The Kennedy Assassination And The Persistence Of Conspiracy Theories -- Part II

“Conspiracy theory” — the label evokes connotations of something so preposterous that it couldn’t possibly be true. With an obvious simple explanation for some incident easily at hand, generally involving a single perpetrator or a natural cause, the alternative “conspiracy theory” posits that a large group of people plotted to bring the incident about. The very size of the posited group alone makes the conspiracy theory seem unlikely, because such a large group could never hope to keep the secret. And then, in the classic conspiracy theory, the large group of conspirators consists mostly or entirely of agents of the government, who have allegedly acted in nefarious and illegal ways against the interests of the people they are sworn to serve, and have then also covered up their illegal conduct. Our government employees and officials may not be perfect, but surely they would not carry out, and then cover up, massive illegal conspiracies against the interests of the people.

Put these factors together, and you can see why sticking the label “conspiracy theory” on a hypothesis has long been an effective way to dismiss that hypothesis out of hand. It’s a “conspiracy theory” — and therefore it is so preposterous that there is no need to deal with its specifics. And, generally speaking, far more often than not, the obvious simple explanation of the incident is likely to be correct.

But not always. And indeed over the last several years we have seen one after another hypothesis initially branded as a “conspiracy theory” later established to be true, at least within the limits that truth can be known in our imperfect world. In multiple cases the conspiracy theories have been vindicated after years of having been vociferously denounced and belittled and censored by the media. To list just a few of the most notorious:

- The theory that members of the FBI conspired to obtain illegal warrants and then to spy on the 2016 Trump campaign for President.

- The theory that members of the Hillary Clinton campaign, together with friendly law firms and campaign consultants and researchers, conspired to produce and pay for and spread to the media fake opposition research painting Donald Trump as having “colluded” with Russia during the 2016 campaign.

- The theory that there was a massive government sponsored censorship apparatus that conspired with social media platforms during the Biden administration to suppress speech of conservative speakers.

- The theory that the Covid-19 virus was created in a lab in China substantially funded by U.S. taxpayers, and that a leak from that lab led to the worldwide pandemic that killed millions.

And thus, there is now little dispute that some “conspiracy theories” are indeed true.

But which ones? Is there any method by which an informed citizen, by applying some critical thinking, can come to a view of which conspiracy theories are unlikely, versus ones that may at least potentially turn out to be correct?

My first answer is that there is no definitive method to make the distinction, particularly if you are relying only on publicly available information. The most important information may well be concealed. That’s one reason why so many conspiracy theories flourish, and justifiably so.

But there is one useful criterion that can be used to get an idea whether there may be something to a conspiracy theory in a particular circumstance. That criterion is, look to see if there are anomalies in the publicly available information that appear inconsistent with the official alternative explanation of the facts being offered. In other words, it is not the facts that are consistent with the official narrative that are important; it is the facts, if any, that are inconsistent with the official narrative, or at least arguably so, that matter.

What do I mean by such inconsistent “anomalies”? As an example, consider the origins of Covid-19. The alternative hypotheses are (1) “official theory” that the virus arose by natural mutation in bats, and spread to humans who purchased recently-killed infected bats at a wet market in Wuhan, and (2) the “conspiracy theory” that the virus was intentionally created in “gain of function” research at the Wuhan virology lab, and spread to humans via a leak from the lab. “Anomalies” arguably inconsistent with “official theory” (1) include that initial Covid-19 patients resided near the virology lab and on the side of town with the virology lab, rather than the side of town with the wet markets; and that the alteration of the viral proteins that made the virus far more lethal occurred at a so-called “furin cleavage site,” which had not been a site of previous mutations, but was the specific site of intentional alterations made in the gain of function research. As defenders of theory (1) have failed to provide adequate answers to these and other anomalies, theory (2) has gradually gained increasing acceptance (even as the Chinese authorities continue to withhold relevant information).

In the case of the government-led mass censorship of social media, the “anomalies” consisted of conservative speakers reporting that their content was taken down, or de-monetized, or “shadow-banned,” or made difficult to “like” or “share,” or otherwise suppressed. Denials of the conspiracy continued until Elon Musk bought Twitter, and released what have come to be known as the Twitter Files. Those showed explicit government efforts to silence speech in various disfavored categories.

Note that where conspiracies are present, there may not be any publicly available “anomalies” to give a hint of the conspiracy. As far as I know, that was the case with the FBI spying on the Trump campaign. That conspiracy almost certainly would never have been revealed to the public if Trump had not become President in 2017.

Now, let’s apply this logical approach to the case of the Kennedy assassination.

With the Kennedy assassination, there are many anomalies that are at least arguably inconsistent with the hypothesis of the “lone gunman” Lee Harvey Oswald. Here are four such, which I will only mention briefly here:

- Lee Harvey Oswald bio: After serving a tour in the Marine Corps, he defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959. Then, after two and a half years, he returned to the U.S. in June 1962, and moved to Dallas, where he lived with little interest from the U.S. government.

In a subsequent post, I will discuss why each of these anomalies poses substantial problems for the official narrative.

But for now, here is the point: If you want to write something meaningful arguing in favor of the official narrative, these anomalies, or others like them (there are others) are the key points that you must address. Spare us the litany of Oswald buying the gun and firing some shots. Yet as an example of those arguing for the official narrative, look at the Epstein write-up that I linked in the last post. You won’t find any effort to deal with the anomalies. Instead, it is a litany of evidence showing that Oswald was clearly deeply involved in the assassination — he owned the gun, he bought the ammo, he was in the Texas Book Depository, he set himself up in a sniper’s nest, and so forth. None of that really addresses the issue at hand. Any worthwhile conspiracy theory here clearly must concede that Oswald was deeply involved in some way. The issue is whether he was the only one involved, and if not, who the others were and what roles they played.

In the next post I will discuss the most plausible alternative hypothesis. Then I will look at how the “anomalies” bear as between the two hypotheses.

FrankRizzo890 posted this synopsis from Grok

The recently released JFK files, made public on March 18, 2025, by the US National Archives, provide a range of new details that both expand on existing knowledge and introduce fresh perspectives on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. While the official narrative has long held that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, these documents—part of a larger set of 80,000 files—contain information that could challenge that conclusion or at least suggest broader involvement or awareness by various agencies. Below is a summary of the key revelations from the 10 files provided, along with some surprising elements that stand out.
Key Revelations from the Files
Extensive CIA and FBI Document Releases and Ongoing Searches
The files reveal a massive effort to review and release documents related to the JFK assassination. For instance, the Historical Review Program (HRP) released over 123,000 pages by August 1993, with an additional 30,000 pages of House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) material released in 1995 104-10332-10022. The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) has been actively involved, designating 22 boxes of material as assassination records and adding 400 pages from an FOIA request for DCI morning meeting minutes related to JFK. The CIA’s non-integrated filing system has made comprehensive searches challenging, but additional searches for Oswald’s security file and other relevant materials are ongoing, indicating that more information may still come to light.
FBI’s Early Interest in Oswald (1960)
A significant revelation comes from a document dated October 12, 1960, sent from the FBI’s Paris representative to J. Edgar Hoover, which was initially fully redacted but later released in unredacted form 104-10337-10001. It shows the FBI was investigating whether Oswald was enrolled in a Swiss college and was monitoring him due to his interest in defecting to the Soviet Union—three years before the assassination. This early surveillance suggests the FBI had a longer-term interest in Oswald than previously emphasized, raising questions about what they knew and why they didn’t act more decisively later.
Clay Shaw’s Personal Papers and Perspective
The ARRB acquired the original personal papers of Clay Shaw, including his diary from the day of his arrest on March 1, 1967 104-10337-10001. Shaw, the only person prosecuted for the JFK assassination (in 1969, by New Orleans DA Jim Garrison), provides a firsthand account of his feelings about Oswald on the day of his arrest. This is a new addition to the record, offering a personal perspective from a key figure often linked to conspiracy theories involving the CIA and anti-Castro groups.
CIA Operations and Personnel in Europe (1950s)
The files include interviews with CIA personnel like Serge Peter Karlow, who was assigned to the Technical Aids Detachment (TAD) in Frankfurt, Germany, from 1950 to 1953 124-90092-10016. Karlow made 12–15 trips to Vienna for CIA purposes during this period, and a “riotous operation” was noted there, though specifics are lacking. Karlow’s associates included William K. Harvey, a prominent CIA figure in Berlin, and other CIA officials in Germany. This highlights the CIA’s extensive operations in Europe during the early Cold War, which could provide context for Oswald’s later movements in the Soviet Union and any potential intelligence connections.
William K. Harvey’s Testimony on Assassination Plots
William K. Harvey, a high-ranking CIA official, was interviewed in 1975 by the Commission on CIA Activities Within the U.S. 157-10005-10141. Harvey, who served as head of the Soviet Intelligence Branch and Station Chief in Berlin and Rome, denied knowledge of any CIA assassination plans involving Patrice Lumumba or other foreign leaders (excluding Fidel Castro). While this might seem to clear the CIA of certain allegations, Harvey’s deep involvement in Cold War operations and his presence in Berlin during Oswald’s defection period (1959–1962) could raise questions about what he might have known about Oswald or related activities.
Threats Against the “Johnson Gang” (1966)
A letter from Joachim Joesten, postmarked August 13, 1966, in Milan, Italy, and received by the Swiss Federal Police, contains a threatening message: “The final accounting with the Johnson gang is imminent… [those who] disrupt the plans of American patriots against the usurper regime, will shortly pay with their lives” 124-10369-10022. The CIA shared this with the White House and Secret Service, indicating concern about potential violence linked to political discontent. This letter, while not directly tied to the JFK assassination, reflects the volatile political climate of the 1960s and the existence of groups or individuals who might have had motives to target government figures, potentially including those involved in the assassination or its aftermath.
Surveillance Technology in 1966
The FBI installed a new closed-circuit television system in 1966, featuring a remotely controlled video camera with a zoom lens and pan-tilt head, disguised for covert monitoring 124-10369-10022. While the specific target isn’t clear, the system’s use in a case related to Oswald (as part of the HSCA administrative folder) suggests ongoing surveillance efforts potentially linked to assassination-related investigations, even years after the event.
Surprising Information and Implications
FBI’s Pre-Assassination Focus on Oswald: The 1960 FBI document tracking Oswald’s potential enrollment in a Swiss college and his defection interest is striking 104-10337-10001. It shows that Oswald was on the FBI’s radar well before the assassination, which challenges the narrative that he was a lone, unmonitored actor. If the FBI was aware of his Soviet connections as early as 1960, why wasn’t he under closer scrutiny by 1963, especially given his return to the U.S. in 1962 and his activities in New Orleans and Dallas?
Clay Shaw’s Diary: The acquisition of Clay Shaw’s diary is a major revelation 104-10337-10001. Shaw has long been a figure of interest in conspiracy theories, with allegations of CIA ties and involvement in anti-Castro plots. His personal reflections on Oswald from the day of his arrest could either corroborate or refute these claims, depending on the content. This could provide a new angle on whether Shaw had any prior knowledge of Oswald or the events in Dallas.
CIA’s European Operations and Possible Oswald Connections: The details about Serge Peter Karlow’s frequent trips to Vienna and the involvement of William K. Harvey in Berlin during the 1950s are intriguing 124-90092-10016. Oswald defected to the Soviet Union in 1959, a period overlapping with Harvey’s tenure in Berlin. While there’s no direct link in these files, the CIA’s extensive operations in Europe during this time raise the possibility that Oswald’s movements might have intersected with CIA activities, either intentionally or coincidentally.
Political Threats in 1966: Joachim Joesten’s letter threatening the “Johnson gang” and referencing the “Gehlen gang” (likely referring to Reinhard Gehlen, a former Nazi intelligence officer who worked with the CIA) suggests a broader conspiracy-minded undercurrent 124-10369-10022. This could imply that some groups believed the JFK assassination was part of a larger plot involving high-level government figures, potentially including Lyndon B. Johnson, and were willing to act violently in response.
Critical Analysis of the Establishment Narrative
The official narrative that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone has been upheld by the Warren Commission and subsequent investigations, but these files introduce elements that could suggest otherwise. The FBI’s early monitoring of Oswald indicates that he was not an unknown entity, yet he was able to carry out the assassination without apparent interference. The presence of figures like William K. Harvey, who was deeply involved in CIA operations during Oswald’s defection period, and the acquisition of Clay Shaw’s diary, which might reveal more about his alleged connections, both point to potential intelligence community involvement or awareness that hasn’t been fully explored. Additionally, the threatening letter from Joesten hints at a broader network of individuals who might have had motives or knowledge related to the assassination, possibly involving anti-government or anti-Castro factions.
While these documents don’t provide definitive proof of a conspiracy, they do suggest that the full story may not have been as straightforward as the lone gunman theory claims. The ongoing nature of the document searches and the sheer volume of material still being reviewed 104-10332-10022 also imply that more revelations could be forthcoming, potentially reshaping our understanding of the events of November 22, 1963.
In summary, these files reveal early FBI surveillance of Oswald, new personal insights from Clay Shaw, extensive CIA operations in Europe that might connect to Oswald’s movements, and a politically charged atmosphere that could indicate broader motives or knowledge of the assassination. These elements collectively challenge the simplicity of the official narrative and suggest that further investigation into intelligence agency activities and Oswald’s pre-1963 life is warranted.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.