Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Midway Rebel

(2,191 posts)
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 01:55 AM Nov 2013

The JFK Assassination and American Conspiracy Culture by Jonathan Earle

The JFK Assassination and American Conspiracy Culture (Guest Post by Jonathan Earle at US Intellectual History Blog) Society for U.S. Intellectual History

"Teaching a course on conspiracy theories is always interesting in the Age of Obama, but this fall has been an especially propitious time to guide an intellectual tour through American political paranoia. One of the hallmarks of the class is demonstrating how conspiracy thinking was “baked right into the cake” that is our republic, from colonial witch-hunters to patriot paranoids, money cranks, crusaders against the Slave Power, UFOlogists and, of course, presidential assassins. My course is not meant to glorify this type of thinking, but to teach students to recognize it, how it changed over time, and (here’s the secret ingredient, to continue with my baking metaphor) to interrogate conspiracy theories with a special vigor and skepticism.
Even the most distracted of my students has noticed the conspiracy-relishing coverage of the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination on nearly every station on the cable dial. Coincidentally, this fall marked the 75th anniversary of the Mercury Theater of the Air’s broadcast of “War of The Worlds,” when Orson Welles and his talented players used the conventions of the new-ish medium of radio to fool at least some unsuspecting Americans into believing their Halloween broadcast was actually a Martian invasion.[1]

....

""What are we to make of this event – rightly or wrongly, the most intensely-studied event in U.S. history – fifty years after the fact? On first glance, the assassination and its aftermath are a historian’s dream: millions of pages of testimony, thousands of eyewitnesses, multiple autopsies and ballistics reports; there’s even a Kodachrome film that frames the event down to the fraction of a second. Yet I can think of very few details from that day, even small ones, that remain completely uncontested by either buffs or scholars. I’m not sure this can be said about any historical event, even 9/11. Within three years of the assassination, 200 books had appeared; the bibliography is now well over 3,000 even without counting films, documentaries, blogs and newsletters. Finally, a very strong majority of these sources are saturated with conspiracy thinking. American citizens still mutiny against the official account that pointed to Lee Oswald (as he was known then) as a “lone gunman.” And to my eyes, a vast percentage of those focus on a single type of conspiracy, from both right and left: that a coup d’état robbed our nation of more peaceful and prosperous future.""


Rad more at http://s-usih.org/2013/11/the-jfk-assassination-and-american-conspiracy-culture-guest-post-by-jonathan-earle.html

37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The JFK Assassination and American Conspiracy Culture by Jonathan Earle (Original Post) The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 OP
Kicking for the Sunday readers. nt The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #1
Here's the problem RobertEarl Nov 2013 #2
It's got nothing to do with trusting authority. DanTex Nov 2013 #3
Has everything to do with trust RobertEarl Nov 2013 #5
Let's see Bush lied, Reagan lied, and therefore our government lied re JFK. duffyduff Nov 2013 #6
What the Bushes or Reagan or Nixon said has nothing to do with JFK's assassination. DanTex Nov 2013 #8
Wow RobertEarl Nov 2013 #10
As usual, you ignore the part about the actual evidence. DanTex Nov 2013 #11
And your first sentence sums up yours. "Wow." The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #12
Question away. Who is stopping you? The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #4
What does "ecumenical" mean to you? RobertEarl Nov 2013 #7
This thread isn't really about me. The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #9
Bush was also CIA head RobertEarl Nov 2013 #13
Has jack shit to do with the OP and proves nothing. The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #14
Wow, that's fascinating! DanTex Nov 2013 #15
"Conspiracy culture"? IMO, that's a well-fitting shoe. WinkyDink Nov 2013 #16
Those are good examples of revealed conspiracies. The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #17
Simply because there are those who refuse to accept strong circumstantial evidence does not WinkyDink Nov 2013 #18
Comparing JFK conspiracies to the Simpson murder is truly preposterous. DanTex Nov 2013 #19
Much easier to prove Oswald not alone than that he was KurtNYC Nov 2013 #20
... DanTex Nov 2013 #24
Thanks for a factual post. duffyduff Nov 2013 #26
Your post confirms many of the facts I cite KurtNYC Nov 2013 #28
Huh? What facts would those be? DanTex Nov 2013 #33
B.S. It's a fact he acted alone. duffyduff Nov 2013 #25
What ''conspiracy-relishing coverage of the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination''? Octafish Nov 2013 #21
Yes, Dr. Earle is "coming from" the profession of history. The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #22
No, he's ''coming from'' the profession of disinformationist. Octafish Nov 2013 #23
Sigh. You keep repeating the same lies. DanTex Nov 2013 #27
Sigh. You keep repeating the same lies. Ichingcarpenter Nov 2013 #29
LOL. "your story is full of holes" DanTex Nov 2013 #30
So what? Oswald in Mexico City was no misidentification. Octafish Nov 2013 #32
That's all pure speculation. DanTex Nov 2013 #35
Thanks for knocking down this strawman... MinM Nov 2013 #34
Well, he's a tenured professor at a state university and teaches a course in conspiracy theory. The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #37
The two biggest contribution to ongoing conspiracy theories is ... Vox Moi Nov 2013 #31
It is clear you did not read the thread. The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #36
 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
2. Here's the problem
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:23 PM
Nov 2013

People just don't trust authorities. Why should they?

Can anyone explain why we should just trust what we are told by those who have worked hard, spent time, money and political capital, just to be in the hierarchy?

Given there are evidently few altruistic individuals in leadership, why should we not question their decrees?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
3. It's got nothing to do with trusting authority.
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:26 PM
Nov 2013

It has to do with the ability/willingness to examine actual evidence, and use reason to draw conclusions.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
5. Has everything to do with trust
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:32 PM
Nov 2013

Do you trust that the Bushies (12) told you the truth?

How about Reagan(8)? Nixon(6), maybe?

That's 26 years of US presidencies in the last 50. Some great examples of trustworthy leadership there, eh?

 

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)
6. Let's see Bush lied, Reagan lied, and therefore our government lied re JFK.
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:35 PM
Nov 2013

Sorry if that sounds totally batshit.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
8. What the Bushes or Reagan or Nixon said has nothing to do with JFK's assassination.
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:38 PM
Nov 2013

I trust the witnesses, ballistic evidence, fingerprints, the fact that the rifle found was owned by Lee Harvey Oswald, etc. None of that has anything to do with Bush or Nixon. The fact that I don't trust Nixon doesn't mean that everything that everything that anyone associated with the government at any level has been a lie.

What exactly is the connection to JFK? Do you think Bush organized a team of people to plant the rifle and the shell casings at the TSBD and put Oswald's fingerprints there? Do you think the man who saw Oswald shooting from the window and told Dallas police about it was actually a deep-cover Nixon operative?

If everything the government says is a lie, maybe JFK wasn't assassinated after all! Maybe he was still in charge, calling all the shots, and he was just sick of all the attention. Or maybe he wasn't even president in the first place. Where does the lunacy end?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
11. As usual, you ignore the part about the actual evidence.
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:52 PM
Nov 2013

It's getting kind of funny, all these people who are sure that there was some big conspiracy, and yet are utterly clueless as to any of the evidence, witnesses, etc. But I guess it's to be expected -- the less facts you know, the easier it is to believe in wild fantasies.

The Midway Rebel

(2,191 posts)
4. Question away. Who is stopping you?
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:30 PM
Nov 2013

You apparently do not like the answers you are getting and believe if you keep asking them the answers will change.

In this essay, Dr. Earle suggests that history will judge JFK CTers harshly. He also suggests the JFK assassination was a watershed moment in US history where the paranoid style in American politics crossed ideological lines. It became "ecumenical" he says. Any comments about that?

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
7. What does "ecumenical" mean to you?
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:35 PM
Nov 2013

It is not so much the answers we're getting, it is that there are so many outstanding questions. The Hidden secrets. The Evidence that crooks occupy the government; just look at some of the presidents we've endured.

The Midway Rebel

(2,191 posts)
9. This thread isn't really about me.
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:49 PM
Nov 2013

But yeah, Jimmy Carter and LBJ and the whole war on poverty thing how terrible was that?




Care to comment on the professor's essay? Did you read it?

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
13. Bush was also CIA head
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:56 PM
Nov 2013

This will give some a perspective on the crooks. Thanks to Octafish.



From "The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush"...

EXCERPT...

During the preparation of the present work, there was one historical moment
which more than any other delineated the character of George Bush. The
scene was the Nixon White House during the final days of the Watergate
debacle. White House officials, including George Bush, had spent the
morning of that Monday, August 5, 1974 absorbing the impact of Nixon's
notorious "smoking gun" tape, the recorded conversation between Nixon and
his chief of staff, H.R. Haldemann, shortly after the original Watergate
break-in, which could now no longer be withheld from the public. In that
exchange of June 23, 1972, Nixon ordered that the CIA stop the FBI from
further investigating how various sums of money found their way from Texas
and Minnesota via Mexico City to the coffers of the Committee to Re-Elect
the President (CREEP) and thence into the pockets of the "Plumbers"
arrested in the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate building.
These revelations were widely interpreted as establishing a "prima facie"
case of obstruction of justice against Nixon. That was fine with George,
who sincerely wanted his patron and benefactor Nixon to resign. George's
great concern was that the smoking gun tape called attention to a
money-laundering mechanism which he, together with Bill Liedtke of
Pennzoil, and Robert Mosbacher, had helped to set up at Nixon's request.
When Nixon, in the "smoking gun" tape, talked about "the Texans" and "some
Texas people," Bush, Liedtke, and Mosbacher were among the most prominent
of those referred to. The threat to George's political ambitions was great.

The White House that morning was gripped by panic. Nixon would be gone
before the end of the week. In the midst of the furor, White House
Congressional liaison William Timmons wanted to know if everyone who needed
to be informed had been briefed about the smoking gun transcript. In a
roomful of officials, some of whom were already sipping Scotch to steady
their nerves, Timmons asked Dean Burch, "Dean, does Bush know about the
transcript yet?"

"Yes," responded Burch.

"Well, what did he do?" inquired Timmons.

"He broke out into assholes and shit himself to death," replied Burch.

In this exchange, which is recorded in Woodward and Bernstein's "The Final
Days," we grasp the essential George Bush, in a crisis, and for all
seasons.

SOURCE: http://www.padrak.com/alt/BUSHBOOK_1.html

The Midway Rebel

(2,191 posts)
14. Has jack shit to do with the OP and proves nothing.
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 03:00 PM
Nov 2013

Thanks for proving your willingness to ignore evidence, grasp at CT straws, and derail an OP with Octafish's cut and paste CT bullshit though.

ETA With this post you have also provided DU a good example of which side is actually try to silence or squelch a reasonable discussion on this topic.

The Midway Rebel

(2,191 posts)
17. Those are good examples of revealed conspiracies.
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 03:11 PM
Nov 2013

Dr. Earle does not suggest that conspiracies do not exist. Those all have proof. Where is the proof of a JFK conspiracy? Oliver Stone's movie does not count.

 

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)
18. Simply because there are those who refuse to accept strong circumstantial evidence does not
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 09:02 AM
Nov 2013

mean there is none. After all, no-one saw Nicole Brown Simpson get murdered.

And were there actual "proof," there would be, perhaps, an actual trial (do people forget that, not only did LHO have no trial, but that there was no transcript or recording of his alleged interrogation? That there was no confession?** No eyewitness, either to the actual shootings of JFK or JD Tippit?).

**Indeed, from the movie theatre, when he raised his arms and loudly declared that he wasn't armed---he wasn't stupid---to his statement that "I'm just a patsy," LHO maintained his non-involvement in any crime.

As a collector of books on the subject, I'm aware of the merits or not of the OS movie.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
19. Comparing JFK conspiracies to the Simpson murder is truly preposterous.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 09:25 AM
Nov 2013

In the Simpson case, there was plenty of direct evidence: blood, DNA, footprint, hairs, glove, etc. The only evidence for a JFK conspiracy is motive: a lot of people hated JFK.

The only people who ignore evidence are the CTers, who persistently ignore the overwhelming evidence that Oswald and Oswald alone shot JFK. This evidence is anything but circumstantional: ballistics matches, fingerprints, one eyewitness, three men standing directly below where the shots were fired who heard shots and even the sound of a rifle reloading directly above them, etc. And then there's the fact that Oswald was the only employee of the TSBD who fled, and later he shot a police officer who was questioning him. Etc.

As to why there was no trial, I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but Oswald was killed shortly after the assassination, and the US does not prosecute dead people. On the other hand, there actually was a trial insinuating a conspiracy, and the jury came back with a verdict of not guilty in less than an hour.

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
20. Much easier to prove Oswald not alone than that he was
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 10:09 AM
Nov 2013

If ANY of the following are true then "Oswald acted alone" is false:

- more than 3 shots fired
- shots from more than one direction
- Oswald connected to ANY one of: Ruby, Banister, CIA, Milteer, Lake Pontchartrain, anti-Castro militias, the Mafia(s)

As for ignoring evidence here is a small part of what is ignored or explained away by the theories of the WCR:

- paraffin test on Oswald showed no signs of him firing a weapon that day yet according to WCR he fired 8 rounds from two different weapons
- 39 witness heard shots from the fence, police and sec service went immediately to the area
- witnesses reported 2 men fleeing from the backside of the fence
- Abraham Zapruder testifed under oath twice that the head shot came from behind him and that he felt "they were ganging up" on Kennedy
- John Connally and his wife don't believe that the bullet that went into JFK's neck was the same bullet that hit Connally from the rear.
- Oswald joined the USMC as soon as he could, achieved security clearance, worked with the U2 program, and was trained in Russian by the military before "defecting."
- Oswald was involved with anti-Castro militia in the New Orleans / Lake Pontchartrain area
- phone records obtained by RFK showed that Oswald had called mafia members in the days leading up to the murders
- LBJ did not agree with the conclusions of the WCR

If the evidence was as consistent and clear as we would all like it to be then there would be no controversy at this point but it isn't. Also, Oswald's background and associations should be enough to make it clear that he wasn't alone in anything he did.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
24. ...
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:08 AM
Nov 2013

- more than 3 shots fired
Clearly did not happen.
- shots from more than one direction
Clearly did not happen.
- Oswald connected to ANY one of: Ruby, Banister, CIA, Milteer, Lake Pontchartrain, anti-Castro militias, the Mafia(s)
Mostly false (unless you count the fact that the CIA was aware of him as "connected&quot and also would prove nothing if it were true, unless there was evidence of an actual plan or help given to him by any of these people.

- paraffin test on Oswald showed no signs of him firing a weapon that day yet according to WCR he fired 8 rounds from two different weapons
First of all this is false. Paraffin tests showed positive on his hands, negative on his cheeks. Also, paraffin tests are known to be unreliable. Given the ballistics matches, the fingerprints at the scene, the eyewitness, and the people on the floor below that heard three loud shots directly above them, the fact that unreliable paraffin tests only showed a partial positive proves nothing. The Warren Commission did a test where they fired Oswald's rifle three times in rapid succession, then ran the same paraffin test and got a negative result.

- 39 witness heard shots from the fence, police and sec service went immediately to the area
More witnesses heard shots from the TSBD, and no evidence whatsoever was found of any shooter in that area. People make mistakes locating sounds, particularly when there are echoes. The most reliable testimony from people who heard the shots came from the three men in the TSBD window, one floor down from Oswald, who reported three shots directly above them, as well as the sound of a rifle reloading and shell casings dropping to the floor. One of them even got some dust or residue on his hair which dropped from the ceiling from the gun blast.

- witnesses reported 2 men fleeing from the backside of the fence
There were lots of people running around, and with hundreds of people in Dealey Park, you get a lot of different versions of what happened. One woman even said she saw people firing back up at Oswald. Some witnesses said there were only 2 shots, others heard up to 8 shots. Dallas Morning News reporter Hugh Aynesworth, who was an eyewitness himself, reported that even in the immediate aftermath there were people giving conflicting reports, and even some people making things up.

That's why it is necessary to look at the hard evidence, not just one person out of hundreds who claimed to see something. No shooters, guns, casings, bullets, or any other believable evidence of shooters in the grassy knoll have ever been found. If there was a gunman in the grassy knoll, then (a) he missed and (b) his bullets and shell casings disappeared and (c) his shot was timed to occur almost exactly the same time as one of Oswald's three shots and (d) he managed a completely clean escape.

- Abraham Zapruder testifed under oath twice that the head shot came from behind him and that he felt "they were ganging up" on Kennedy
Zapruder's feelings are irrelevant. The hard evidence, including his film, demonstrate conclusively that the shot came from the back. Like others, he probably felt the shot came from behind due to JFK's head snap, which upon closer inspection, actually moved forward in the frame immediately after he was shot, and the backwards movement of his torso was due to a neuromuscular reaction to being shot in the head. There are no credible experts who believe that the head movement could have been due to momentum from a bullet, this is pure Oliver Stone stuff.

- John Connally and his wife don't believe that the bullet that went into JFK's neck was the same bullet that hit Connally from the rear.
Their feelings are irrelevant. The hard evidence demonstrates conclusively that it was the same bullet. In fact, the trajectory of the bullet was such that it had nowhere else to go but into Connelly. If it didn't hit Connelly, then it vanished into mid-air.

- Oswald joined the USMC as soon as he could, achieved security clearance, worked with the U2 program, and was trained in Russian by the military before "defecting."
Proves nothing. Neither the CIA or KGB wanted Oswald because they both viewed him as a unreliable nut. Which he was.

- Oswald was involved with anti-Castro militia in the New Orleans / Lake Pontchartrain area
"Involved" is completely overstating the case. He had spoken to some anti-Castro people, as an attempt to "infiltrate". Again, this is irrelevant and proves nothing, unless there is evidence that any of these groups helped Oswald or paid him or gave him orders or anything like that, which there is none.

- phone records obtained by RFK showed that Oswald had called mafia members in the days leading up to the murders
That was Jack Ruby, not Oswald, and he was contacting them because of a labor dispute with the strippers' union. Ruby was not a mob hit man, he was a strip club owner who knew some people in the mob -- presumably if the mob wanted to kill Oswald, they would send someone with some experience in that department, who knows that you don't carry out a hit in a room full of cops on live TV. Or better yet, they would have had him killed before he was caught, immediately after the shooting.

- LBJ did not agree with the conclusions of the WCR
Irrelevant in the face of the hard evidence. A lot of people disagreed with the WCR.

Yes, the evidence is crystal clear. The witnesses, ballistics matches, fingerprints, shell casings and rifle found at the scene, the autopsy which clearly shows entry wounds in the back (a result which was unanimously confirmed by 15 pathologists in 4 subsequent investigations). As well as the fact that out of all TSBD employees, only one of them fled the scene. Also, no TSBD employees saw anyone that was not an employee in the building that day. And then the lack of any hard evidence at all to support any alternate theories.

The only possible conspiracy theories are those that have Oswald and Oswald alone shooting JFK. Any multiple shooter theory is ruled out by the evidence. And conspiracies involving Oswald are extremely unlikely, because despite decades of investigation, there is zero evidence to support any of them, beyond just his unusual life story. And for most proposed conspiracies (CIA, KGB, anti-Castro), there is strong evidence that they are false.

 

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)
26. Thanks for a factual post.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:18 AM
Nov 2013

You have lots more patience than I do with people who believe in nutball conspiracy theories on the JFK assassination.

Oswald did it alone. We knew that as soon as Oswald was arrested and charged.

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
28. Your post confirms many of the facts I cite
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:47 AM
Nov 2013

You are free to reach your own conclusions but the military doesn't generally give people higher security clearance for being "unreliable." They don't train them in Russian and then discharge them so they can defect with information the Russian could want and then let them come home 2 years later no questions asked.

If witnesses saw and heard NOTHING BUT 3 shots from the TSBD then we could safely conclude that shot were ONLY fired from there. However, credible witnesses, very experienced with gunfire, testified to multiple directions. Zapruder flinched so badly that frame 313 is blurred. He went to his grave believing in multiple directions for the gunfire.

If Oswald really was a "loner" or "loser" or a communist he wouldn't have had the RW friends he did in Dallas including George de Mohrenschildt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Mohrenschildt#Another_backyard_photo

Many things are "ruled out by the evidence" -- Oswald acting alone is one of them.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
33. Huh? What facts would those be?
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:22 PM
Nov 2013

The fact is that you continually ignore the entire record of forensic evidence. I have refuted every single one of your points, while you haven't even attempted to address the actual evidence. Yes, some people reported hearing sounds from the grassy knoll. So what? That proves nothing. Like I said, we know for an absolute fact that no shots from the grassy knoll actually hit JFK, no bullets were found, no shell casings, no shooters, nothing. If there was a shooter, he missed and left no trace of evidence of any kind.

Evidence that you have ignored:

-- There are no entrance wounds on the front of JFK, but two entrance wounds in the back.
-- Both bullets that hit JFK were found, and matched by ballistics to Oswald's gun
-- Three shell casings were found on ths 6'th floor of TSBD
-- Oswald's fingerprints were at the scene of the crime
-- Oswald was last seen on the 6th floor of the TSBD, when Charlie Givens asked him if he was going down to lunch and Oswald said no.
-- One eyewitness saw Oswald actually shooting, immediately reported an accurate description to the police, picked Oswald out of a lineup, and gave sworn testimony to the WC oath that Oswald was the man he saw.
-- Three men positioned immediately below Oswald testified that shots came from right above them, and one of them heard shell casings drop and reloading sounds
-- One of those three men had dust fall on his head from the ceiling due to the gun blast the floor above
-- Oswald fled the scene, and was the only TSBD employee to do so
-- Oswald shot a police officer
-- Oswald left his wedding ring and some money for his wife that morning, something he had never done before
-- Oswald went home to his wife Thursday night, something he had never done before on weekdays
-- Oswald carried a rifle-sized bag to work that day, and when asked about it he said it was curtain rods for his apartment, even though his apartment already had curtain rods
-- Oswald lied to the police claiming that he was at lunch during the shooting, but nobody saw him there, including the people he said were in the room with him
-- Nobody in the TSBD saw Oswald for a period of 30 minutes prior to the shooting.
-- No TSBD employees saw anyone who didn't work there in the building
-- The overwhelming majority of people in Dealey Plaza said they heard three shots
-- More people heard shots from the TSBD than the grassy knoll

Now, just for a second, compare the overwhelming strength of the case against Oswald, against the fact that some witnesses claimed to hear shots from the grassy knoll, the fact that Oswald had an odd life story, and the fact that JFK had a lot of enemies, which in the end are the only actual pieces of evidence to suggest a conspiracy. It's not even close.

 

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)
25. B.S. It's a fact he acted alone.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:15 AM
Nov 2013

Your post is nothing but a chock full of lies that are easily refuted.

Oswald was a prime example of a loser. He had mental instability including suicide attempts and beat up his wife. Nobody would have him. The military didn't want him, the Soviets wouldn't have him, the Cubans wouldn't have him. Hell, his WIFE wouldn't have him, and that was likely the catalyst that sent Oswald over the edge to do what he did.

He made a final attempt to reconcile with Marina the night before the assassination. He had planned to do the deed of killing Kennedy, but he made one last attempt to reconcile with Marina and thus not carry it out. She refused, and the rest is history.

The man had a clear death wish. He left almost all the money he had on the dresser along with his wedding ring. He clearly felt he was never going to see his family again.

Try carrying the guilt Marina has had all these years. If she had only said "yes" none of this would have happened. Yes, she has bought into some conspiracy ideas, but that doesn't mean much. Try carrying the burden around for fifty years that if you had just reconciled with your husband, American history would have changed.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
21. What ''conspiracy-relishing coverage of the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination''?
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 10:30 AM
Nov 2013

Every one of those programs on Detroit television "concluded" Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Did anyone see a program on national television stating CIA withheld documents from the Warren Commission, the Church Committee, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), the Assassination Archives Research Bureau (AARB)?

I didn't.

PS: "Buffs" is a loaded term. Its use demonstrates where Dr. Earle is coming from.

The Midway Rebel

(2,191 posts)
22. Yes, Dr. Earle is "coming from" the profession of history.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 10:45 AM
Nov 2013

You should really try to emulate it sometime.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
23. No, he's ''coming from'' the profession of disinformationist.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 10:58 AM
Nov 2013

Disinformationists are people who use loaded terms to discredit those with whom they disagree. They also present false information as true. In the present example, there is much information that shows a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

Restricting its discussion not only is un-scientific, it's un-democratic. For instance, evidence CIA officers engaged in obstruction of justice, which, by itself, is a criminal conspiracy:

First: CIA agents monitored Oswald in the weeks before the assassination.

Second: Top CIA officials knew Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City before the assassination.

Third: Former CIA director, fired by JFK, Allen Dulles kept this information from the Warren Commission.

These are the FACTS most Americans SHOULD know, but they don't. Because the government and its toadies in the press and academia say, "Case closed. Move on. Nothing to see here."

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
27. Sigh. You keep repeating the same lies.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:44 AM
Nov 2013

Nobody "knew" Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, because he was not impersonated. There was a photograph taken of a man outside the Russian Embassy, which was momentarily and mistakenly identified as Oswald. But there was never any evidence to link that photo to Oswald. The idea that that was Oswald was pure speculation, which turned out to be mistaken.

The "top CIA official" who you claim "knew" of the impersonation was J Edgar Hoover (FBI, not CIA, but in light of the other misinformation, getting this wrong is the least of your sins). J Edgar Hoover claimed that there seemed to be someone impersonating Oswald. This was based on the claim that FBI agents in Dallas had heard a recording of Oswald speaking on the phone, and believed that it was not Oswald's voice. However, the Dallas FBI office confirmed that this information was mistaken, and that they never received a recording, only a transcript. When Hoover was made aware of this, he corrected himself. The head of the Dallas FBI office, as well as the four Dallas FBI agents who had spoken to Oswald and therefore would have been in a position to recognize his voice, all testified to the HSCA that they never heard any such recording. There is no mystery here whatsoever, only a clerical error, but of course in the minds of conspiracy nuts, there are no clerical errors...

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
30. LOL. "your story is full of holes"
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:53 AM
Nov 2013

I guess the idea here is that if you don't even try to make a reasoned argument, you can't be proven wring!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
32. So what? Oswald in Mexico City was no misidentification.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:02 PM
Nov 2013

Someone was operating the guy, connecting dots from Dallas to Oswald to Mexico City to Havana to Moscow.
It was so important, the Nov. 23, 1963 conversation in which President Lyndon Johnson and FBI director J Edgar Hoover discussed Oswald's impersonation in Mexico City was so important, it was erased. No accident, as the conversations before and after that one phone call still exist on the tape. What we know about the episode:



Part 2:



SOURCE: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Fourteen_Minute_Gap

Those interested in learning more may enjoy: The Framing of Oswald.

As for knowing all the answers: I don't. That's why I want to see the records about all this released -- and the testimony of witnesses still living recorded.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
35. That's all pure speculation.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:28 PM
Nov 2013

The only actual fact is that a picture of someone was taken by the CIA outside the embassy, and someone mistakenly identified that picture as Oswald, a mistake that was later corrected. Nobody is trying to deny that Hoover stated that there seemed to be an Oswald impersonator, that's a settled fact. What is also a settled fact is that Hoover said that because of mistaken information that was passed to him, information that was later corrected.

As for having the records released, almost everything has already been released. The reason that things are scheduled for release like this is to protect the privacy of innocent people, not because the government is hiding something. But I'm pretty curious what the conspiracy nuts are going to say in 2017 when the tiny fraction of records still classified get released and there's still no evidence of a conspiracy.

The Midway Rebel

(2,191 posts)
37. Well, he's a tenured professor at a state university and teaches a course in conspiracy theory.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 08:07 PM
Nov 2013

What are you're credentials Octa? Besides DU JFK CT blowhard I mean.

What college history courses do you teach? What books have you written? Any published articles in a journal. Besides your DU cut and paste.

Misinformationist.

That is truly hilarious coming from the king of JFK CT misinformation.

Vox Moi

(546 posts)
31. The two biggest contribution to ongoing conspiracy theories is ...
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:56 AM
Nov 2013

… hiding information and discrediting theorists. Government should do the opposite.
Sometimes it seems that Government actions encourage the development of conspiracy theories.

JFK-related files being sequestered for 75 years.
The investigation into 911 was resisted by the White House and there was never a criminal investigation.

Conspiracy theories are going to arise in any important tragedy like these and they often legitimate questions. Unanswered questions undermine confidence and raise doubts. It is a good end in itself for government to address these questions as best they can and not simply deride the questioners. Release the information and assist - rather than resist the questioners.

Example: A lot of people suspect that explosives were used in the World Trade Center and have published papers and held conferences on that subject but NIST never tested for explosives nor responded to the data presented.
Is there any reason the government could not help answer questions like these … questions that can be answered?

The Midway Rebel

(2,191 posts)
36. It is clear you did not read the thread.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 08:01 PM
Nov 2013

Or else you would not be so misinformed about the alleged sequestered files. How about the article? Did you bother reading the article in the OP?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The JFK Assassination and...