interviews for Into the Nightmare with former Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade and Detective James Leavelle, who was in charge of the Tippit case and participated in Oswald’s interrogations (which were not tape-recorded), indicated similar doubts they did not share with the public. Leavelle told me that Captain Will Fritz, the chief of homicide who was in charge of the investigation, told him that Friday to concentrate on the Tippit murder, because the evidence for the assassination was relatively weak. Fritz said, “Well, go ahead and make a tight case on him in case we have trouble making this one on the presidential shooting.” A little-noticed FBI document from November 25 indicates that Oswald was never even arraigned for shooting the president: “No arraignment on the murder charges in connection with the death of President KENNEDY was held inasmuch as such arraignment was not necessary in view of the previous charges filed against OSWALD and for which he was arraigned.” Oswald was arraigned only for shooting Tippit, a case in which the evidence was also weak. When I asked Leavelle why he thought they had a better case in the Tippit murder, he replied that unlike in the Kennedy shooting, they had “witnesses.” In fact the Tippit witnesses varied widely, with some reluctant to identify Oswald as the killer, some doing so only considerably later, and some saying two men had committed the crime and that the shooter did not resemble Oswald. And there never were any credible eyewitnesses produced to implicate Oswald in firing at Kennedy.

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

13 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The legal definition of innocent is “not guilty of a crime or offence”. Oswald was never tried or found guilty.

You misrepresent the point: the tribunals which proscribed a presumption of Oswald guilt did so without benefit of cross-examination or rebuttal. So they weren’t really a proper constituted exercise in determining the facts, in that their structure more resembled what is generally known as a “kangaroo court”.

You are correct-Oswald is "legally" innocent because he was never tried. That doesn't prove he didn't kill JFK however. 

Like it or not, the epistemological authorities in this matter have spoken. They are the WC, the HSCA, the Church Commitee, the Clark Panel, the Dallas Police, the FBI and so on. Oswald is guilty, not legally, but as a practical matter. 

Here is what you need to do to reverse that situation. For example, Jim D. thinks that Stone's new film has revealed amazing facts that the epistemological authorities should be taking note of. One of these is the statement of Sandra Spencer saying she saw a separate set of autopsy photos. These photos showed a hole in the back of JFK's head.

But the news media, which is the first epistemological authority that would need to become interested in the allegation, discounts her story. Why? Because they know witness statements are inherently unreliable. Especially those made over 30 years after the event. Now, if Spencer, or anyone, could produce the photos she allegedly saw they could be submitted for verification. If deemed legitimate, you would have something. And the media and all the authorities would be forced to act. So far, nothing like this has happened.

[Cory Santos]

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

You are correct-Oswald is "legally" innocent because he was never tried. That doesn't prove he didn't kill JFK however. 

Like it or not, the epistemological authorities in this matter have spoken. They are the WC, the HSCA, the Church Commitee, the Clark Panel, the Dallas Police, the FBI and so on. Oswald is guilty, not legally, but as a practical matter. 

Here is what you need to do to reverse that situation. For example, Jim D. thinks that Stone's new film has revealed amazing facts that the epistemological authorities should be taking note of. One of these is the statement of Sandra Spencer saying she saw a separate set of autopsy photos. These photos showed a hole in the back of JFK's head.

But the news media, which is the first epistemological authority that would need to become interested in the allegation, discounts her story. Why? Because they know witness statements are inherently unreliable. Especially those made over 30 years after the event. Now, if Spencer, or anyone, could produce the photos she allegedly saw they could be submitted for verification. If deemed legitimate, you would have something. And the media and all the authorities would be forced to act. So far, nothing like this has happened.

I think you miss an important point.  Generally, a determination of guilt is made by a jury of your peers; sometimes by a judge alone based on the charge(s).   Here, a jury would have made the decision based on the charges.  

I think it is fair to say, based on consistent public polling, the general American public:

1- Does not believe LHO Oswald acting alone, with no assistance from anyone and with no participation in a conspiracy or under duress from anyone shot JFK. 
 

2-    Does not believe Jack Ruby, acting alone, with no assistance from anyone and with no participation in a conspiracy or under duress from anyone shot LHO.  
 

face it, all these decades since and your side cannot prove conclusively the two above points to quiet the conspiracy crowd nor even the general public.

[Ron Bulman]

23 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The legal definition of innocent is “not guilty of a crime or offence”. Oswald was never tried or found guilty.

You misrepresent the point: the tribunals which proscribed a presumption of Oswald guilt did so without benefit of cross-examination or rebuttal. So they weren’t really a proper constituted exercise in determining the facts, in that their structure more resembled what is generally known as a “kangaroo court”.

I've linked it before, but kangaroo Court Indedd.

 

[Pat Speer]

On 1/15/2022 at 6:04 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Being technically legally innocent isn't the same as being innocent. And I disagree that there has been no rebuttal to the WC etc. Bugliosi calculated that as of 2007 there had been nearly 1000 books written exclusively on the assassination. Now, I've never counted but it is safe to assume that the majority of these were conspiracy oriented. Add to that Oliver Stone's enormous influence through his film JFK and his current documentary. And even people like yourself writing on JFK forums. So, all of these have functioned as a de facto defense team for Oswald. The epistemological authorities that Uscinski writes about have not been persuaded though.

Yikes. What the heck is an "epistemological authority?" There is no such thing, as far as I can see. I've had numerous discussions and email exchanges with lawyers for the Warren Commission (You know, the ones who did all the work and wrote the report), and have attempted as much with Robert Blakey, chief lawyer for the HSCA. And it was clear to me from these exchanges (and from reading books and articles by the likes of Belin, Specter, and Willens) that there are dozens if not hundreds of people on forums like this who have a much greater understanding of the evidence than they. For them, this was like a trig class they took in high school. They got through it but have very little recollection of what it was they got through, and have no interest in cracking open the textbooks and studying. 

The same goes for the numerous doctors and journalists with whom I've discussed this case. Very few if any of them have ever spent time in the archives and then read the autopsy report and eyewitness testimony in the context of a hundred years of wound ballistics literature. In my experience, they will do most anything other than read, and learn. (And yes, this goes for those on both sides of the fence.) 

You act like there are "epistemological authorities" absorbing all the information shared on websites like this, and then calling balls and strikes, when, in fact, I've never met a single journalist or doctor (outside Dr. Doug DeSalles, gotta give props to Doug) who has the slightest interest in reading or learning anything new about the case. 

This was made evident, moreover, by the media's response to Stone's film. As pointed out by Jim D, they relied on Posner to debunk material there's no evidence he's ever studied, as the bulk of the material in the film derived from documents released after Posner's book was published.

It bears repeating, moreover, that Harold Weisberg, working with his attorney Jim Lesar, was responsible for the release of more documents, and the unveiling of more secrets regarding the JFK assassination, than all the news agencies, publishing houses, libraries, and think tanks combined. The media's response has been so negligent, in fact, that it failed to report the government's movement of the small entrance on the back of JFK's head when the Clark Panel report was released in 1969. Well, what were these epistemological authorities doing? This wasn't a discovery first posted on a website, or forum, or published in a self-published volume. This was a government report presented to the media as part of a press release. And yet, none of these epistemological authorities noticed that the entrance would had been moved, and was now considered compatible with a trajectory from the sniper's nest?

So, no, no matter what your friend says, relying on epistemological authorities to come around regarding historical truths is just silly. They have nothing to gain by re-writing the past, and everything to gain by saying it's all okie-doke and those disagreeing with them are "conspiracy theorists." 

So how does history get corrected, or at the very least re-written? Not by the epistemological authorities, but by muckrakers and cranks like Stone. They bring up some points, and reach enough people to start a small wave. And then wait. As demonstrated in Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the main factor in over-turning a faulty assessment in science (and history) is not an epistemological authority that calls balls and strikes and re-writes the books, but Time. In time, those holding onto the "old truths" die off and those accepting the new truths as reasonable write new books and articles and accepted science (and history) gets changed.

We've seen this in our lifetimes, over and over again. When I first started absorbing history books and articles as a teen, it was considered a bit wacky to think the Japanese were trying to surrender before we dropped a bomb on Hiroshima, or that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was anything but an unprovoked attack, or that Nixon as a candidate sabotaged President Johnson's attempts to wind down the war in Vietnam. We now know better. Similarly, in regards to the assassination, there were all sorts of facts formerly dismissed by the authorities as wacky that are now accepted and even promoted by the media, such as the fact the limo was cleaned up by the SS outside Parkland, or that JFK's back wound was not on the back of his neck, as originally reported in the WR. 

It takes time, but the truth trickles out in stages. Unfortunately, however, other stuff trickles out with it that makes it hard to tell which of this stuff is true. I mean, think about the Lincoln assassination. I've read that as many books have been written about the JFK assassination, still more have been written about the Lincoln assassination. And that many of these offer up theories as to who was sponsoring Booth, and whether or not Jeff Davis was behind the whole thing. Now, on this point, I have no real opinion. There's a lot to read, and probably little pay-off. Which is kinda my point. So much has been written about the JFK assassination that the chances of an "epistemological authority" actually reading anything beyond the WR and Posner are slim and none. 

So, into this void, leaps Stone. While there's undoubtedly some nonsense in his film, it isn't all nonsense, and the knee-jerk response of much of the media--by relying on the likes of Chomsky and Posner as opposed to actually studying the documents-- signals that once again they've refused to do their homework and have, once again, demonstrated the fallacy of their being "epistemological authorities."

Edited January 17, 2022 by Pat Speer

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

What the heck is an "epistemological authority?" There is no such thing, as far as I can see.

The term relates to the discussion of conspiracy theories. It comes, not from me, but from Professor Uscinski, an expert on the subject. 

Uscinski explains:

"An appropriate epistemological authority, therefore, is one that is trained to assess knowledge claims in a relevant area and draw conclusions from valid data using recognized methods in an unbiased way."

Of course, I understand that just about no one here at EF believes the WC was unbiased. But Uscinski does mention Presidential commissions, congress and the FBI as examples of these authorities. So, these are the kind of authorities that the conspiracy people must convince.

The problem with having Stone as a mechanism for change is one that you have alluded to-his poor track record. JFK the film was full of falsehoods and Dave Reitzes found 100 of them. And as you say, there is at least some "nonsense" in his current documentary (I would say most of it is). So, the authorities you must convince will ignore him for this reason. 

Now, maybe your assessment of the situation is more accurate than mine and eventually the current epistemological authorities will die off and be replaced by new ones amenable to your position. Time will tell and anything is possible.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The term relates to the discussion of conspiracy theories. It comes, not from me, but from Professor Uscinski, an expert on the subject. 

Uscinski explains:

"An appropriate epistemological authority, therefore, is one that is trained to assess knowledge claims in a relevant area and draw conclusions from valid data using recognized methods in an unbiased way."

Of course, I understand that just about no one here at EF believes the WC was unbiased. But Uscinski does mention Presidential commissions, congress and the FBI as examples of these authorities. So, these are the kind of authorities that the conspiracy people must convince.

The problem with having Stone as a mechanism for change is one that you have alluded to-his poor track record. JFK the film was full of falsehoods and Dave Reitzes found 100 of them. And as you say, there is at least some "nonsense" in his current documentary (I would say most of it is). So, the authorities you must convince will ignore him for this reason. 

Now, maybe your assessment of the situation is more accurate than mine and eventually the current epistemological authorities will die off and be replaced by new ones amenable to your position. Time will tell and anything is possible.

 

Yes, I remember from your article that Uscinski used the term. But my point is that I don't think it's anything real. In looking back over the past hundred years or so, commissions, congress and the FBI have had little sway over the public's perception of history. Books, TV, and movies have had far more influence, IMO. Now, this is often to the public's detriment. I think we can agree that Max Holland's missing bullet theory and the Hickey-did-it theory are needless distractions that muddy the waters for those on both sides of the Oswald-did-it fence. And yet I encounter people all the time whose exposure to the case came from TV shows pushing these theories, and they are reluctant to let go of what they saw (and experienced) on TV. 

One of the great misnomers about the case, moreover, is that Stone's JFK movie caused a huge shift on this. As an interested observer, who talks to people all the time about this, it's clear to me Stone's movie had little effect on the conspiracy/no conspiracy angle to the case, but helped sway a lot of those already suspecting a conspiracy to point their fingers at the military and/or CIA as participants, as opposed to the number one bad guy leading up to Stone's movie: the mafia. 

I would suggest, for that matter, that awful books like O'Reilly's have had more sway over the public as a whole, as it helped fool a lot of older conservatives into thinking those pushing a conspiracy theory on JFK's assassination are part of the evil left that's out to destroy America and burn Christmas to the ground, whatever... It is ironic, then, that Mr. Trump has now reversed this course, and has convinced those who may have been convinced by O'Reilly to trust the Warren Commission into distrusting "epistemological authorities" as a whole. And now conspiracy theories in general, including those involving JFK, are flourishing on both sides of the right/left fence. 

And yes, I would agree that we were probably better off when Walter Cronkite or Johnny Carson or whomever could say something and most of the public would believe it, than we are today, where very few listen to what the other "side" is saying, and people pick their "epistemological authorities" from a favorites list of podcasts on their iphones. 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The term relates to the discussion of conspiracy theories. It comes, not from me, but from Professor Uscinski, an expert on the subject. 

Uscinski explains:

"An appropriate epistemological authority, therefore, is one that is trained to assess knowledge claims in a relevant area and draw conclusions from valid data using recognized methods in an unbiased way."

Of course, I understand that just about no one here at EF believes the WC was unbiased. But Uscinski does mention Presidential commissions, congress and the FBI as examples of these authorities. So, these are the kind of authorities that the conspiracy people must convince.

The problem with having Stone as a mechanism for change is one that you have alluded to-his poor track record. JFK the film was full of falsehoods and Dave Reitzes found 100 of them. And as you say, there is at least some "nonsense" in his current documentary (I would say most of it is). So, the authorities you must convince will ignore him for this reason. 

Now, maybe your assessment of the situation is more accurate than mine and eventually the current epistemological authorities will die off and be replaced by new ones amenable to your position. Time will tell and anything is possible.

 

I follow the point on the term "epistemological authority". It is like a wise old professor emeritus I knew, a holocaust refugee who had become a formidable scholar, told me once: politically and on human rights he believed in equality, he said (he was opposed to social classism), but on scholarship he was an elitist: not all ideas and not all who advocate ideas are equal. 

But on the Warren Commission as one of those epistemological authorities: how does one assess it if the Warren Commission's published conclusion was "there was no conspiracy" but a majority of the seven signatories of the Warren Commission actually believed, at the time they signed it, that there was, against their own signatures to a report asserting the opposite? I believe it is essentially uncontested that at least three of the seven (Boggs, Cooper, Russell) disagreed that Oswald acted alone. And according to Russell, in a WSB-TV, Atlanta, Ga. interview, Feb 11, 1970, it was at least four. Russell:

"I never believed that Lee Harvey Oswald planned that altogether by himself ... [T]here were so many circumstances there that led me to believe that you couldn't just completely eliminate the possibility that he did have some co-conspirators ... I'm not completely satisfied in my own mind that he did plan and commit this act altogether on his own, without consultation with anyone else. And that's what a majority of the Committee wanted to find." (cited https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_pm/133/ )

A fourth who Russell may have had in mind which would constitute a majority of the seven may have been McCloy, whose position on the conspiracy matter seems equivocal or debated at the time of publication of the Warren Report (I have not studied McCloy thoroughly). But McCloy in 1978: "I no longer feel we simply had no credible evidence or reliable evidence in proof of a conspiracy ..." (cited in A. and R. Summers, "The Ghosts of November", Dec. 1994 Vanity Fair, https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/1994/12/the-ghosts-of-november).

And so here is the oddity that, according to testimony of one of the members of the Warren Commission (fairly credible witness testimony), a majority of the Warren Commission disagreed with their own unanimous published conclusion that responsibility for the JFK assassination began and ended with Oswald alone. A majority of the Commissioners wanted to find differently than they did, according to Commissioner Russell.

Then there is that later claim of French president Giscard D'Estaing that one of the other of the seven, Ford, told him the Commissioners believed there was a conspiracy but had never been able to prove it. However that is not supported by anything known from Ford himself. However it could also easily have come from Ford saying something like, *"Yes, Giscard, some of us did consider and suspect there was a conspiracy, but we never were able to find any evidence for that"--that would not be inconsistent with Ford's public record. 

It has been reported that pretty much all of the European nations' intelligence agencies, and the intelligence agency of the Soviet Union, believed that there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. If US epistemological authorities concluded otherwise they were outliers, in the spectrum of judgment of world epistemological authorities. 

The second major US investigation, HSCA, an epistemological authority, concluded in print that there was a conspiracy, though that was on the basis of an acoustics argument which majority expert opinion overturned and remains rejected today, in term of majority expert opinion. Rejection of that acoustics argument removes the positive evidence cited by HSCA as proving there was a conspiracy (a fourth shot from a different direction), however without the acoustics evidence HSCA likely still would have concluded by leaving the conspiracy question open. As I recall HSCA concluded that Marcello and Trafficante had means, motive, and opportunity to kill JFK though HSCA had not found evidence of such, but had not excluded a Mob role in the assassination either. Blakey, chief counsel of HSCA, speaking personally: "The Mob did it ... It is a historical truth". 

So one US epistemological authority's published conclusion, that of the Warren Commission, unanimous (all seven signed), was "no conspiracy", while there are credible reports that a majority of those Warren Commission signatories disagreed with their own unanimous published conclusion and believed "there was a conspiracy". And the second, HSCA, does say in its published conclusion that there was a conspiracy (though the basis for that is widely understood subsequently to have been discredited by epistemological authorities), and its chief counsel, Blakey, considered the indications that JFK was hit by the Mob to be so strong as not to be simply theory but fact. Hoover's FBI, however, concluded there was "no conspiracy" and there may have been other government agency investigations which concluded the same on the conspiracy question though I cannot specifically cite any. I don't think the Dallas Police Department issued a formal opinion on the JFK assassination conspiracy question. The sense is that whereas Dallas police essentially unanimously believed Oswald killed Tippit alone, that Oswald killed JFK alone was not nearly so unanimous, from Chief Curry on down. 

It may be objected that the Commissioners of the Warren Commission were basically figureheads rubber-stamping their signatures on a report prepared by staff rewriting FBI reporting which did the actual work, and that would be true. Probably most Supreme Court decisions published in the name of the Justices represent mostly staff work too, but it comes out in the name of the Justices and the Court itself. What would we think of a unanimous Supreme Court decision if a majority of the Supreme Court justices said they privately believed that unanimous ruling had been a wrong ruling and if it had been up to them they would have ruled differently? Where would the epistemological authority be in that case?

Also speaking of "conspiracy theorist", take the murder of Jimmy Hoffa. It is safe to say everyone believes that was a conspiracy. I assume the reason people who believe Hoffa was whacked are not called "conspiracy theorists" is because that is considered a "conspiracy fact" not a theory (by epistemological authorities)? And yet formally the Hoffa killing has never been solved--the "whacked/conspiracy" assumption, just as in the cases of other high-profile unsolved gangland killings such as of Roselli and Giancana, are just assumptions, however assumptions that nobody seriously questions. This would be analogous to how essentially every national intelligence agency on earth other than in the US also just assumed JFK had been whacked, certainly before but probably still in most cases after the Warren Commission's findings. 

The verdict of epistemological authorities on the issue of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK therefore seems more equivocal than it is sometimes presented.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[W. Tracy Parnell]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The verdict of epistemological authorities on the issue of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK therefore seems more equivocal than it is sometimes presented.

That may be true to a degree because people are naturally suspicious and amenable to conspiracies. I believe Uscinski mentioned that most people probably believe in at least one conspiracy.