Time to lay Kennedy conspiracy theories to rest

The Chicago Sun-TImes ^ | November 23, 2003 | Editorial

[GaryL]

CNN reporter Kelly Wallace stands in Dallas' Dealey Plaza and points to the Texas School Book Depository window where, she says, Lee Harvey Oswald is "thought'' to have shot President John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963 -- 40 years ago Saturday. Then she and the anchor chat about the various conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination and conclude that the truth will probably never be known.

That's nonsense. And worse, it's popular nonsense. The truth is known. Oswald, acting alone, murdered JFK. We know this with as much certainty as we know anything in history. And just as we don't speak of the "alleged Civil War'' or the "supposed sinking of the Titanic,'' so to give credence to the lingering and numerous wild theories about the assassination of JFK is an unwise pandering to folklore and uncritical thinking.

Rather than continue to ask if there is any validity to these imaginings, we should wonder why they are so popular in the first place.

Several answers come to mind. People equate skepticism with independence. If the government says the sky is blue, a certain slice of the population would begin to doubt it. People also seek meaning in their lives. The idea of random tragedy, of a lone lunatic being able to destroy a man such as John F. Kennedy, is difficult to accept. They would rather cling to enticing accidents of history -- did you know that Richard M. Nixon was in Dallas the day before the assassination? -- than face a world where bad things happen for no reason at all.

Credulous media coverage by shallow reporters makes the situation worse. Balancing unequal arguments seems like fairness to them. Thus the Warren Report is weighed against Oliver Stone's fevered fantasies, just as science is pitted against UFO fanatics or, occasionally, the historical record of World War II is forced to justify itself to Holocaust deniers.

There is a human need to see order in chaos. We see it in every corner of human experience. It's what causes us to see animal figures in the stars. But the beauty of Western Civilization is that we have a commitment to empirical reality, and dry fact tells us that, despite the desires of our hearts, Elvis is not alive. The Jews don't run the world. And Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone.

The Italians have a word, "dietrologia,'' which translates as the tendency to find shadowy motives behind the obvious. That is what is going on here. Oswald was a skilled marksman. He shot Kennedy at what amounted, for him, at close range. The endless skepticism and analysis are a waste of time, and, worse, they distract attention that might otherwise be devoted to the actual trials and triumphs of Kennedy's short-lived, long-ago administration. Forty years is long enough for wild speculation to be indulged. It's time to stop humoring the conspiracy buffs.

[tpaine]

At this juncture, were to be discovered that proved a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, if irrefutable evidence were to be discovered that proved a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, that would create a "restructuring" of society; which is precisely why we must be disabused of such fancies.
91 -Old Prof-

---

How true.. Shortly after the Report came out this was evident. Admitting that Oswald was not alone was politically impossible.
Thus the initial cover up, supposedly to prevent cold war incidents.

It is now logical to surmise that the these facts ~must~ remain covered, because they were based on the internal politics of the era and are still damning enough to "create a 'restructuring' of society".

As a dying LBJ was reported to have said, 'The truth will shake the world'.

[DaGman]

Kennedy's head didn't move in the same direction as the bullet. Conspiracy buffs keep saying: "Backward and to the left."

Yes, specifically it did go backward and to the left. That's indisputable. And, yes, the 6th floor SDB window was back and to the right. However, Kennedy's head went backward and to the left, which leads to...

" For every action there is an equal and oppopsite reaction."

The grassy knoll was forward and to the right, the opposite of the direction of JFK's head's motion. After having personally walked all around behind the fence that's behind the grassy knoll, I feel the final shot came from behind the fence at the corner up by the railroad tracks.

And, my first visit behind the grassy knoll was in the early 70's when it was still a gravel and dirt rail yard and before the new parking lot and other changes to the general area associated with the West End.

[tpaine]

I have yet to find anyone criticise the single bullet fact (it's not a theory) and base their criticisms on actual evidence. When the critics do mention something it is always made up and has nothing to back it.
Facts:
The trajectories of the entrance/exit wounds line up.
The trajectory points to the 6th floor window area of the TSBD.
The bullet matched the rifle found in the TSBD.
Oswald owned the rifle -- his palm prints were on it.
Recreations of the shooting through cadavers ended up with a bullet resembling CE 399.
103 -FC-

---

You are simply denying that hundreds of books, thousands of articles [many posted on FR], and millions of words factually counter the Reports theory.

To say:
-- "I have yet to find anyone criticise the single bullet fact (it's not a theory) and base their criticisms on actual evidence." --
--- is simply a case of not seeking.

All of your listed 'facts', [save "Oswald owned the rifle"], have been argued ad nauseum, for 40 years, and found to be questionable.

Get some new lines.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Three shots. First goes through neck. Second glances off skull and blows brains in process. Third is lower and wild. All from Oswald. Of this much I am fairly certain after reading a good many depositions from that day.

Did Oswald act without prompting or pay? While I tend to think so, I am open to the possiblility that others wanted JFK taken out.

One thing that bothers me is that the motorcade slowed down a little after the first shot. This allowed Oswald to firm up a second and third shot. The angle was such that the target was easy.

Certainly a powerful day in history. I was 5 years old and could not help but notice how it had a profound effect on the world around me.

[tpaine]

With all due respect, the "single bullet theory" was dealt with thoroughly in "Case Closed" and in many other places. There is nothing unusual or mysterious about it. It is consistent with all the existing evidence.

Millons have been arguing about it for 40 years, citing the available evidence; -- thus, it is ludicrous to insist it is "consistent" with all evidence. See my #213.

Dr. Wecht is the major critic of this theory. I'm sure that Dr. Wecht is a wonderful pathologist (as he seems to be always letting us know). And yes, the autopsy team did not do as thorough a job as they should have. I'm sure Dr. Wecht would have done a better job (again, as he always seems to be letting us know). But I think Dr. Wecht has way too much of an "emotional tie" to this case - plus books and multiple media appearances - to ever trust his opinion as unbiased or objective.

Why is it you think I should care what Wecht says?

[tpaine]

-----Correction -------

With all due respect, the "single bullet theory" was dealt with thoroughly in "Case Closed" and in many other places. There is nothing unusual or mysterious about it. It is consistent with all the existing evidence.

Millons have been arguing about it for 40 years, citing the available evidence; -- thus, it is ludicrous to insist it is "consistent" with all evidence. See my #123.

Dr. Wecht is the major critic of this theory. I'm sure that Dr. Wecht is a wonderful pathologist (as he seems to be always letting us know). And yes, the autopsy team did not do as thorough a job as they should have. I'm sure Dr. Wecht would have done a better job (again, as he always seems to be letting us know). But I think Dr. Wecht has way too much of an "emotional tie" to this case - plus books and multiple media appearances - to ever trust his opinion as unbiased or objective.

Why is it you think I should care what Wecht says?

[DaGman]

Go read this web page and follow the links. Then come back here and explain what is preventing you from accepting the single bullet fact (fact -- not theory).

There's a lot there to talk about at that link, much less refute in the limited space here. Nor do I have the wealth of arguments available at hand to extensively refute everything there. Volumes have been written arguing both points of view. However, this graphic says it all:

For Connally to be hit by the same bullet he would have been sitting much further to the left when he turned to look behind him.

I don't believe Oswald was the lone gunman. But I do think he was one of more than one gunmen. I also think he fired at least 2 (of a possible 4) shots at Kennedy, at least one of which hit Kennedy. Probably the one where he holds his throat. I think he probably missed JFK and hit Connally with a second shot. However, I think the headshot came from another gunman standing behind the grassy knoll.

[texasbluebell]

I suggest you read the book "Case Closed."

Have you read Case Open by Harold Weisberg? He refuted that work by Posner.

"Book Description

No one knows more about the assassination of President Kennedy than Harold Weisberg, so said the FBI in open court. Harold Weisberg - a former OSS and Senate Investigator-wrote and published Whitewash in 1965, the first book criticizing the conclusion of the Warren Commission. Since then, he has written and published seven books on President Kennedy's assassination. Case Open is a book Mr. Weisberg felt compelled to write. He felt a need and determination to set the record straight. In proving that Gerald Posner, in Case Closed, has proven nothing, Mr. Weisberg has proven that President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy."

Continues at link to amazon.

[breakem]

I just remembered. On the day JFK was shot, I went to the movies with LHO. I got up and went to the bathroom and when I returned he was gone.

[texasbluebell]

I haven't read it myself yet, the Weisberg book, but will be soon.

[texasbluebell]

Do WC believers realize that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) determined that there was a conspiracy?

Why does everyone forget that?

[texasbluebell]

Two words, "triangulation shot." You are right on, and most refuse to believe.

If the polls are accurate, then I think most people actually do believe that!

[tpaine]

So, -- how did the rest of the double bill turn out?
-- Audie & Van were some of me fave stars.. - But I don't recall seeing those two films.

[DustyMoment]

That's a pretty apples and squash analysis. Let's examine this from another perspective. Suppose you fill out your IRS return, then seal the records and refuse to open them for an audit. If you have nothing to hide, then why are you hiding your records? I don't believe any of the stories we were fed by the government about the reasons for the records to have been sealed.

1. If there is nothing for the government to hide, why did they have to be sealed? This is not a privacy issue, these are historical public records, developed and collected at the public expense. We own them and we have a right to them.

2. If we buy into the notion that the records were sealed to protect the family, then why only a period of 75 years? Why not forever? IMO, 75 years is a convenient period of time for all of the principals involved in the assassination to be dead, as well as most Americans who were alive at the time.

[GaryL]

I'm sure Mr. Posner will be upset to learn that his writing style does not meet up to your standards!

May I respectfully add that I've read the book numerous times and I disagree with your assessment?

[tpaine]

texasbluebell wrote: Do WC believers realize that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) determined that there was a conspiracy?
Why does everyone forget that?
-tbb-

---

The HSC waffled. They based their conclusion on the 'acoustic evidence', which is too easily refuted.

[GaryL]

Can someone please mercifully summarize to me what this real long post says? Which side is it on?

Thank you

[GaryL]

Welcome Aboard, Vinnie!

[GaryL]

Glad to see ya! I've been carrying the load here myself!

[texasbluebell]

Not entirely. The HSCA did state that, in addition to the acoustic evidence, which was refuted later by some:

"Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibillity of two gunmen firing at the President."

link