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]

Let's see: The entire Warren Commission were liars or inept, the House Committee were liars or inept, the entire FBI were and are liars or inept, the entire Secret Service were and are liars or inept, the entire Dallas Police Department were liars or inept, The entire CIA were liars or inept, the entire executive branch of the government were and are liars or inept, The National Archives were and are liars or inept, most news organizations were and are liars or inept, all current and ex-Presidents were and are liars or inept, and so forth. The only truth-teller is a lonely man from 1963 who didn't remember the exact details of a paper bag that may or may not have been with Oswald at the time, but 40 years have given his memory a razor-like edge. OK. Riiiight. [backing away slowly]

You misrepresent my position. Dallas PD wasn't involved to a great degree or maybe even at all, except that they desperately wanted to finger Oswald to move forward (hence the sham line-ups). As far as the others, it wasn't the entire organizations, it was the higher-ups directing the cover-up (Hoover, Johnson, and their circle of accomplises). The higher-ups had motive to lie, but not the man on the street. According to you guys, no one can be trusted but the government.

[#3Fan]

He was responding the weight question. On the History Channel, he said he was sure that he carried the package entirely between his palm and his armpit. If you want to call him a liar in a long list of regular Joe liars, that's fine with me, it's obvious your mind is made up and there is no evidence that can even remotely show that there was more than one shooter.

[dread78645]

Caroline is still alive.

So is Anne Goodpasture.

Embarrass KennedyJohnson/Nixon. No problem.
Embarrass CIA/Helms/Angleton. Well ...

[#3Fan]

C'mon man, . You better watch out or the democrats will get you! Puh leaze! The fact remains that the hardest theory of all, the most far out, is the Warren Commision Report! Completely unbelievable! When will you guys get off the mentally deficient routine, and start arguing facts instead of uga booga...

I think you meant your comment to be directed at FreedomCalls. But I agree. It's amazing that he said we should accept the WC because the truth is too awful. Come on now. We can handle the truth. We have with Clinton.

[ronnieb]

your right! sorry!

[des]

As Birdsman pointed out, a VERY young assassin...:)

[FreedomCalls]

there is no evidence that can even remotely show that there was more than one shooter.

So show me some evidence then. I just quoted this guy's testimony from 1963 and it refuted what you said he said. I'm willing to believe any evidence you show to me. But you haven't yet. All I get are innuendo, loose and vague connections, some coincidences, distortions, feelings, and speculation. "Nixon was in Dallas the night before -- Aha! therefore there were two gunmen." "Hoover hated JFK -- therefore there were two gunmen." "LBJ talked with Hoover about the assassination on November 24th -- therefore they must have been discussing the coverup." You all claim that because the Zapruder film shows Kennedy moving "back and to the left" there were two gunmen -- but it doesn't. It shows an immediate thrust forward. Whenever I check out your "evidence" it vanishes. I could go on.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

So, in summary, believing that there is even the possibility that Oswald did not act entirely alone will weaken my mind, blur my eyesight, cause me to vote for the execrable Howard Dean, and probably grow hair on my palms.

OK, I think I've got it.

[FreedomCalls]

It's amazing that he said we should accept the WC because the truth is too awful.

I didn't say that. I said that if you accept emotion instead of reason and logic as acceptable reasons to think or do something then you will fall into accepting Democrat policy arguments. They have passed a lot of gun control laws for instance, not because they are effective but because they need to be seen to be "doing something." Same for affirmative action -- it may be destructive to the republic, but they can appeal to people's emotions to pass legislation. They want to curb greenhouse gas emissions not because it will be effective in reducing global warming, but emotional arguments have swayed a lot of people that SUVs are the cause of global warming. Same with the Kennedy assassination. It is more comforting to belive in a vast conspiracy than it is to belive that one loner shot the President 40 yeras ago. But holding that incorrect belief corrodes the fabric that holds the nation together. And that is not good when it is based on a lie. We should tar and feather those in government who would conspire to assassinate a President, but to make false insinuations about good men (some already in their graves) to advance a leftist political cause potentially undermines our way of life.

[FreedomCalls]

Well, somebody is out there voting for Dean. It ain't me.

[Shooter 2.5]

Whenever I check out your "evidence" it vanishes. I could go on.

Just like those invisible and nonexistant curtain rods.

[#3Fan]

So show me some evidence then. I just quoted this guy's testimony from 1963 and it refuted what you said he said. I'm willing to believe any evidence you show to me.

He said what he said on the History Channel. You refuse to watch it.

But you haven't yet. All I get are innuendo, loose and vague connections, some coincidences, distortions, feelings, and speculation.

Doctors at Parkland said the exit hole was in back of the head. You refuse to believe them. They said the throat wound was an entrance wound, you refuse to believe them. The hole in Kennedy's back is lower than his throat wound yet you still say it was caused by a downward-travelling bullet from 60 feet in the vertical. CIA agents say the CIA was bragging about the assassination, you refuse to believe them. We have a match on the fingerprints, you refuse to believe them. Witnesses describe a man dressed different than Oswald shoot Tippit, you refuse to believe them. Dallas police lined up Mexicans in Oswald's line-up, that doesn't bother you. LBJ's association with convicted killer Mac Wallace doesn't bother you. The pristine bullet seems OK to you. Witnesses say that there was a puff of smoke on the knoll, that doesn't bother you.

"Nixon was in Dallas the night before -- Aha! therefore there were two gunmen."

I never mentioned Nixon regarding the party.

"Hoover hated JFK -- therefore there were two gunmen." "LBJ talked with Hoover about the assassination on November 24th -- therefore they must have been discussing the coverup."

I never mentioned anything about November 24.

You all claim that because the Zapruder film shows Kennedy moving "back and to the left" there were two gunmen -- but it doesn't.

I've said nothing of Kennedy's movements.

It shows an immediate thrust forward. Whenever I check out your "evidence" it vanishes. I could go on.

Does LBJ's involvement with Mac Wallace bother you? What's your opinion of the Marshall death? The government said it was a suicide, do you believe the government regarding Marshall?

[#3Fan]

I didn't say that. I said that if you accept emotion instead of reason and logic as acceptable reasons to think or do something then you will fall into accepting Democrat policy arguments. They have passed a lot of gun control laws for instance, not because they are effective but because they need to be seen to be "doing something." Same for affirmative action -- it may be destructive to the republic, but they can appeal to people's emotions to pass legislation. They want to curb greenhouse gas emissions not because it will be effective in reducing global warming, but emotional arguments have swayed a lot of people that SUVs are the cause of global warming. Same with the Kennedy assassination.

Believing a Democrat killed a president is not going to make me vote Democrat! lol

It is more comforting to belive in a vast conspiracy than it is to belive that one loner shot the President 40 yeras ago.

No it's not! I don't enjoy being angry at those that were in government. But we can't ignore the fact that there are evil people in the world. Ignoring them won't make them go away.

But holding that incorrect belief corrodes the fabric that holds the nation together.

Correct, actually.

And that is not good when it is based on a lie.

SBT is a lie.

We should tar and feather those in government who would conspire to assassinate a President, but to make false insinuations about good men (some already in their graves) to advance a leftist political cause potentially undermines our way of life.

Advance a leftist cause?! Johnson was a socialist. How does pointing out his crimes advance a leftist cause?

[#3Fan]

Just like those invisible and nonexistant curtain rods.

It wasn't curtain rods but it wasn't a gun either.

[Shooter 2.5]

You believe the little nutjob when he said he didn't kill anyone so why don't you believe him about the curtain rods?

[#3Fan]

He was a CIA operative that was framed. He certainly didn't carry the murder weapon to the depository. I'm sure he had something related to his mission whatever they told him it was, but it wasn't the gun.

[Sapper26]

I've seen the statement that LHO was a CIA operative, but I've never seen any source for it. Was it on "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"? Did his 'mistress' say it? Is this the 'mistress' that you mean?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm

[#3Fan]

I've seen the statement that LHO was a CIA operative, but I've never seen any source for it. Was it on "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"? Did his 'mistress' say it? Is this the 'mistress' that you mean?

LOL The CIA is not going to confirm him as an agent since they framed him for the assassination! It's obvious he was an agent though.

[#3Fan]

Or at least an operative.

[Sapper26]

It's obvious he was an agent though.

How? How is it obvious?