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.

[aristeides]

People have their beliefs and they're wedded to them, it doesn't matter what evidence you show them.

I didn't suspect LBJ was behind the assassination until I read McClellan's book. I wouldn't say that book proves its case, but I did find it highly persuasive. (I was perhaps unusually receptive to McClellan's case because I recently read the latest volume of Caro's life of LBJ, which makes me believe LBJ was capable of this sort of crime. Caaro is a liberal, and so he is, in my opinion, too kind to the man, but he does not disguise the man's faults.)

So I think something like McClellan's book is capable of changing people's minds.

[FreedomCalls]

This one?

Notice how Kennedy's head is initially thrust forwards from the impact of the bullet from the rear.

[FreedomCalls]

This one?

Notice the highlight of the seat behind Kennedy's back. You could only see this is his body was thrown forwards from the force of the impact.

[ronnieb]

Yes the killing of Oswald by Ruby, was the spark to the entire fire. Add to that, 3 years later, after being granted a new trial, he supposedly dies of cancer. Posner and his supporters ask us to believe in amazing coincidences. But they do provide forensic evidence for facts that are not essential to the main question, then declare the question closed, and suggest that anyone that doesn't accept their non-proof is a holocaust denier!(the editorial)I don't know who did it, but believing Oswald just got a wild hair up, is like believing in the Easter Bunny!

[tpaine]

GaryL:
It's frustrating, isn't it?
-200-

---

Absolutely MIND NUMBING at times ...
215 -jim-

---

No more numbing than seeing govenment dupes ~insist~ for 39 years that Oswald was the "lone gunman" based on the erroneous conclusions of the Report.

Just for contrast, do you two support the government versions of the incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco?

[Al Simmons]

Forgive me E. Pluribus, but your eyes apparently know nothing about ballistics.

Entry wound - small; Then: bullet often fragments, tumbles, expanding the area of the wound, and often literally exploding on the other side as the fragments exit. Especially if you've got a large caliber rifle shot at close range.

Kennedy had a small entry wound on his rear scalp (as seen in the photo where the surgeon's hand pulls his loose scalp forward and over the gaping hole in the right FRONT of his skull, made as the bullet exited.

Also - On the Nix and Muchmore and Zapruder films, a "cone" of red blood and other matter explodes towards THE FRONT as JFK is hit in the head. Exactly the opposite would have happened had the head shot come from the front.

[_Jim]

Some references that pertain to the pyschology of Assassins:

ASSASSINS:

James F. Kirkham, Sheldon G. Levy and William J. Crotty,
Assassination and Political Violence: A Report to the National
Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence (New York: Bantam
Books, 1970), pp. 65f.: "Although we cannot unravel the significance
of the similarities between the assassins, we could make this
statement: we could predict after President Kennedy's assassination
that the next assassin would probably be short and slight of build,
foreign born, and from a broken family--most probably with the father
either absent or unresponsive to the child."

Patricia Cayo Sexton, The Feminized Male (New York: Random House,
1969), p. 4: "Sirhan and Oswald, both reared under the maternal
shadow, grew to be quiet, controlled men and dutiful sons. Estranged
from their fellows, fathers, and normal male associations, they
joined a rapidly growing breed--the 'feminized male'--whose normal
male impulses are suppressed or misshaped by overexposure to feminine
norms. Such assassins often pick as their targets the most virile
males, symbols of their own manly deprivation. The assassin risks no
contest with this virility. His victim is caught defenseless by the
sniper's bullet and is unable to strike any blows in self-defense. A
cheap victory--no challenger and no risk of defeat. Their desire to
get out is simply the natural male impulse to cut maternal ties and
become a man. The black revolt is a quest by the black male--whose
social impotence has exceeded even that of the white woman--for
power, status, and manhood. He does not want to be a 'boy' any
longer: I am a man is the slogan of his revolt. These rebellions are
alarms, alerting us to the social forces that dangerously diminish
manhood and spread alienation and violence."





Ibid., p. 67: "David Rothstein, for example, has analyzed twenty-
seven inmates of the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in
Springfield, Mo., who had indicated an intention to attack the
President. The threatmakers bore similarities to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Most came from unhappy homes. They had domineering mothers and weak,
ineffectual fathers. Most joined the military service at an early
age, yet their experiences proved to be unhappy. Rothstein interprets
their actions in threatening the President as the manifestation of a
hostility towards their mother redirected against authority symbols--
the government and, more specifically, the President."

Dr. Fred B. Chartan, "A Psychiatric History: What Assassins Have in
Common," The Birmingham News, 7 July, l968: "The [U.S. presidential]
assassins were all men (there has never been a woman political
assassin), all loners, and all lacking fathers through death,
divorce, work schedule, or at least through a very poor parental
relationship. It is also significant that the assassins were either
bachelors or did not get along with women."

[tpaine]

Psycho-babble.

[#3Fan]

Interesting info on the sixth floor of TSBD building I'd never heard before. Where did you get it?

Here.

[Al Simmons]

One thing is certain, however; without the "sympathy" vote for the socialist LBJ and his Rat cronies, padding their majorities in Congress in '64, there would have been NO "Great Society" and the social/cultural destruction wreaked by same would have been less - far less. JFK was, after all, the last Democrat national figure to actually believe in Capitalism. (in my view).

[_Jim]

Is that what you do?

So I guess you deny the fatherless-boy - assassin/crime links altogether based on what?

Any d*mn experience, science or reason at all?

[#3Fan]

Right. I claim one lier and you claim EVERY SINGLE FBI fingerprint expert in the entire agency, everyone in law enforcement, everyone in government, everyone related to the principals, hundreds of thousands of people, are liers and covering up a huge secret for the sake of a now dead LBJ.

Not at all. I think it was a small ring that pulled off this assassination, not the whole FBI. And they're not going to implicate Hoover now. Not that they're dishonest, but it would be too troublesome for them. They will continue to sweep it under the rug. I don't blame them really.

[#3Fan]

36 inches. I can fit 36 inches between my curled hand and my underarm.

Wow, you're nine feet tall?

[texasbluebell]

"Nutjob, odd ball, freak."

Sigh.

Underspace Jim, I really must object. This is just enough name-calling from you and others, you are certainly not alone in this.

Is it really necessary to insult those who will not bow down to the WC?

A majority of Americans have questions about this issue, and no amount of brow-beating is going to change that fact. All you are doing is showing how little you know about the rules of debating.

It's very tiresome, and very objectionable.

[jwalsh07]

Wow, you're nine feet tall?

LOL, good one.

[texasbluebell]

Link to info about Malcolm Wallace.

JFK Breakthrough?

[#3Fan]

I didn't suspect LBJ was behind the assassination until I read McClellan's book. I wouldn't say that book proves its case, but I did find it highly persuasive. (I was perhaps unusually receptive to McClellan's case because I recently read the latest volume of Caro's life of LBJ, which makes me believe LBJ was capable of this sort of crime. Caaro is a liberal, and so he is, in my opinion, too kind to the man, but he does not disguise the man's faults.)

I didn't suspect Johnson either. What persuades me is his relationship with convicted murderer Mac Wallace. There is no doubt as to that relationship. And the murder of Marshall and it's coverup has LBJ written all over it since Wallace was investigating LBJ. Then, lo and behold, there's Mac Mallace's print in the sniper's nest.

So I think something like McClellan's book is capable of changing people's minds.

Yeah, hopefully more and more will come forward as they feel safer.

[_Jim]

WHO is bowing down to the WC report?

EXAMINE some of the material they looked at and come to some sort of RATIONAL conclusion yourself INSTEAD of soaking up all this conspiracy crap that's based on ... nothing in a lot of cases ...

THE mistake MOST people make is ignoring the primary documents themselves and leap instantly to the mind-numbing conspiracy crapola ...

[ronnieb]

That footage does not prove or disprove or in any way suggest that LHO was the lone killer of JFK, I cannot argue wether the Zapruder film proves another killer or not, though I trust that if i wanted to study the question thoroughly , I could reach some conclusions on it. Again, and forever, the question, Ask not if LHO pulled the trigger, because it is not the relevant question. Ask why Ruby was allowed to walk right up and put a bullet in Oswald, ask why he dies 3 years later, after being granted a new trial. Ask, if there was a broader group of people involved in the planning of JFK's death. That is the question, and common sense suggests there was. The Warren Commision was a sham, it started with the stated mission of proving that there was no conspiracy, that LHO did it all, and amazingly concluded exactly what it sought to prove. Posner and his supporters have reached the low ground of suggesting that the public is crazy, mentally unable to digest the facts, they try to intimadate by suggesting that those who refuse to accept there illogical and factually insufficient arguments are the moral equivalent of holocaust deniers.(Chicago editorial) Not so. The case is still open.

[tpaine]

No, I don't ~do~ psycho-babble.. You do.

Tell me, _jim, do you also support the psycho-babble versions of the incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco?