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.

[GaryL]

Yes

[tpaine]

To paraphrase the authors concluding line:

'Forty years is long enough for the Reports wild speculation on the single bullet theory to be indulged. It's time to stop humoring the Warren Commissions buffs.'


Bluntly speaking, they are just as looney as some of the more far out conspiracy nuts

[GaryL]

With all due respect, Posner did not "focus solely on whether LHO was the lone gunman." He examined the possiblity of accomplices thoroughly, completely, and in detail. I've read the book three times. He does not distort the real question. Your characterization of his treament of this subject is itself a distortion.
Best regards

[dix]

For thirty of the last forty years I read every book about the Kennedy assassination I could get my hands on including Gerald Possner’s book. Over the years I kept coming back kicking, and screaming to the Oswald did it crowd, mostly because I began to see what a moneymaking industry all of this was, and the facts, and the evidence. All of this did teach me however to be very skeptical about conspiracy theories. Now I just have a good laugh when I hear things like the Halliburton canard.

Gerald Possner is an insipid little weenie that defends Bubba all the way. His book didn’t do it for me it did however reinforce my conclusions.

I have to admit though, the one thing that will always intrigue me about the whole deal is who was Oswald? Now there’s your mystery.

[Maria S]

"Rep. Boggs"

Cokie Roberts' dad.

[GaryL]

Do you really think "having fun" is a valid reason for the perpetuation of all these innane theories?

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

While I have not yet read the book, I have watched the author (Posner) explain his case on several panel shows. As I said, I retain just a small sliver of doubt. But I am by no means a JFK conspiracy nut- I haven't read the other books (apparently hundreds of them) advocating for one whacked-out theory or another, either. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it- except when I am confronted by this all-out media blitz telling me to "just forget about it, nothing to see here, move along, son". That editorial had the feel of a pat on the head by an older and wiser uncle- "We know best, now go and play".

Pretty irritating stuff.

And, in the grand scheme of things (no pun intended), what does it matter whether I believe the "official" version or I doubt it? Nobody cares (except perhaps my wife, when I yell at some smug talking head on TV...)

[IndyTiger]

Put me in the Oswald acted alone group as well. I've read a number of books on the assassination, both for and against the conspiracy theory. Posner's book was excellent, but another good book I liked is called "Conspiracy of One," by Jim Moore.

Had a chance to visit The Sixth Floor museum located in the old Texas School Book Depository in Dallas not long after it opened in 1989.

Highly recommend a visit there to anyone. To stand at the windows and look down on Elm Street was a moving experience for me.

[GaryL]

Your father sounds like he was a very wise man with no vested interest other than the truth! You were blessed to have a father like that.

God bless him and may he rest in peace.
Best regards, Gary

[tpaine]

David; - Re your Post #21- I think that we agree on this- I also think that, a generation from now, ours will be the "conventional wisdom" view (that is, that there was a limited conspiracy of some sort, but the chance to uncover it was lost with the Warren Commission cover-up).

29 posted by RANGERAIRBORNE

---

Well said by both of you. I've been saying the same thing for over five years now at FR.

Rationality will prevail, one of these days. -- Or, -- FR will become a joke site, dedicated to the politically correct statis quo Rino view.

[cyncooper]

That "thank God for Gerald Posner" WAS "sarcasm" wasn't it??? Watching him for the first time on TV I got the same chills and vibes I had the first time I saw dog -hit face clinton.

Posner wrote "Why America Slept". You might find it interesting. I don't find him similar to clinton at all.

Interview with Gerald Posner: Why America Slept

[GaryL]

I think it "does matter." I want to know the truth. I've looked at this story objectively from both sides. I've indicated which side I think is closer to the truth.

I also don't care if Posner looks like a snake or that he may defend Clinton at times, as others have indicated. Tbose are emotional responses, not logical or based on fact.

[GaryL]

All the conspiracy buffs out there might find this quote from the great historian William Manchester of interest:

"Those who desperately want to believe that Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy have my sympathy. I share their yearning. To employ what may seem an odd metaphor, there is an esthetic primnciple here. If you put the Holocost on one side of a scale and on the other put the Nazi regime - the greatest gang of criminals ever to seize control of a modern state - you have a rough balance: greatest crime, greatest criminals.

"But if you put the murdered President of the United States on one side of a scale and the wretched waif Oswald on the other side, it doesnn't balance. You want to add something weighter to Oswald. It would invest the President's death with meaning, endowing him with martydom.. He would have died for something. A conspiracy would, of course, do the job nicely. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatever that there was one."

[GaryL]

Welcome aboard!

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

Well, as I noted, we are most unlikely ever to get "the truth" (or at least a "truth" that will satisfy everyone).

What I find most interesting is speculating on how this country would look today, had JFK not been murdered.

Would he have been defeated in 1964?

Would Vietnam have unfolded as badly as it did?

Would Nixon have been elected, run an incompetent and downright crooked Administration and discredited the Republican Party for years to come? (Oh wait, he was and he did).

How would the Cold War have turned out?

Are there historical forces that move us along, or is history determined by the actions of a few key individuals?

Or both?

I could probably write a novel based on any one of these questions- and the dozens of others hat occur to me, or to anyone who thinks about the last 40 years of American history.

The assassination was a major turning point, and speculation about it will continue as long as there is a United States.

[tpaine]

Do you really think "having fun" is a valid reason for the perpetuation of all these innane theories?
29 -Gary-

GaryL wrote:

I think it "does matter." I want to know the truth. I've looked at this story objectively from both sides.

---

Your lack of objectivity is showing in the 'inane' remark..

The most 'inane' theory of all, the one that started all the rest, was the single bullet theory put forth in the Report. Even those who formulated it, & approved of it at the time, have now admitted it has flaws.

Those who insist upon "Case Closed" are just as non-objective as the more radical conspiracy nuts.
The case will never be closed.

[x]

Oliver Stone is like a UFO crank, but was the Warren Report really anything like "science?" An honest admission that the original investigation may have cut corners to reach a clear-cut verdict would have been preferable to simply asserting its validity.

... but that's the rub. Assert that everything in the Warren Report was hunky dory and people will point out things that were wrong or left out. Admit that there was a rush to reach a conclusion, and some people will assume that means that it was a whitewash.

I suppose Oswald did do it, and it's more than likely that he did it alone, but this controversy won't end. Part of the reason is that a conspiracy does make Oswald more important and restore the balance between the shock and horror of the event and Oswald's insignificance. It also makes Kennedy more important, a mythic figure, not just another Garfield or McKinley, Carter Henry Harrison or Anton Cermak, William Jay Gaynor or George Moscone. Part of the reason is that the original investigation was so clearly directed to find the "right verdict." Also, some people want to find a clear villain in those they politically disagree with. And the Kennedys had so many dirty connections that it's easy to attribute the assassination to the spreading stain of their own corruption.

But in any case, we'll hear less about this in the days to come ... at least until 2013.

[Terridan]

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

[VeritatisSplendor]

I'm not saying we should stop wondering about them; I'm saying that given where the burden of proof lies, those not inclined to wonder need not listen to those who do until those who do come up with much better evidence than they have so far.

[Terridan]

Not only were they sealed, but they are officially missing... just check up on the National Archives. All known evidence has disapeared. All we are left with is circumstantial evidence, which IS overwhelming.