# JFK conspiracy... yes or no? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 23, 2009, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978 "2009-07-23T08:09:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/241 "2009-07-31T15:17:56Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > We’ve solved the mystery of the Kennedy assassination. > Kennedy did it. Lemur866 called it back in Post 102. (And I had Clay Shaw, on the grassy knoll, with the candlestick. Damn!) ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/242 "2009-07-31T15:20:08Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Exactly. Which is why it’s an awful idea for a conspiracy. > > > [@](#): > > > > And knowing several of them, I can tell you that you’re wrong. Since my personal experience conflicts with your guesswork, I see no reason to put any faith in your statement. > > Well, problem is that you say you know ‘several’ of them. My guess is that it isn’t more than a couple, three of them, which would not necessarily indicative of the majority. Second thing is: If you’re that sure you know what these guys would or would not do, then you must be the amazing Kreskin and, of course, you would be willing to bet the lives of your loved ones on that bold claim if James Randi offered you his $1,000,000 prize money. > > Besides, if you’re planning to kill the president you’re not going to tell Secret Service agents, ones who are willing to give their lives for the cause, to back off in full view of the cameras and then rely on threats to men who are used to dealing with threats and danger to keep them quiet for decades. Sorry, the idea fails the very basic smell test. First thing is, you don’t know or don’t know what would or would not be done and neither do I. One person sited this guy here as a credible source on the SS so I will site him, also. [http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter05.pdf](http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter05.pdf) It deals with what a cluster fuck occured with the SS with good reasons to be somewhat skeptical of the procedures. If they’ve got this much ‘not regular procedures’ going on, it would be plausible to have them stand down on film when you know the whole thing is going to be intensely examined anyway. Plausible explanations probably would not be hard to construct. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/243 "2009-07-31T15:27:03Z")
So your implication is Kennedy became vulnerable not through incompetence but maliciousness cleverly disguised as incompetence? ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/244 "2009-07-31T15:28:25Z")
> [@RJKUgly](#): > > As far as **The Hamster King** ’s statement, there are two choices: > > 1. Think he is lying, in which case, case closed. Logic would dictate that You wouldn’t want to keep responding to a liar. > > 2. Take him (and several others) at his word, and if you do, his statement must be given some king of weight, especially coming from a highly qualified source. > > You don’t understand. No one here is **uneasy** with anything you’re saying. We’re **unimpressed**. That’s a very different thing. > > We have considered your story and given the other facts in evidence, we simply think your uncle’s opinion is wrong. And I’m taking for the sake of argument that you are relaying the god’s honest truth about what your uncle said, and that he was sincere in saying it. > > **E-Sabbath** ’s quote clearly shows that SS assignments could be changed on short notice by a request from the president. And given that, possibly even by others fairly high up in the food chain. So it wasn’t unheard of to move agents at the last minute. > > > [@](#): > > > > And we don’t even know if the agent is actually being told to stand down. > > We see him apparently surprised by something, but what? You speculate that he is finding out he’s been mysteriously pulled off his previously assigned post. But that is speculation. Maybe he was expecting to ride part way in the follow car, and has just been told he’s been bumped by someone else. > > And we don’t know if the agent wasn’t actually being told to stand down. You can speculate either way. > > > [@](#): > > > > Your uncle says something looked fishy and this was a serious breach. Is he the only SS agent ever to see this film? And yet we don’t hear any other agents speaking out and saying how fishy it is. > > I said ‘I’ would bet money on the overwhelming majority. That is my opinion only, not my uncle’s. > > Exactly. There’s no way to prove who would keep quiet. And “the overwhelming majority keeping quiet” is useless. If even one agent talks, the investigative ball starts rolling, and the conspiracy breaks down. > > > [@](#): > > > > The others who were previously cowed into submission (nice opinion of your own uncle there, by the way) now run for cover and start talking. > > It just doesn’t hold up from any angle. No offense to your uncle, but he was just wrong about this. I don’t believe I ever said that I said that my uncle said anything about ‘being cowed’. I believe that was me that presented the possibility of the agents being intimidated. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/245 "2009-07-31T15:34:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, problem is that you say you know ‘several’ of them. My guess is that it isn’t more than a couple, three of them, which would not necessarily indicative of the majority. Second thing is: If you’re that sure you know what these guys would or would not do, then you must be the amazing Kreskin and, of course, you would be willing to bet the lives of your loved ones on that bold claim if James Randi offered you his $1,000,000 prize money. Not to be too blunt, but you’re now just throwing random stuff at the wall and hoping things will stick. I’m making no claims about myself. Ignoring the fact that there’s no evidence of anyone but the President asking the SS to move off of the bumper. And ignoring the fact that there’s testimony by the agents in question as to exactly what happened. And ignoring the fact that there’s absolutely no evidence that anyone was threatened or coerced into silence. And ignoring the fact that there’s no evidence that security was compromised beyond what had happened several previous times with this President. What we’re left is your claim that threatening the families of Secret Service agents, the elite of the elite and sworn to risk their lives for the sake of others, after giving them orders in public, is the surefire way to ensure that no one ever talks about this is simply ludicrous. If the conspirators were able to pull this off then they certainly wouldn’t leave horrendous lose ends like this. > [@](#): > > It deals with what a cluster fuck occured with the SS with good reasons to be somewhat skeptical of the procedures. If they’ve got this much ‘not regular procedures’ going on, it would be plausible to have them stand down on film when you know the whole thing is going to be intensely examined anyway. Plausible explanations probably would not be hard to construct. How would you distinguish between the real explanation and a made up one? What evidence, any evidence at all, do you have that the explanations given are not an accurate representation of what happened? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/246 "2009-07-31T15:55:39Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > I don’t believe I ever said that I said that my uncle said anything about ‘being cowed’. Well, if someone said you said you said your uncle said anything about “being cowed”, I understand you might understand that we’ll understand that you understand that when we said you said your uncle said something, we believe that you believe what your uncle believes. Clear? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/247 "2009-07-31T16:33:10Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > You’re avoiding answering the question. Once again: > > “If you saw a UFO or got ahold of some kind of daming evidence of something and you were threatened with the death of loved ones, what would you do?” LOL. I can’t imagine how I could have answered MORE directly. I’d go to the FBI, tell them everything I knew, and ask for protection for me and my family. Furthermore, that’s the ONLY safe choice to make. If someone is willing to kill to get what they want, then they’re certainly willing to LIE to get what they want. That means I can’t trust anything they tell me. They SAY they won’t harm me or my family if I keep quiet, but I know they’re lying murderers so why should I believe them? No, the only safe course of action for a coward like me is to go to the authorities. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/248 "2009-07-31T17:03:55Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, if someone said you said you said your uncle said anything about “being cowed”, I understand you might understand that we’ll understand that you understand that when we said you said your uncle said something, we believe that you believe what your uncle believes. > > Clear? Address the issue. You did a classic straw man shuffle by trying to shade and color what I ‘didn’t say’. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/249 "2009-07-31T18:04:42Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > Address the issue. You did a classic straw man shuffle by trying to shade and color what I ‘didn’t say’. If you’re refering to **RJKUgly** ’s “nice opinion of your own uncle there, by the way,” then I suspect RJKU’s point is: (1) you’ve strongly implied, if not outright stated, that most Secret Service agents could be cowed into silence with threats; (2) your uncle is a Secret Service agent. This would suggest that you think your uncle could also be cowed with threats. And if your uncle cannot be cowed, perhaps you could explain what makes him so different from other agents. If you’re not referring to that comment, then perhaps you could clarify what you are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/250 "2009-07-31T18:41:02Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > Address the issue. You did a classic straw man shuffle by trying to shade and color what I ‘didn’t say’. The problem is that you didn’t say much of anything. When someone answered in a straightforward manner, you accused them of not answering you. If that’s the case, then the majority of us aren’t getting your question. Please state, is simple declarative sentences, what issue you would like us to address? ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/251 "2009-07-31T19:24:45Z")
Quick sidenote: Sometimes when I quote someone I get a message that says, message too short, please lengthen to at least 2 characters. What does that mean and who do I avoid it? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/252 "2009-07-31T20:16:06Z")
You can’t have a post that’s entirely quoted material. The minimum post length on this board is 2 characters, and quoted material and tags don’t count toward that minimum. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/253 "2009-07-31T20:18:36Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > Address the issue. You did a classic straw man shuffle by trying to shade and color what I ‘didn’t say’. No, I told a joke satirizing the situation by describing it in absurdist terms. Anyway, this whole “I never said you said I said…” stuff is pointless and contributes nothing to the discussion of what happened to JFK. As I understand it: Your uncle says “something fishy!” You say “my uncle says ‘something fishy!’ and when I look at the film, it’s obvious to me as well that something fishy is occurring and it’s really hard to misinterpret that vid.” The rest of us say “well, if something fishy is occurring, and it’s supposedly obvious, why didn’t the agents report it after the assassination during the investigation?” You say “maybe the families of the agents were threatened.” We say “there’s no evidence of this and it sounds like an ineffective threat against the kinds of people that would become Service agents in the first place.” Is that a fair summary of who said what? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/254 "2009-07-31T21:14:23Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > Quick sidenote: > > Sometimes when I quote someone I get a message that says, message too short, please lengthen to at least 2 characters. > > What does that mean and who do I avoid it? I’ve noticed before that your quoting of others in your posts is sometimes messed up. You sometimes put your own words within a quote box, so most of us will skip that and just get to the stuff that’s not in a quote box, which means that some of your comments don’t get read by many who are reading this thread. Anyway, if you don’t have ANY words that are outside quote boxes, you get that error message. It usually indicates your formatting is messed up. After you post, take a look at the formatting to make sure it’s what you want. For example, [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11383310&postcount=141) of yours was all messed up. ---
**Author:** ![JimOfAllTrades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@JimOfAllTrades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimOfAllTrades)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/255 "2009-07-31T23:48:37Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > If you’re refering to **RJKUgly** ’s “nice opinion of your own uncle there, by the way,” then I suspect RJKU’s point is: > > (1) you’ve strongly implied, if not outright stated, that most Secret Service agents could be cowed into silence with threats; > (2) your uncle is a Secret Service agent. This would suggest that you think your uncle could also be cowed with threats. And if your uncle cannot be cowed, perhaps you could explain what makes him so different from other agents. Perfectly stated, thank you. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/256 "2009-08-01T00:06:21Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > If you’re refering to **RJKUgly** ’s “nice opinion of your own uncle there, by the way,” then I suspect RJKU’s point is: > > > [@](#): > > > > (1) you’ve strongly implied, if not outright stated, that most Secret Service agents could be cowed into silence with threats; > > (2) your uncle is a Secret Service agent. This would suggest that you think your uncle could also be cowed with threats. And if your uncle cannot be cowed, perhaps you could explain what makes him so different from other agents. > > I haven’t implied or outright stated. That is a straw man. I addressed a question about that assumes the scenario of their being a conspiracy, which I haven’t said there was or there wasn’t, pertaining to the question that was posed, how do you keep them from reporting? > > > [@](#): > > > > If you’re not referring to that comment, then perhaps you could clarify what you are talking about. As to my uncle, he wasn’t involved in that and had no inside information so there really wasn’t anything he could report. He would be in the same situation as these guys: [Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos](http://www.geocities.com/zzzmail/palarma.htm) Apparently, they didn’t blow any whistles, either. Now, I’m going to go psychic on you. I predict you will do some kind of “attacking the source” fallacy even though one of your own used this guy as a reference earlier. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/257 "2009-08-01T00:31:20Z")
How many of these agents were on duty in Dallas that day? Did any of them testify about their suspicions? I mean, finding Americans who believe there was a conspiracy but have no evidence isn’t really all that hard. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/258 "2009-08-01T02:07:23Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > The problem is that you didn’t say much of anything. When someone answered in a straightforward manner, you accused them of not answering you. If that’s the case, then the majority of us aren’t getting your question. > > Please state, is simple declarative sentences, what issue you would like us to address? \*Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post Well, if someone said you said you said your uncle said anything about “being cowed”, I understand you might understand that we’ll understand that you understand that when we said you said your uncle said something, we believe that you believe what your uncle believes. Clear?\* If you think that is a straightforward question, then I worry for you. What issue? There never was an issue. I related something to you and told you it stuck in my craw because to me and my uncle it looked suspicious. It still does. So if you want to address something, how about the source9s0 you use to prove, in your mind, that the Warren Commission’s findings are correct. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/259 "2009-08-01T02:24:06Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > No, I told a joke satirizing the situation by describing it in absurdist terms. > > No, that’s what you would call an Argument from Mockery. What I did is gave you a logical answer back. > > > [@](#): > > > > Anyway, this whole “I never said you said I said…” stuff is pointless and contributes nothing to the discussion of what happened to JFK. As I understand it. > > Pointless? It has direct bearing on the case. A criminal investigation like this turns over every stone and looks behind every bush. So far I have not been able to find out any explanations about that vid. I’m not saying there not, I just can’t find them yet. > > > [@](#): > > > > Your uncle says “something fishy!” > > How about I change fishy to suspicious. I don’t know why I didn’t use that in the first place, my bad. > > > [@](#): > > > > You say “my uncle says ‘something fishy!’ and when I look at the film, it’s obvious to me as well that something fishy is occurring and it’s really hard to misinterpret that vid.” > > Fair point. > > > [@](#): > > > > The rest of us say “well, if something fishy is occurring, and it’s supposedly obvious, why didn’t the agents report it after the assassination during the investigation?” > > [Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos](http://www.geocities.com/zzzmail/palarma.htm) > > List of other agents that thought something was ‘rotten in the State of Denmark’ ‘fishy’ and downright suspicious. > > Let me head you off at the pass. Please don’t go into a CSIOPtic’s standard mode and try to kill the messenger. Rather, listen to the message. Besides, one of you guys already used this guy as source. > You say “maybe the families of the agents were threatened.” > > > [@](#): > > > > We say “there’s no evidence of this and it sounds like an ineffective threat against the kinds of people that would become Service agents in the first place.” > > See above link. As to what a person ‘who would become an agent’ you can’t speak to. They are also regular people with families to provide and protect for. > > Is that a fair summary of who said what? You gave it a good try ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/260 "2009-08-01T02:26:01Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I’ve noticed before that your quoting of others in your posts is sometimes messed up. You sometimes put your own words within a quote box, so most of us will skip that and just get to the stuff that’s not in a quote box, which means that some of your comments don’t get read by many who are reading this thread. > > Anyway, if you don’t have ANY words that are outside quote boxes, you get that error message. It usually indicates your formatting is messed up. After you post, take a look at the formatting to make sure it’s what you want. For example, [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11383310&postcount=141) of yours was all messed up. Thanks, I’ll try to be diligent about that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978.md?page=14)