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.

[#3Fan]

Psycho-babble.

LOL Just like the DC sniper was supposed to be a white redneck.

[_Jim]

HERE is how the conspiracy artists commonly 'spin'
their material:

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

8. COMMON CONSPIRACY BOOK DECEPTIONS

The circumstances surrounding the JFK assassination have always
seemed suspicious--a former defector to the Soviet Union is charged
with the crime before he, himself, is quickly murdered. However suspi-
cious a crime seems, though, however many rumors are swirling about,
a sober accounting of the event can only follow a thorough understand-
ing of the evidence. Unfortunately, this caution has rarely been ob-
served by the public in regards to the assassination. Before virtually
anything was known about the assassination, many people became con-
vinced that a conspiracy of some sort was behind it. Thus, disappoint-
ment greeted the WC's conclusion--ten months following the
assassination--that LHO, acting alone, was guilty.

Before the WR was released, authors were already exploiting the cli-
mate of suspicion with books arguing that a conspiracy had existed.
Whatever effect the report had on dampening those suspicions was
soon overwhelmed by a new wave of books denouncing the report. The
myth of conspiracy became firmly planted in the public mind. Over
three decades later, and after the publication of hundreds of conspiracy
books, a number of them bestsellers, the JFK assassination remains a
topic of intense curiosity.

The only catch is that the central conclusion of the WC--that LHO
alone committed the crime--remains unchallenged by responsible,
competent scholarship. The countless conspiracy books which strenu-
ously argue to the contrary constitute one of the largest bodies of fraud-
ulent work ever created. That is not to say that they don't make for
compelling reading. They often do. They have much more to offer in
the way of intrigue and excitement than the mundane conclusion that a
loser stuck a gun out the window and shot the president.

Since the WC had irrefutable physical evidence on its side, and since
their theory is the only conceivable one that fits that evidence, the ap-
proach of the conspiracy authors has been to pretend the WC perpetrat-
ed a lie of monstrous proportions. They have attacked the WC on
virtually every front to promote wholesale disbelief that a single indi-
vidual could have committed the crime. They present no clear affirma-
tive proof of conspiracy, relying instead on an inverse conclusion: if
one individual could not have done it, then more than one must have.
They leave the who, what, when, where, and why to the reader's willing
imagination and exhort others--the government--to get the complete
"truth" out.

Rather than rebutting specific charges, which is done elsewhere
throughout the FAQ, this section lists a number of the dizzying array of
deceptive techniques used in conspiracy books. These techniques are
unacceptable because they violate the fundamental methodologies of
responsible research which all competent scholars and journalists fol-
low. That approach, in short, requires examining all relevant evidence,
weighing it carefully, forming conclusions where possible, and only
then speculating on what can't be determined from the facts. The reader
is not discouraged from examining conspiracy books for whatever in-
terest they may yield, but is instead encouraged to be aware of the tech-
niques used and to hold all authors to the highest standards of research
before putting any faith in their work.

The accompanying examples have been chosen not because they are the
only, best, or most significant applications, but rather because they are
typical, brief, somewhat self-contained, and easily characterized. The
typical conspiracy book is an artful blend of fact and distortion which
contains numerous examples of bad research and argument. To be con-
vinced of this point, the reader is encouraged to independently check
the claims made in the conspiracy books against the documentary
record.

8.1 Sell emotion first.

If a conspiracy had killed JFK, and if the government had covered it up,
it would certainly be an outrage. It would defile the memory of a much-
admired man that his killers went free. If the conspiracy had been a
government plot, it would throw the very legitimacy of the government
into question and create the uneasy sensation that the news reported
>from Washington is a mere cover for the real operation. At any rate,
powerful emotions flow from the belief in a conspiracy. When these
feelings can be established upfront by the conspiracy author, typically
by enjoining the reader in the author's own passion, the reader may be
persuaded to drop his natural skepticism regarding fantastic plots.

Example. Garrison, "On the Trail of the Assassins," introduction: "This
book is really about [my] process of change--of growing disillusion-
ment, anger and knowledge."

Example. Marrs, "Crossfire," preface: "I seek not only the killers of
President Kennedy, I seek the persons who killed Camelot--who killed
the confidence and faith of the American people in their government
and institutions."

8.2 Scare the reader away from primary documents.

The central debate of the controversy is between the WR and the conpi-
racy argument, which usually consists in large measure of a ferocious
attack on the report. A careful reader would examine the report to
check whether it is being accurately represented in the conspiracy
books. (It's frequently not.) To forestall this examination, which risks
exposing the author's deceit, the report is described as unreadable or ut-
terly worthless. In point of fact, the report is well-written, interesting,
and objective in its analysis of the evidence.

Example: DiEugenio, "Destiny Betrayed," Chapter 14: "The American
people had been lied to before, but the Warren Report moved this phe-
nomenon to a higher plane. The lie was so big, the attendant praise so
lavish, the holes in the story so gaping..."

8.3 Distort the evidence.

Since most people will trust a book, and not double-check its claims
against the source material, it is a simple matter to alter the import of
the evidence by eliminating key details.

Example. Bullet CE399 of the SBT is often described as "pristine,"
which doesn't accord with the WC's contention that it struck John Con-
nally's rib and wrist bone. DiEugenio, "Destiny Betrayed," Chapter 7:
"No bullet fired through any obstacle--not even through cotton and gel-
atin--could emerge as intact as the pristine CE 399." Lifton, "Best Evi-
dence," Chapter 9: "I still thought that bullet 399, because of its
undamaged...condition, must have been planted." Groden and Living-
stone, "High Treason," Chapter 3: "[Connally] was still holding on to
his Stetson hat long after the `pristine' or `magic' bullet supposedly
shattered his wrist..." What the authors omit is that CE399 is damaged.
It's bowed along its longitudinal axis and compressed on its base, both
effects requiring a significant force. The SBT postulates the bullet tum-
bled (as a result of passing through JFK's neck), hit Connally's rib side-
ways and at reduced speed, and hit the wrist at an even slower speed, all
of which is consistent with the deformation to CE399.

Example. It is frequently charged that the WC insisted that three shots
had to have been fired within six seconds, a difficult feat with the mur-
der weapon. DiEugenio, "Destiny Betrayed," Chapter 7: "[The WC]
concluded that the time span for Oswald's alleged series of shots could
be no more than 5.6 seconds." Marrs, "Crossfire," preface: "Do you be-
lieve government experts who state that a man...hit a man...with three
shots in less than six seconds?" In actuality, the WC predicated their
time estimate on which of the three shots missed, a factor of which they
were not certain: "The Commission concluded...that the three shots
were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess
of 7 seconds." (WR, Chapter III) What the conspiracy authors have
done is to select a figure from the least charitable end of the Commis-
sion's time range and mischaracterize it as their sole estimate.

[FreedomCalls]

It sticks up in front. He said it was "curtain rods." If you carry it like you are carrying curtain rods -- and nobody shoves curtain rods up under his/her armpit, they rest on the underarm. It's easy to carry.

[texasbluebell]

"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--

Wonder if they were able to predict Hinckley after Sirhan then...

[_Jim]

Well, I made the mistake of addressing the mad dog of the board - we don't expect much of anything coherent or useful to be posted by you - and we certainly don't get it now, do we?

[tpaine]

We've had 39 years of mind-numbing crapola from the primary documents themselves..


Spare us more _jimbo. Have a heart.

[Terridan]

Really? Then the data sheets I've viewed in 1976 and 1977 now read "available?" Before you attack me about my being taken seriously, perhaps you should ask yourself, since you weren't there, why you think nothing has been changed or has been altered? Why would I lie about the status? I find it curious you wouldn't suggest the new and improved listings of this so called "available" evidence, to help not only myself, but others reading this thread. Common courtesy ring a bell? God Bless you.

[_Jim]

Continuing:

8.4 Emphasize eyewitness testimony.

Evidence is often contradictory and confusing and must therefore be
evaluated piece-by-piece for its relative worth. The best evidence tends
to be physical evidence--murder weapons, bullets, fingerprints, and so
forth. This evidence, once collected, doesn't change over time. Photo-
graphic evidence is useful but is subject to interpretation since it reduc-
es the four-dimensional world to two-dimensional snapshots.

The weakest major class of evidence is eyewitness testimony. This is
because of the inherent unreliability of human memory. Not only does
memory change over time, even surprisingly short periods, but it is sel-
dom accurate in the first place. Numerous studies have shown that
memory can be altered by many forms of suggestion, including police
line-ups and mug books, television and media reports, and even leading
questions. Contrary to popular opinion, stress makes accurate memory
less likely, not more. Memory is very poor at recalling details that wer-
en't significant at the time of observation. Memory is problematic in
accurately recalling duration of time, or sequence of events. This is
what modern science tells us about memory. (See, especially, the work
of Elizabeth Loftus.) Nevertheless, we tend to place misguided faith in
our own memories and the memories of others. This isn't to say that
eyewitness testimony should be ignored altogether, rather that it has to
be accepted for its relative worth. It can never be regarded as incontro-
vertible truth, regardless of the confidence of the witness.

As a predominant technique, conspiracy books emphasize discrepan-
cies in eyewitness testimony to establish doubt about the state of the ev-
idence.

Example. Weisberg, "Whitewash," Chapter 6, The Tippit Murder: "The
witnesses on the shell-dropping episode were not consistent on details.
Some had him tapping them out on one hand, some the other; some had
him shaking them out. One even saw him rolling a fresh cartridge under
his thumb from a half-block away." Following a collection of such dis-
crepancies, Weisberg adds sarcastically, "This is a sample of the accu-
rate observers from whom the Commission drew its witnesses."

Another technique is to emphasize recollections that come to light
many years after the event.

Example. Summers, "Conspiracy," Chapter 5: Carolyn Arnold, a secre-
tary at the TSBD, told Summers in 1978 that she recalled seeing LHO
in the lunchroom at "about 12:15" or later, a time which cuts into his
window of opportunity to set up the sniper's lair and assemble his gun.
But her recollection is at odds with her signed statement to the FBI in
1963, when she said she wasn't sure whether she had sighted him be-
fore the assassination. There's no reason to doubt her honesty, but
there's also no reason to believe her memory has improved fifteen years
after the fact.

8.5 Emphasize unsworn witnesses.

Legal procedures, such as the calling of witnesses before the Warren
Commission, follow strict guidelines to ensure their integrity, not the
least of which is swearing the witnesses to an oath of honesty. This has
the two-fold benefit of impressing upon the witness the gravity of testi-
fying as well as activating laws against perjury. Additionally, such testi-
mony is typically recorded in full.

This must be contrasted with interviews given to authors. These are
usually conducted in an informal atmosphere, where freewheeling
speculation and factual recollection may become mingled. The subject
is under no obligation to be truthful, and the author has the freedom to
follow suggestive lines of inquiry. The author can also quote out of con-
text since his notes are a private document.

Given this context, it's fair to ask why a witness would give one story
under oath and a more sensational story to an author. Or why a witness
would give evidence of a crime to an author without ever having come
forward to give the same evidence to the legal authorities.

Example: Lane, "Rush to Judgment," Chapter 15: "Mrs [Acquilla]
Clemons told several independent investigators that she saw two men
standing near the police car just moments before one of them shot Tip-
pit. The killer then waved to the other man, she said, and they ran away
in different directions...Mrs Clemons told one independent investigator
that she had been advised by the Dallas police not to relate what she
knew to the Commission, for if she did she might be killed." There are a
number of problems with this witness. 1) Her story of seeing two killers
is inconsistent with the testimony of twelve other witnesses who saw a
single individual either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene. 2) She re-
vealed this story to Lane a year after the assassination rather than re-
porting it to the police at the time. 3) The WC employed no
"independent investigators," so this expression, supplied by Lane, cov-
ers for the fact she didn't talk to the police. 4) The death threat, which
none of the other witnesses reported receiving, is probably Clemons'
rationalization for not talking to the police when it would have mat-
tered.



Example. Crenshaw, "Conspiracy of Silence": Crenshaw, both witness
and author, was a resident physician at Parkland Hospital in 1963. In
his book he claims the emergency room physicians knew Kennedy had
been shot from the front but kept quiet. One of those physicians, Mal-
colm Perry, said, "Crenshaw says that the rest of us are part of a con-
spiracy of silence and that he withheld his information for 29 years
because of a fear his career would be ruined. Well, if he really felt he
had valuable information and kept it secret for all those years, I find
that despicable."

[#3Fan]

Thanks!

[_Jim]

See - the old dog is attacking material he's NEVER even read ... a *good* example of just what conspiracy-spreaders do - ignore fact and spread fiction.

[texasbluebell]

I'm rather tallish myself, and the distance between my armpit and the end of my hand is approximately 2 feet, though I didn't get up to measure it right now.

I remember Frazier, the man who would drive LHO to work, said the object in question was about 24 inches, give or take a couple of inches.

Was the rifle said to be 36 inches? That's what I seem to remember from somewhere. So this couldn't have been the rifle used in the shooting that was in the package LHO carried under his arm that way.

What am I missing?

[DaGman]

"May I also suggest that you just stare at that bottom moving sequence for about 5 minutes and just let it sink it?"

Looked at it for a good 3 - 4 minutes. If you hear what sounds like glass shattering, pay no attention. It's just the sound of my theory falling apart.

[tpaine]

_Jim wrote:

"--- the mad dog of the board - "

---

Gotta love that old _jimbo hype.. Whatta clown

[FreedomCalls]

Posner and his supporters have reached the low ground of suggesting that the public is crazy, mentally unable to digest the facts, ...

Half of the voters in the last election voted for Al Gore. Hillary Clinton was elected Senator in New York. People donate money to Jesse Jackson. The Weekly World News makes money selling to somebody. There were candlelight vigils last night to "support" Michael Jackson. Most Howard University criminal justice students thought OJ was innocent. MoveOn can get 50,000 people to attend a "Stop the War" rally in DC even after the war was stopped. DU has 30,000 members.

I'm with Posner.

[#3Fan]

It sticks up in front. He said it was "curtain rods." If you carry it like you are carrying curtain rods -- and nobody shoves curtain rods up under his/her armpit, they rest on the underarm. It's easy to carry.

The driver said the package definitely wasn't 3 feet, it was "24 inches" and fit entirely between Oswald's armpit and his palm. He said he was positive about that.

[Terridan]

-This is what this guy "FreedomCalls" wrote me... incredible, not only intimating I am a lier, but thinking he would find "evidence"... Trust me, its gone, no longer exists, and short of taking him by the hand into the FBI or the National Archives... he is living in a dreamland.

---

To: Terridan

All known evidence has disapeared.

What a patently absurd statement! There is an entire warehouse full of Kennedy assassination material at the Natinal Archives in College Park.

That one statement means you can no longer be taken seriously.


105 posted on 11/23/2003 11:55 AM PST by FreedomCalls

Triangulation shot is what the evidence suggests, and was a brilliant plan for the time, shock, awe and fear. Would be difficult to pull it off today without massive witness testimony and media intervention.

[#3Fan]

I'm rather tallish myself, and the distance between my armpit and the end of my hand is approximately 2 feet, though I didn't get up to measure it right now. I remember Frazier, the man who would drive LHO to work, said the object in question was about 24 inches, give or take a couple of inches. Was the rifle said to be 36 inches? That's what I seem to remember from somewhere. So this couldn't have been the rifle used in the shooting that was in the package LHO carried under his arm that way. What am I missing?

Absolutlety nothing. :^)

[#3Fan]

Triangulation shot is what the evidence suggests, and was a brilliant plan for the time, shock, awe and fear. Would be difficult to pull it off today without massive witness testimony and media intervention.

And better video cameras that can't all be confiscated.

[DaGman]

Listen to the sound of my theory shattering...

[ronnieb]

Labeling people who ask good questions as nuts etc, is exactly what Stalin did, He basically put all his political opponents(that he didn;t kill) in mental intstitutions. They were basically prisons for the politically incorrect. Kennedy was murdered under incredibly suspicous circumstances. Until the germane questions regarding that murder are answered, the questions will persist. Why was Jack Ruby allowed to get within 2 feet of LHO? Fair question? Or is asking that question evidence of some mental problem?