JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Who else knows what we know, Jerry?
User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28986
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Gord » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:13 am

Flash wrote:Equally, I don't know about Jessse Ventura's book. I would have to read it.

I have not red Ventura's book, but I have seen his TV show, and he is a conspiracy nutbar.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Dave Reitzes
New Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:53 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Dave Reitzes » Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:40 am

Flash wrote:Thank you Dave Reitzes. I am not a Kennedy conspiracy nut. I just don't have the time to waste on this. I respect your view and believe it. Equally, I don't know about Jessse Ventura's book. I would have to read it.

Only, the assassination of Oswald and that strange character Jack Ruby who did it are problematic for me. I don't think Ruby's shooting can be easily dismissed as an act of a deeply patriotic man who loved his president too much. ;)


That's not too far off, actually, although he was also highly unstable and he just happened to be in the right place at the right time with a gun in his pocket to do what any number of other Americans wanted very much to do. (The wife of a U.S. Supreme Court justice saw him shoot Oswald on live television and yelled something like, "Good! Shoot him again!") As I mention in my article, the people who think Ruby was capable of being part of a conspiracy -- or that anyone would have even conceivably trusted him enough to involve him in such a thing -- are invariably people who didn't know him. My website has a brief article about this, "In Defense of Jack Ruby." (I wrote the initial draft of it when I was still a conspiracy theorist, incidentally. I couldn't help but realize how flimsy the conspiratorial accusations against him were.)

Ruby gave a number of contradictory explanations for his act, all of which may be true in a way. Since it was completely an impulsive act (as he consistently claimed and as both documentary evidence and eyewitness testimony supports), all of his later explanations are, to some extent, after-the-fact rationalizations. Thus, "That rat killed my President!" may be no more or less accurate than "I did it to show the world that Jews have guts," or "I did it for Mrs. Kennedy," or "You guys [the Dallas police] couldn't do it!" or "I only wanted to be a hero" — all of which (and more) he reportedly said soon after the shooting, and all of which, to some extent, may well be true.

I highly recommend the underrated biography JACK RUBY by veteran journalist Gary Wills and organized crime expert Ovid Demaris. The insight into Ruby's motivations and actions is truly extraordinary. You'll feel as though you're inside his head at the moment he pulls the trigger.

Dave

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Flash » Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:41 am

Gord wrote:
I have not red Ventura's book, but I have seen his TV show, and he is a conspiracy nutbar.

Oh, the show. I think he does it for the money and probably doesn't believe most of the stuff he presents.
I saw him being interviewed on various shows and there he sounds pretty reasonable. Remember that he has had a very interesting life, he is a self made man and I think he is pretty smart.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Flash » Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:03 am

Thanks Dave for your explanation.
And the final question; why would the FBI agents not protect Oswald from people like Ruby? The FBI practically held Oswald like a convenient target for the assassin to strike.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

Dave Reitzes
New Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:53 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Dave Reitzes » Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:35 am

Flash wrote:Thanks Dave for your explanation.
And the final question; why would the FBI agents not protect Oswald from people like Ruby? The FBI practically held Oswald like a convenient target for the assassin to strike.


The FBI was not involved with Oswald's transfer. They didn't have any jurisdiction to get involved, and the local authorities didn't ask for any help. Relations between the FBI and the Dallas police weren't great to begin with, and they quickly deteriorated when people at the DPD almost immediately started making false claims -- or repeating false rumors, however you prefer to look at it -- about what the FBI had known about Oswald prior to 11-22-63. The police alone were in charge of Oswald's security until he was transferred to the county jail, which is where he was headed when Ruby appeared. The police simply botched it; they were concerned about (and had received warnings of) the possibility of a lynch mob, not a lone vigilante. Up until then, the Dallas police had actually done a reasonably good job on the case -- but "up until then" is kind of like saying, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Dave

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Daedalus » Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:37 am

Dave Reitzes wrote:
Flash wrote:Thanks Dave for your explanation.
And the final question; why would the FBI agents not protect Oswald from people like Ruby? The FBI practically held Oswald like a convenient target for the assassin to strike.


The FBI was not involved with Oswald's transfer. They didn't have any jurisdiction to get involved, and the local authorities didn't ask for any help. Relations between the FBI and the Dallas police weren't great to begin with, and they quickly deteriorated when people at the DPD almost immediately started making false claims -- or repeating false rumors, however you prefer to look at it -- about what the FBI had known about Oswald prior to 11-22-63. The police alone were in charge of Oswald's security until he was transferred to the county jail, which is where he was headed when Ruby appeared. The police simply botched it; they were concerned about (and had received warnings of) the possibility of a lynch mob, not a lone vigilante. Up until then, the Dallas police had actually done a reasonably good job on the case -- but "up until then" is kind of like saying, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Dave


Indeed, and I'd just hasten to add that it is notoriously difficult to stop a lone, highly motivated assassin who has no concern for their own survival.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

Dave Reitzes
New Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:53 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Dave Reitzes » Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:23 am

Daedalus wrote:
Dave Reitzes wrote:
Flash wrote:Thanks Dave for your explanation.
And the final question; why would the FBI agents not protect Oswald from people like Ruby? The FBI practically held Oswald like a convenient target for the assassin to strike.


The FBI was not involved with Oswald's transfer. They didn't have any jurisdiction to get involved, and the local authorities didn't ask for any help. Relations between the FBI and the Dallas police weren't great to begin with, and they quickly deteriorated when people at the DPD almost immediately started making false claims -- or repeating false rumors, however you prefer to look at it -- about what the FBI had known about Oswald prior to 11-22-63. The police alone were in charge of Oswald's security until he was transferred to the county jail, which is where he was headed when Ruby appeared. The police simply botched it; they were concerned about (and had received warnings of) the possibility of a lynch mob, not a lone vigilante. Up until then, the Dallas police had actually done a reasonably good job on the case -- but "up until then" is kind of like saying, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Dave


Indeed, and I'd just hasten to add that it is notoriously difficult to stop a lone, highly motivated assassin who has no concern for their own survival.


That's true, but I must protest that this description doesn't fit Ruby (although it may well fit Oswald). He didn't even know what was going on when he ducked down the ramp to the police basement. He just saw the crowd outside and, as he always did, wanted to be where the action was -- especially in police matters. I know it must sound ridiculous if you know Ruby mainly from the way he's been portrayed in many conspiracy-oriented books, movies, and television shows, but he genuinely looked up to police officers and loved to hang around them.

Oswald was supposed to have been transferred over an hour earlier and had been held up by some chance occurrences, including a postal inspector skipping church and dropping by the station to question him about his use of P.O. boxes, and Oswald's own last-minute request for the police to retrieve a sweater of his to wear outside. If it weren't for Oswald's very own request, Ruby would have still been down the street at the Western Union office when the transfer occurred. (The only reason he'd come downtown at all was because, since he'd closed his club for the weekend, one of his strippers needed cash to pay her rent, so he went to Western Union to wire her a payment. Western Union was just a couple blocks from the police station.)

In interviews, including a deathbed interview posted at my website, Ruby bemoaned the fact that there were so many little things that played a role in what happened. If he hadn't made an illegal left-hand turn to pull into the parking lot by the Western Union office, for example, he would have been delayed a few minutes, and he never would have been anywhere near Oswald. He went down the ramp, found himself only a couple of yards from the accused assassin, and he committed the sort of impulsive act that can only be explained by people who really knew him well.

This is why the Wills/Demaris book is so valuable, because their analysis cuts so much deeper than the factual but relatively superficial biography of Ruby in the Warren Report. I also like to point out that the one and only serious biography of Jack Ruby ever published was co-authored by a nationally recognized authority on organized crime, Ovid Demaris. If Ruby had any significant involvement with organized crime activities, as so many people assume, the many people they interviewed sure managed to snow not only Gary Wills, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, but also Mafia expert Demaris.

Dave

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Daedalus » Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:33 am

Dave Reitzes wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
Dave Reitzes wrote:
Flash wrote:Thanks Dave for your explanation.
And the final question; why would the FBI agents not protect Oswald from people like Ruby? The FBI practically held Oswald like a convenient target for the assassin to strike.


The FBI was not involved with Oswald's transfer. They didn't have any jurisdiction to get involved, and the local authorities didn't ask for any help. Relations between the FBI and the Dallas police weren't great to begin with, and they quickly deteriorated when people at the DPD almost immediately started making false claims -- or repeating false rumors, however you prefer to look at it -- about what the FBI had known about Oswald prior to 11-22-63. The police alone were in charge of Oswald's security until he was transferred to the county jail, which is where he was headed when Ruby appeared. The police simply botched it; they were concerned about (and had received warnings of) the possibility of a lynch mob, not a lone vigilante. Up until then, the Dallas police had actually done a reasonably good job on the case -- but "up until then" is kind of like saying, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Dave


Indeed, and I'd just hasten to add that it is notoriously difficult to stop a lone, highly motivated assassin who has no concern for their own survival.


That's true, but I must protest that this description doesn't fit Ruby (although it may well fit Oswald). He didn't even know what was going on when he ducked down the ramp to the police basement. He just saw the crowd outside and, as he always did, wanted to be where the action was -- especially in police matters. I know it must sound ridiculous if you know Ruby mainly from the way he's been portrayed in many conspiracy-oriented books, movies, and television shows, but he genuinely looked up to police officers and loved to hang around them.

Oswald was supposed to have been transferred over an hour earlier and had been held up by some chance occurrences, including a postal inspector skipping church and dropping by the station to question him about his use of P.O. boxes, and Oswald's own last-minute request for the police to retrieve a sweater of his to wear outside. If it weren't for Oswald's very own request, Ruby would have still been down the street at the Western Union office when the transfer occurred. (The only reason he'd come downtown at all was because, since he'd closed his club for the weekend, one of his strippers needed cash to pay her rent, so he went to Western Union to wire her a payment. Western Union was just a couple blocks from the police station.)

In interviews, including a deathbed interview posted at my website, Ruby bemoaned the fact that there were so many little things that played a role in what happened. If he hadn't made an illegal left-hand turn to pull into the parking lot by the Western Union office, for example, he would have been delayed a few minutes, and he never would have been anywhere near Oswald. He went down the ramp, found himself only a couple of yards from the accused assassin, and he committed the sort of impulsive act that can only be explained by people who really knew him well.

This is why the Wills/Demaris book is so valuable, because their analysis cuts so much deeper than the factual but relatively superficial biography of Ruby in the Warren Report. I also like to point out that the one and only serious biography of Jack Ruby ever published was co-authored by a nationally recognized authority on organized crime, Ovid Demaris. If Ruby had any significant involvement with organized crime activities, as so many people assume, the many people they interviewed sure managed to snow not only Gary Wills, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, but also Mafia expert Demaris.

Dave


I've got to read that book... this is all news to me. Thanks Dave, you're a fount of good and detailed information.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28986
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Gord » Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:40 am

Daedalus wrote:Thanks Dave, you're a fount of good and detailed information.

No kidding! You just can't find this sort of stuff out there amongst all the conspiracy crap!
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Dave Reitzes
New Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:53 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Dave Reitzes » Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:06 am

Gord wrote:
Daedalus wrote:Thanks Dave, you're a fount of good and detailed information.

No kidding! You just can't find this sort of stuff out there amongst all the conspiracy crap!


Thanks to both of you. The subject of the JFK assassination has a reputation for being an intellectual sinkhole from which no wisdom can escape. Critical thinking is the answer; basing conclusions on the best possible evidence and being skeptical of inherently unreliable eyewitness testimony, hearsay, speculation, and rumor. I found out a long time ago that one doesn't necessarily have to be the smartest, best educated, or most experienced person in the field to arrive at sensible conclusions. Sometimes perhaps it's just as Erasmus said: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

Dave

dont2explain - +
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:55 pm

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby dont2explain - + » Mon Oct 14, 2013 9:41 pm

Hi Mr. Reitzes,
On the whole your article is very thorough. Of course, there are volumes devoted opposite to the conclusions you put forward. My focus is on the wounds, bullet(s), trajectory, and direction those bullets came from.
The single bullet that went through JFK and Connally is certainly consistent with coming from behind both men. But how, after smashing through so much bone in Connally's body, did it emerge so intact? You allude to the bullets deformation; but with all respect, logic says that bullet would certainly be fragmented to some extent, after shattering Connally's ribs and wrist.
Bullet fragments were found in the car and match the intact bullet as having come from the same gun. All well and good. So we have two bullets. The fragmented bullet, it can be argued, was the head shot. Fine. But what explains the autopsy photo showing JFK's brain matter hanging off the rear of his head, and testimony, by people present that his brain was exposed in the rear of his head, consistent with a right temporal bullet entrance ( a frontal shot), and lower right occipital exit? We see the photo of the small hole at the cowlick, but what explains the falling-out brain matter at the back, from a hole in the lower part of his head? Which brings into doubt the trajectory of that kill-shot, doesn't it?
I agree that three shots were fired. Where's the third bullet? JFK rode in a huge car. It seems unlikely the third bullet would miss the entire car. Of course, a total miss is possible. But from above, and behind?
It's interesting you don't address the head wound evidence. I can't find any mention of it. Just the single-bullet stuff.
Here's my speculation, the fragments found in the car were from Oswalds gun alright, but the head-shot came from the front and side of JFK's head. That bullet came from another shooters gun, and the fragments are somewhere in Dealey Plaza. Someone did indeed fire Oswald's gun from the depository, but it wasn't Oswald.The fragments found in the car were from the bullet that went through the presidents neck and shattered Connally's bones. The slightly deformed bullet found on Connally's gurney was planted in case no recoverable bullet evidence could be linked to Oswald's gun. Call it insurance. Even in 1963, it was easy to copy and transfer fingerprints to most surfaces, especially to metal and wood. Custody of Oswald's weapon wasn't logged for hours after the assassination. And was manhandled by numerous agents in between. Lots of time to plant evidence. So who was the guy with Oswald's weapon? It doesn't really matter. If the first and second shot , from the depository, didn't show a clear head shot, the third shot would. Call that insurance, too. And that shot came from the front and side of JFK's head. Completely-frangible ammunition existed in 1963. You know, bullets that left few traces of themselves, but could penetrate and exit say, a skull.
I'm interested in a response from you. Especially about what wasn't addressed in your article
Mark

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19427
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:47 am

dont2explain - + wrote:...But what explains the autopsy photo showing JFK's brain matter hanging off the rear of his head, and testimony, by people present that his brain was exposed in the rear of his head, consistent with a right temporal bullet entrance ( a frontal shot), and lower right occipital exit? We see the photo of the small hole at the cowlick, but what explains the falling-out brain matter at the back, from a hole in the lower part of his head? Which brings into doubt the trajectory of that kill-shot, doesn't it?...

The following might be Not Safe For Work:
Spoiler:
I don't get it. The Zapruder film shows spray and matter going out to the front and right only? The autopsy and analyses seem pretty clear-cut. From the Ramsey-Clark:
Skull There are multiple fractures of the bones of the calvarium bilaterally. These fractures extend into the base of the skull and involve the floor of the anterior fossa on the right side as well as the middle fossa in the midline. With respect to the right frontoparietal[14] region of the skull, the traumatic damage is particularly severe with extensive fragmentation of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind. Above the fragmentation extends approximately 25 mm. across the midline to involve adjacent portions of the left parietal bone; below, the changes extend into the right temporal bone. Throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have been displaced outward; several pieces are missing. Distributed through the right cerebral hemisphere are numerous small, irregular metallic fragments most of which are less than 1 mm. in maximum dimension.
...
DISCUSSION The information disclosed by the joint examination of the foregoing exhibits by the members of The Panel supports the following conclusions; The decedent was wounded by two bullets, both of which entered his body from behind. One bullet struck the back of the decedent's head well above the external occipital protuberance. Based upon the observation that he was leaning forward with his head turned obliquely to the left when this bullet struck, the photographs and X-rays indicate that it came from a site above and slightly to his right. This bullet fragmented after entering the cranium, one major piece of it passing forward and laterally to produce an explosive fracture of the right side of the skull as it emerged from the head. The absence of metallic fragments in the left cerebral hemisphere or below the level of the frontal fossa on the right side together with the absence of any holes in it the skull to the left of the midline or in its base and the absence of any penetrating injury of the left hemisphere, eliminate with reasonable certainty the possibility of a projectile having passed through the head in any direction other than from back to front as described in preceding sections of this report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Ke ... .281968.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy.

And this NSFW photo seems self-explanatory.
Hi, Io the lurker.

Dave Reitzes
New Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:53 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Dave Reitzes » Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:05 am

dont2explain - + wrote:Hi Mr. Reitzes,
On the whole your article is very thorough. Of course, there are volumes devoted opposite to the conclusions you put forward. My focus is on the wounds, bullet(s), trajectory, and direction those bullets came from.
The single bullet that went through JFK and Connally is certainly consistent with coming from behind both men. But how, after smashing through so much bone in Connally's body, did it emerge so intact? You allude to the bullets deformation; but with all respect, logic says that bullet would certainly be fragmented to some extent, after shattering Connally's ribs and wrist.
Bullet fragments were found in the car and match the intact bullet as having come from the same gun. All well and good. So we have two bullets. The fragmented bullet, it can be argued, was the head shot. Fine. But what explains the autopsy photo showing JFK's brain matter hanging off the rear of his head, and testimony, by people present that his brain was exposed in the rear of his head, consistent with a right temporal bullet entrance ( a frontal shot), and lower right occipital exit? We see the photo of the small hole at the cowlick, but what explains the falling-out brain matter at the back, from a hole in the lower part of his head? Which brings into doubt the trajectory of that kill-shot, doesn't it?
I agree that three shots were fired. Where's the third bullet? JFK rode in a huge car. It seems unlikely the third bullet would miss the entire car. Of course, a total miss is possible. But from above, and behind?
It's interesting you don't address the head wound evidence. I can't find any mention of it. Just the single-bullet stuff.
Here's my speculation, the fragments found in the car were from Oswalds gun alright, but the head-shot came from the front and side of JFK's head. That bullet came from another shooters gun, and the fragments are somewhere in Dealey Plaza. Someone did indeed fire Oswald's gun from the depository, but it wasn't Oswald.The fragments found in the car were from the bullet that went through the presidents neck and shattered Connally's bones. The slightly deformed bullet found on Connally's gurney was planted in case no recoverable bullet evidence could be linked to Oswald's gun. Call it insurance. Even in 1963, it was easy to copy and transfer fingerprints to most surfaces, especially to metal and wood. Custody of Oswald's weapon wasn't logged for hours after the assassination. And was manhandled by numerous agents in between. Lots of time to plant evidence. So who was the guy with Oswald's weapon? It doesn't really matter. If the first and second shot , from the depository, didn't show a clear head shot, the third shot would. Call that insurance, too. And that shot came from the front and side of JFK's head. Completely-frangible ammunition existed in 1963. You know, bullets that left few traces of themselves, but could penetrate and exit say, a skull.
I'm interested in a response from you. Especially about what wasn't addressed in your article
Mark


Hi, Mark.

In a 10,000-word article, of course, I couldn't possibly address every conceivable talking point or topic of interest. One way I sought to mitigate this limitation was to use the endnotes to refer interested readers to not only the sources upon which my conclusions were based, but also recommendations for further study. For example, your concerns about Warren Commission Exhibit 399, the bullet that passed through John F. Kennedy's neck and critically wounded John B. Connally, are addressed in a web article of mine cited in my endnotes (a portion of a lengthy critique of Oliver Stone's "JFK"), which itself contains links to further sources of information:

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbth.html

You argue that "logic says that bullet would certainly be fragmented to some extent, after shattering Connally's ribs and wrist," but this is, at best, a deduction on your part ("the inference of particular instances by reference to a general law or principle," as Google defines it); while the scientific approach embraced by SKEPTIC would be more likely to favor inductive reasoning, based upon such factors as the experimental data provided by independent, painstakingly meticulous reconstructions of the shooting by Dr. John Lattimer, the BBC, and the Discovery Channel (as cited in my SKEPTIC article and at my aforementioned webpage).

Space limitations similarly precluded a detailed analysis of the head shot that killed President Kennedy, but of course I emphasized the single most important fact: namely, that every one of the numerous world-class forensic experts commissioned to study the original photographs and X-rays of the President's autopsy, in three separate reviews, agreed with the finding of the three original autopsy pathologists who personally inspected the President's wounds: that the fatal shot entered from behind the President.

I listed some of these experts in the endnotes to my article, along with their affiliations at the time of their service. Here is a more complete listing:

For the Clark Panel (1968): William M. Carnes, M.D., Professor of Pathology, Salt Lake City, Utah; Russell S. Fisher, M.D., Professor of Forensic Pathology, University of Maryland, and Chief Medical Examiner of the State of Maryland; Russell H. Morgan, M.D., Professor of Radiology, School of Medicine, and Professor of Radiological Science, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The Johns-Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; Alan R. Moritz, M.D., Professor of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

For the Rockefeller Commission (1975): Lieutenant Colonel Robert R. McMeekin, MC, USA, Chief, Division of Aerospace Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, D.C.; Richard Lindenberg, M.D., Director of Neuropathology & Legal Medicine, Department of Mental Health, State of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; Werner U. Spitz, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, Wayne County, Detroit, Michigan; Fred J. Hodges III, M.D., Professor of Radiology, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and Alfred G. Olivier, V.M.D., Director, Department of Biophysics, Biomedical Laboratories, Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations Forensic Pathology Panel (1978): John I. Coe, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner of Hennepin County, Minnesota; Joseph H. Davis, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner of Dade County, Miami, Florida; George S. Loquvam, M.D., Director of the Institute of Forensic Sciences, Oakland, California; Charles S. Petty, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, Dallas County, Dallas, Texas; Earl Rose, M.D., LL.B., Professor of Pathology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa; Werner V. Spitz, M.D., Medical Examiner of Detroit, Michigan; Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., Coroner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; James T. Weston, M.D., Chief Medical Investigator, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Panel Chairman Michael M. Baden, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, New York City.

Over the years, a number of other qualified experts have had the opportunity to study the autopsy materials (which are controlled by the Kennedy family, by the way, not a government agency), and have published some of their findings, which have also supported the conclusions of the original autopsy pathologists.

Bottom line: every qualified expert who has studied the original autopsy materials agreed that the autopsy pathologists were correct in concluding that the evidence shows a small wound of entrance on the back of the head, and a large, extruded wound of exit on the right front, forward of the ear.

A good source for further information on the head shot is this webpage:

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

Space limitations likewise precluded a discussion of the issue of a missed shot. Based on the fact that over 80% of the eyewitnesses reported hearing precisely three shots, as well as the presence of the three spent rifle shells found at the crime scene in the Book Depository, it is commonly accepted that three shots were fired. Because only one bullet and fragments of a second were recovered, it cannot be stated with any certainty where the third bullet went, although it has been the subject of considerable speculation. (Gerald Posner's CASE CLOSED, Gus Russo's LIVE BY THE SWORD, and the National Geographic Channel documentary, JFK: THE LOST BULLET each provide one hypothesis, for example.)

Since the HSCA published its report in 1979 and further research was conducted in the 1980s and '90s, a growing consensus has placed the missed shot at approximately frame 155 of the Zapruder film. I examine the evidence for this in another section of my Stone critique:

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot6.html

As for your speculative arguments, my article notes the allegations from some conspiracy theorists that some or all of the forensic evidence in the case has been altered or forged, and I think I explain pretty clearly why such hypotheses are contradicted by the best evidence and the application of critical thinking tools. Speculation to the contrary seems counterproductive to me, but many are bound to disagree.

Dave

dont2explain - +
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:55 pm

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby dont2explain - + » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:50 pm

Thanks for your response, Dave.
dont2explain

User avatar
moth1ne
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1704
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:41 pm
Custom Title: theyscanhearsmythots
Location: Washington

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby moth1ne » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:49 pm

dont2explain - + wrote:You allude to the bullets deformation; but with all respect, logic says that bullet would certainly be fragmented to some extent, after shattering Connally's ribs and wrist.

I don't think anyone can be certain of what a bullet will do after it hits someone's ribs or wrist or whatever. That is speculative on your part. There is probability, a bullet would probably shatter after hitting someones ribs or wrists, but certainty seems a bit unreasonable.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World

dont2explain - +
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:55 pm

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby dont2explain - + » Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:38 pm

Ok .Thanks.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4698
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Tom Palven » Sun Oct 20, 2013 8:43 am

Dave Reitzes wrote:
dont2explain - + wrote:Hi Mr. Reitzes,
On the whole your article is very thorough. Of course, there are volumes devoted opposite to the conclusions you put forward. My focus is on the wounds, bullet(s), trajectory, and direction those bullets came from.
The single bullet that went through JFK and Connally is certainly consistent with coming from behind both men. But how, after smashing through so much bone in Connally's body, did it emerge so intact? You allude to the bullets deformation; but with all respect, logic says that bullet would certainly be fragmented to some extent, after shattering Connally's ribs and wrist.
Bullet fragments were found in the car and match the intact bullet as having come from the same gun. All well and good. So we have two bullets. The fragmented bullet, it can be argued, was the head shot. Fine. But what explains the autopsy photo showing JFK's brain matter hanging off the rear of his head, and testimony, by people present that his brain was exposed in the rear of his head, consistent with a right temporal bullet entrance ( a frontal shot), and lower right occipital exit? We see the photo of the small hole at the cowlick, but what explains the falling-out brain matter at the back, from a hole in the lower part of his head? Which brings into doubt the trajectory of that kill-shot, doesn't it?
I agree that three shots were fired. Where's the third bullet? JFK rode in a huge car. It seems unlikely the third bullet would miss the entire car. Of course, a total miss is possible. But from above, and behind?
It's interesting you don't address the head wound evidence. I can't find any mention of it. Just the single-bullet stuff.
Here's my speculation, the fragments found in the car were from Oswalds gun alright, but the head-shot came from the front and side of JFK's head. That bullet came from another shooters gun, and the fragments are somewhere in Dealey Plaza. Someone did indeed fire Oswald's gun from the depository, but it wasn't Oswald.The fragments found in the car were from the bullet that went through the presidents neck and shattered Connally's bones. The slightly deformed bullet found on Connally's gurney was planted in case no recoverable bullet evidence could be linked to Oswald's gun. Call it insurance. Even in 1963, it was easy to copy and transfer fingerprints to most surfaces, especially to metal and wood. Custody of Oswald's weapon wasn't logged for hours after the assassination. And was manhandled by numerous agents in between. Lots of time to plant evidence. So who was the guy with Oswald's weapon? It doesn't really matter. If the first and second shot , from the depository, didn't show a clear head shot, the third shot would. Call that insurance, too. And that shot came from the front and side of JFK's head. Completely-frangible ammunition existed in 1963. You know, bullets that left few traces of themselves, but could penetrate and exit say, a skull.
I'm interested in a response from you. Especially about what wasn't addressed in your article
Mark


Hi, Mark.

In a 10,000-word article, of course, I couldn't possibly address every conceivable talking point or topic of interest. One way I sought to mitigate this limitation was to use the endnotes to refer interested readers to not only the sources upon which my conclusions were based, but also recommendations for further study. For example, your concerns about Warren Commission Exhibit 399, the bullet that passed through John F. Kennedy's neck and critically wounded John B. Connally, are addressed in a web article of mine cited in my endnotes (a portion of a lengthy critique of Oliver Stone's "JFK"), which itself contains links to further sources of information:

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbth.html

You argue that "logic says that bullet would certainly be fragmented to some extent, after shattering Connally's ribs and wrist," but this is, at best, a deduction on your part ("the inference of particular instances by reference to a general law or principle," as Google defines it); while the scientific approach embraced by SKEPTIC would be more likely to favor inductive reasoning, based upon such factors as the experimental data provided by independent, painstakingly meticulous reconstructions of the shooting by Dr. John Lattimer, the BBC, and the Discovery Channel (as cited in my SKEPTIC article and at my aforementioned webpage).

Space limitations similarly precluded a detailed analysis of the head shot that killed President Kennedy, but of course I emphasized the single most important fact: namely, that every one of the numerous world-class forensic experts commissioned to study the original photographs and X-rays of the President's autopsy, in three separate reviews, agreed with the finding of the three original autopsy pathologists who personally inspected the President's wounds: that the fatal shot entered from behind the President.

I listed some of these experts in the endnotes to my article, along with their affiliations at the time of their service. Here is a more complete listing:

For the Clark Panel (1968): William M. Carnes, M.D., Professor of Pathology, Salt Lake City, Utah; Russell S. Fisher, M.D., Professor of Forensic Pathology, University of Maryland, and Chief Medical Examiner of the State of Maryland; Russell H. Morgan, M.D., Professor of Radiology, School of Medicine, and Professor of Radiological Science, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The Johns-Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; Alan R. Moritz, M.D., Professor of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

For the Rockefeller Commission (1975): Lieutenant Colonel Robert R. McMeekin, MC, USA, Chief, Division of Aerospace Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, D.C.; Richard Lindenberg, M.D., Director of Neuropathology & Legal Medicine, Department of Mental Health, State of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; Werner U. Spitz, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, Wayne County, Detroit, Michigan; Fred J. Hodges III, M.D., Professor of Radiology, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and Alfred G. Olivier, V.M.D., Director, Department of Biophysics, Biomedical Laboratories, Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations Forensic Pathology Panel (1978): John I. Coe, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner of Hennepin County, Minnesota; Joseph H. Davis, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner of Dade County, Miami, Florida; George S. Loquvam, M.D., Director of the Institute of Forensic Sciences, Oakland, California; Charles S. Petty, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, Dallas County, Dallas, Texas; Earl Rose, M.D., LL.B., Professor of Pathology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa; Werner V. Spitz, M.D., Medical Examiner of Detroit, Michigan; Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., Coroner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; James T. Weston, M.D., Chief Medical Investigator, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Panel Chairman Michael M. Baden, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, New York City.

Over the years, a number of other qualified experts have had the opportunity to study the autopsy materials (which are controlled by the Kennedy family, by the way, not a government agency), and have published some of their findings, which have also supported the conclusions of the original autopsy pathologists.

Bottom line: every qualified expert who has studied the original autopsy materials agreed that the autopsy pathologists were correct in concluding that the evidence shows a small wound of entrance on the back of the head, and a large, extruded wound of exit on the right front, forward of the ear.

A good source for further information on the head shot is this webpage:

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

Space limitations likewise precluded a discussion of the issue of a missed shot. Based on the fact that over 80% of the eyewitnesses reported hearing precisely three shots, as well as the presence of the three spent rifle shells found at the crime scene in the Book Depository, it is commonly accepted that three shots were fired. Because only one bullet and fragments of a second were recovered, it cannot be stated with any certainty where the third bullet went, although it has been the subject of considerable speculation. (Gerald Posner's CASE CLOSED, Gus Russo's LIVE BY THE SWORD, and the National Geographic Channel documentary, JFK: THE LOST BULLET each provide one hypothesis, for example.)

Since the HSCA published its report in 1979 and further research was conducted in the 1980s and '90s, a growing consensus has placed the missed shot at approximately frame 155 of the Zapruder film. I examine the evidence for this in another section of my Stone critique:

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot6.html

As for your speculative arguments, my article notes the allegations from some conspiracy theorists that some or all of the forensic evidence in the case has been altered or forged, and I think I explain pretty clearly why such hypotheses are contradicted by the best evidence and the application of critical thinking tools. Speculation to the contrary seems counterproductive to me, but many are bound to disagree.

Dave


I agree with all that you've said, but you haven't addressed the "little conspiracy " notion that Fidel Castro may have encouraged Oswald, thus beating the CIA to the punch in their efforts to kill him.
Voltairian individualist on the lunatic fringe of the radical center.

Dave Reitzes
New Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:53 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Dave Reitzes » Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:16 am

Tom-Palven wrote:I agree with all that you've said,


I like the way you think, Tom. :)

Tom-Palven wrote:but you haven't addressed the "little conspiracy " notion that Fidel Castro may have encouraged Oswald, thus beating the CIA to the punch in their efforts to kill him.


In a 10,000-word article, of course, I couldn't address every theory that's out there; I had to confine myself to the most influential and persistent claims. Although there are a handful of reputable scholars who believe that one or more Castro supporters may have influenced Oswald's actions (which I doubt, for reasons touched upon in the section of my article called "The Red Menace"), I'm not sure I know anyone who believes that Castro was personally behind Oswald's actions. Oswald's personal instability surely argues against the idea that anyone would have selected him for such a task.

There has been speculation at times that Castro may have intercepted a team of CIA assassins and managed to turn them against JFK, but Oswald is inevitably cast as the fall guy in this scenario, not JFK's actual assassin. Castro did make a famous statement in September 1963, warning that if U.S. leaders were supporting efforts to eliminate him, they themselves would not be safe. It's possible that Oswald had heard of this, and it could have been part of what motivated him to kill JFK. But that's very different from hypothesizing that Castro and Oswald were actually part of a conspiracy together.

There is a slightly more common story that Castro had advance notice of Oswald's intentions (because Oswald allegedly shot his mouth off about it at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City some seven weeks before the assassination, a claim not supported by any of the eyewitnesses there), and simply didn't do anything to intervene or warn anyone. I always thought the evidence for this was flimsy, and Vincent Bugliosi's massive tome, RECLAIMING HISTORY, spends just a page or two detailing some of the problems with the story.

Dave

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby octopus1 » Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:58 pm

I find it strange that the timeline of the "Zapruder" film was used to suggest that each of the three shots had to have occurred in about 6 seconds...

The footage is jumpy, and not running at a lifelike frame-rate. That must've caused other folks to wonder how relevant the footage is in proving a wide ranging conspiracy?

The location of the bullet casings. They suggest a shot was fired roughly perpendicular to the window ledge - And the other two suggest that shots were taken at an angle 'rightwards' out of the window (Which gels with the location of the book building, with respect to the location of the fatal shot.)

A witness almost directly opposite the infamous window ducked behind a concrete block after hearing the first shot. He claims (Admittedly not too reliably) that the Kennedy car had only just turned onto Dealy Plaza at the time he heard it and took cover.

----

I'm not saying that there wasn't a conspiracy. I couldn't. But there is also some evidence to indicate that Oswald was a 'lone gunman'.

Like all mass conspiracies, the number of people that would need to keep their mouths shut seems unsustainable.
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4698
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Tom Palven » Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:00 am

I noted my two-cents' worth earlier, that Oswald probably acted alone and that he was to all appearances a committed a communist who had been to Moscow and to Cuba, and Castro may have encouraged his actions, if not aided and abetted them. But the fact that some CIA documents are not to be released until 2017 may indicate that there may be more to the story than the simple embarrassment that Castro got Kennedy before the CIA got Castro. Maybe the CIA was convinced that Oswald was one of their boys, and that they knowingly allowed him to travel to Moscow and Havana, and that this was one too many of the CIA actions that backfired to be allowed to go public.
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2012/06/na ... crets.html

Yeah, sounds plausible. I like this idea! :posting:
Voltairian individualist on the lunatic fringe of the radical center.

Dave Reitzes
New Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:53 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Dave Reitzes » Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:55 am

Tom-Palven wrote:I noted my two-cents' worth earlier, that Oswald probably acted alone and that he was to all appearances a committed a communist who had been to Moscow and to Cuba, and Castro may have encouraged his actions, if not aided and abetted them. But the fact that some CIA documents are not to be released until 2017 may indicate that there may be more to the story than the simple embarrassment that Castro got Kennedy before the CIA got Castro. Maybe the CIA was convinced that Oswald was one of their boys, and that they knowingly allowed him to travel to Moscow and Havana, and that this was one too many of the CIA actions that backfired to be allowed to go public.
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2012/06/na ... crets.html

Yeah, sounds plausible. I like this idea! :posting:


First of all, Oswald never stepped foot into Cuba; he tried to obtain a travel visa from the Cuban consulate in October 1963 in Mexico City and they turned him down flat.

Why would anyone at the CIA assume that Oswald had ever been "one of their boys"? A number of investigators -- both public and private -- have scoured the records for any indication that Oswald had ever been utilized by the CIA or if the Agency had even shown any operational interest in him. They've found nothing.

Oliver Stone promoted the idea that withheld files from the House committee investigation in the 1970s would prove that the government had covered up a conspiracy. Thanks to the outcry over Stone's film, the independent Assassination Records Review Board was appointed to determine if the agencies that controlled unreleased documents had a legitimate security reason to withhold them in part or in full (such as protecting a source, for example); otherwise the ARRB was authorized to release them as fully as possible. Nothing was withheld to protect any government agency.

Former Army intelligence analyst John Newman, a conspiracy theorist and an advisor on Stone's "JFK," nabbed a book contract by promising to scour through the mountains of newly released documents and find evidence that Oswald had been a CIA agent or asset of some kind. When his book appeared (OSWALD AND THE CIA), he explicitly acknowledged that he could not support the thesis he'd set out to prove.

A close associate of Newman's, Jefferson Morley, is now making similar claims about the remaining CIA documents, even though it sounds to me like the documents relate more to what the CIA may have known ABOUT Oswald (and whether they used assets to publicize his Communist leanings AFTER the assassination) than any kind of relationship between them. Until the documents are released in full, of course, there's no way of knowing for sure what they say.

As I wrote in my SKEPTIC article, suspicions about Oswald and the CIA began with skepticism about whether his highly unusual defection to the Soviet Union in 1959 had been authentic. One of the originators of the hypothesis that Oswald was not a genuine defector but an intelligence agent was author Harold Weisberg (WHITEWASH). But after nearly 40 years of pioneering research, Weisberg acknowledged that the Warren Commission “checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew,” and candidly admitted to Vincent Bugliosi that “much as it looks like Oswald was some kind of agent for somebody, I have not found a shred of evidence to support it, and he never had an extra penny.”

Oswald had been a devout Marxist since his teens. He was outspoken in his hatred of capitalism and the United States in particular. At least one known acquaintance recalls his anger about the way the government had supported the overthrow of Castro at the Bay of Pigs. He probably would have loved to be a spy -- but for Castro, not the U.S. But when he tried to convince the Cuban consul that he wanted to go to Cuba and fight for the revolution, the consul thought Oswald was a crackpot and told him point-blank that someone like him could bring the revolution nothing but harm.

Dave

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4698
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Tom Palven » Sun Nov 24, 2013 8:52 am

According to the report cited below, a 2009 executive order required that all CIA documents relating to the Kennedy murder were to be released by Dec 31, 2013, but on June 12, 2012 Gary M. Stern, General Counsel to the National Archives denied a request that that order be complied with.
http://www.archives.gov/legal/bios/gmstern.html

Stern quibbled about whether the number of documents being withheld was actually 1,171, and whether their total actually exceeded 50,000 pages. His stated reason for being unable to release the remaining documents was a simple "we are unable to review" all the remaining documents by the required 2013 deadline.
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2012/06/na ... crets.html

Are you skeptical about his answer? Why is it that whatever documents that are unreleased allegedly continue to need to be reviewed by government officials until 2017?
Voltairian individualist on the lunatic fringe of the radical center.

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby octopus1 » Sun Nov 24, 2013 4:25 pm

Tom-Palven wrote:According to the report cited below, a 2009 executive order required that all CIA documents relating to the Kennedy murder were to be released by Dec 31, 2013, but on June 12, 2012 Gary M. Stern, General Counsel to the National Archives denied a request that that order be complied with.
http://www.archives.gov/legal/bios/gmstern.html

Stern quibbled about whether the number of documents being withheld was actually 1,171, and whether their total actually exceeded 50,000 pages. His stated reason for being unable to release the remaining documents was a simple "we are unable to review" all the remaining documents by the required 2013 deadline.
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2012/06/na ... crets.html

Are you skeptical about his answer? Why is it that whatever documents that are unreleased allegedly continue to need to be reviewed by government officials until 2017?


If you asked the CIA what they served for lunch last week - They'd call it "classified" and refuse to release the information for years.

It's just how they do things. Of course, lunch menus aren't going to inspire major conspiracies...
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28986
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Gord » Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:55 pm

octopus1 wrote:...Of course, lunch menus aren't going to inspire major conspiracies...

freedom communist fries
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby octopus1 » Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:30 pm

Gord wrote:
octopus1 wrote:...Of course, lunch menus aren't going to inspire major conspiracies...

freedom communist fries


Was that "eyes only"? :P
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4698
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Tom Palven » Sun Nov 24, 2013 11:04 pm

Gord wrote:
octopus1 wrote:...Of course, lunch menus aren't going to inspire major conspiracies...

freedom communist fries


I agree, ------
Voltairian individualist on the lunatic fringe of the radical center.

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby octopus1 » Mon Nov 25, 2013 12:50 pm

THIS COMMENT WAS REMOVED BY ROSA KLEBB

Image
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

Dave Reitzes
New Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:53 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Dave Reitzes » Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:59 am

If you asked the CIA what they served for lunch last week - They'd call it "classified" and refuse to release the information for years.

It's just how they do things. Of course, lunch menus aren't going to inspire major conspiracies...


Perhaps if fish or waterfowl are on the menu:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context3.htm


<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------

For the conspiracy-minded, nothing better proves an official plot than the fact that the government has kept secret for over 30 years a mass of documents relating to the assassination. Must be part of a "coverup," right? How does government routinely deal with its documents? Recent issues of The Record - News From the National Archives and Records Administration, show what the government is finally getting around to releasing. For example:

The Fish and Wildlife Service just opened a cubic foot of records:
"Monthly Statistical Bulletins and Current Fishery Statistics for the
ports of Boston and Gloucester, MA, 1901-1944 and Portland, ME, 1915-1944.
These reports show species, quantities, and values of fish landed; location
of fishing grounds; size and nature of the fishing fleets; number of vessel
sailings; and type of fishing gear (trawls, gill nets, etc.)"
(Vol 4, No. 3, January 1998, p. 31)

And see Vol 4, No. 4, March, 1998: Page 31: "Declassification and Initial Processing Division" for:

* Records of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Record Group 22, 38 cubic
feet) Bird Migration Schedules and Waterfowl Reports, 1888 - 1924,
transferred from NARA Mid-Atlantic Region (Philadelphia). Materials open.

* U.S. Coast Guard (RG 26, 15 cubic feet) Records of Charles A. Park concerning
electronic aids to navigation, 1910 - 1946. Materials open.

* Records of the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Relating to
Economic Aid Programs, 1946 -1949

* Office of the Judge Advocate General (Army) (RG 153, 8 cubic feet) JAG Library
collection of publications and issuances relating to the World War I draft and
Veterans Bureau, 1917 - 1940 Materials Open.

There seems to be no end to the sinister materials that the government conceals! Thanks to Joel Grant for supplying these examples.

<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------


Dave

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby octopus1 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:19 am

Dave Reitzes wrote:
If you asked the CIA what they served for lunch last week - They'd call it "classified" and refuse to release the information for years.

It's just how they do things. Of course, lunch menus aren't going to inspire major conspiracies...


Perhaps if fish or waterfowl are on the menu:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context3.htm


<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------

For the conspiracy-minded, nothing better proves an official plot than the fact that the government has kept secret for over 30 years a mass of documents relating to the assassination. Must be part of a "coverup," right? How does government routinely deal with its documents? Recent issues of The Record - News From the National Archives and Records Administration, show what the government is finally getting around to releasing. For example:

The Fish and Wildlife Service just opened a cubic foot of records:
"Monthly Statistical Bulletins and Current Fishery Statistics for the
ports of Boston and Gloucester, MA, 1901-1944 and Portland, ME, 1915-1944.
These reports show species, quantities, and values of fish landed; location
of fishing grounds; size and nature of the fishing fleets; number of vessel
sailings; and type of fishing gear (trawls, gill nets, etc.)"
(Vol 4, No. 3, January 1998, p. 31)

And see Vol 4, No. 4, March, 1998: Page 31: "Declassification and Initial Processing Division" for:

* Records of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Record Group 22, 38 cubic
feet) Bird Migration Schedules and Waterfowl Reports, 1888 - 1924,
transferred from NARA Mid-Atlantic Region (Philadelphia). Materials open.

* U.S. Coast Guard (RG 26, 15 cubic feet) Records of Charles A. Park concerning
electronic aids to navigation, 1910 - 1946. Materials open.

* Records of the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Relating to
Economic Aid Programs, 1946 -1949

* Office of the Judge Advocate General (Army) (RG 153, 8 cubic feet) JAG Library
collection of publications and issuances relating to the World War I draft and
Veterans Bureau, 1917 - 1940 Materials Open.

There seems to be no end to the sinister materials that the government conceals! Thanks to Joel Grant for supplying these examples.

<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------


Dave


Are you suggesting that governments release information after a set period of time? If that's the case, then they're doing what they promised to do - A creepy thing in itself!
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4698
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Tom Palven » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:17 am

Just asking if it's possible that government institutions like the NSA or CIA could be slower in releasing embarrassing documents than those indicating the wonders that they have achieved. Institutions, as with standing committees, often seem to take on a life of their own, replete with strong survival instincts unrelated to, or even contradictory to their original alleged purpose.
Voltairian individualist on the lunatic fringe of the radical center.

Dave Reitzes
New Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:53 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Dave Reitzes » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:36 pm

octopus1 wrote:Are you suggesting that governments release information after a set period of time? If that's the case, then they're doing what they promised to do - A creepy thing in itself!


John McAdams' excellent book JFK ASSASSINATION LOGIC has a chapter on how conspiracy theorists tend to misunderstand how bureaucracies work.

Dave

Dave Reitzes
New Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:53 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Dave Reitzes » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:47 pm

Tom-Palven wrote:Just asking if it's possible that government institutions like the NSA or CIA could be slower in releasing embarrassing documents than those indicating the wonders that they have achieved. Institutions, as with standing committees, often seem to take on a life of their own, replete with strong survival instincts unrelated to, or even contradictory to their original alleged purpose.


This is true, and bureaucracies thrive on secrecy in general, often for reasons that outsiders find hard to fathom. Such secrecy can be misinterpreted by well intended researchers (including some experienced journalists who should know better), and can be exploited for personal gain by others. A section of my critique of Oliver Stone's "JFK" discusses how New Orleans DA Jim Garrison did this, as did Joe McCarthy before him:

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100files.html

Dave

Dave Reitzes
New Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:53 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Dave Reitzes » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:50 pm

My SKEPTIC article in now available online:

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/jfk ... t-matters/

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4953
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Monster » Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:25 pm

Dave Reitzes, I read your JFK article in Skeptic a few days ago. It's very well written.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby octopus1 » Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:33 am

Dave Reitzes wrote:My SKEPTIC article in now available online:

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/jfk ... t-matters/


Oh! :lol:

I'm the kind of skeptic that doesn't buy into the conspiracies :P
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

Dave Reitzes
New Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:53 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Dave Reitzes » Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:21 am

Monster wrote:Dave Reitzes, I read your JFK article in Skeptic a few days ago. It's very well written.


Thank you. As a big fan of the Skeptics Society and SKEPTIC, I'm very grateful for the chance to reach their readers.

Dave

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4698
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Tom Palven » Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:48 am

Dave Reitzes wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Just asking if it's possible that government institutions like the NSA or CIA could be slower in releasing embarrassing documents than those indicating the wonders that they have achieved. Institutions, as with standing committees, often seem to take on a life of their own, replete with strong survival instincts unrelated to, or even contradictory to their original alleged purpose.


This is true, and bureaucracies thrive on secrecy in general, often for reasons that outsiders find hard to fathom. Such secrecy can be misinterpreted by well intended researchers (including some experienced journalists who should know better), and can be exploited for personal gain by others. A section of my critique of Oliver Stone's "JFK" discusses how New Orleans DA Jim Garrison did this, as did Joe McCarthy before him:

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100files.html

Dave



PS Seems that the raison d'etre of established institutions becomes fundraising, so they can expand and raise more funds to raise funds with.
Voltairian individualist on the lunatic fringe of the radical center.

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu
Contact:

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby vanderpoel » Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:53 pm

What did Kennedy know and when did he know it? http://lnkd.in/bhJ3bfw REDLOVE - THE ART AND CONSEQUENCE OF ILLUSION
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28986
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Gord » Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:27 am

Even ApenotMonkey.com got on the JFK bandwagon recently: http://www.apenotmonkey.com/2013/11/22/ ... -part-iii/
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby octopus1 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:29 am

"'Tis the season" after all...
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....


Return to “Conspiracies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest