# 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:** 15
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/281 "2009-08-02T22:35:04Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Nope. I am willing to accept a certain amount of ambiguity as an inevitable part of the human condition - especially when all the doubts and questions (as noted earlier) have been hashed, rehashed, ground up, pureed, swallowed by the credulous, recycled, fed to new generations of believers, digested and excreted until they are a soggy mash with a few particles of grit, enough to sustain only the hardiest of believers.Don’t give up that day job for a career on the Psychic Hotline. Why not? I nailed it right on the head. All you did was do a variation on a theme by saying, “I am willing to accept a certain amount of ambiguity as an inevitable part of the human condition…” It makes you sound open minded. Your quote I just repeated seems to contradict the end of your post “…as an inevitable part of the human condition…with a few particles of grit, enough to sustain only the hardiest of believers.” I seems like you’re saying you agree and then you take that back at the end with a typical mocking, sarcastic ad hominem attack or name calling. Here’s why I am agnostic: I have seen studies done that prove the lone gunman theory that seems very logical and plausible. I have also seen reports that debunk the lone gunman theory that seems logical and plausible. OSBers **™** (Official StoryBelievers) give the Warren Commission, the the CTers give the HSCA, then the OBSers give the NAS, then the CTers give D.B. Thomas, etc., etc., etc. Roun and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows. I hear too much evidence from too many experts on both sides of the fence to argue from Immaculate Perception **™** (to see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, disagrees is disagreeing with reality itself.) I cannot take one side or the other and declare it an Omincient Absolute **™** (An immutable truth carved on a stone tablet; The 11th Commandment) I asked earlier if someone could link me to the site that disproves the CT that you go by. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/282 "2009-08-02T22:37:59Z")
> [@Algorithm](#): > > Stop. You’re making things up again. 'Fraid not. All you’ve got to do is study psychology, that is unless the Paridigm Police haven’t debunked. If they have then that must mean it’s bunk. Do you think psychology is bunk? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/283 "2009-08-02T22:41:21Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > Why not? I nailed it right on the head. All you did was do a variation on a theme by saying, “I am willing to accept a certain amount of ambiguity as an inevitable part of the human condition…” It makes you sound open minded. > > Your quote I just repeated seems to contradict the end of your post “…as an inevitable part of the human condition…with a few particles of grit, enough to sustain only the hardiest of believers.” I seems like you’re saying you agree and then you take that back at the end with a typical mocking, sarcastic ad hominem attack or name calling. > > Here’s why I am agnostic: I have seen studies done that prove the lone gunman theory that seems very logical and plausible. I have also seen reports that debunk the lone gunman theory that seems logical and plausible. > > OSBers **™** (Official StoryBelievers) give the Warren Commission, the the CTers give the HSCA, then the OBSers give the NAS, then the CTers give D.B. Thomas, etc., etc., etc. Roun and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows. > > I hear too much evidence from too many experts on both sides of the fence to argue from Immaculate Perception **™** (to see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, disagrees is disagreeing with reality itself.) > > I cannot take one side or the other and declare it an Omincient Absolute **™** (An immutable truth carved on a stone tablet; The 11th Commandment) > I asked earlier if someone could link me to the site that disproves the CT that you go by. Message too long, please shorten to no more than two characters. ---
**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 2, 2009, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/284 "2009-08-02T23:00:34Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > I hear too much evidence from too many experts on both sides of the fence Would you mind sharing some of the evidence from the conspiracy side? Preferably something more solid than opinion or conjecture. ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/285 "2009-08-02T23:34:48Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > 'Fraid not. All you’ve got to do is study psychology, that is unless the Paridigm Police haven’t debunked. If they have then that must mean it’s bunk. Do you think psychology is bunk? What part of > [@jakesteele](#): > > You will always blindly accept the Official Story as a way of achieving your type of cognitive closure. isn’t a made up belief you are ascribing to another person? This isn’t psychology, it’s just fabricated beliefs you assign to your opposition as a way of making it easier to disregard their point of view. If you want to be taken seriously, argue with what people _actually say_ rather than arguing with made up stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/286 "2009-08-03T02:48:49Z")
> [@Algorithm](#): > > If you want to be taken seriously, argue with what people _actually say_ rather than arguing with made up stuff. It is easier to make up arguments and motives than to deal with the most common reason people dispute your conspiracy contentions - they’re offended/amused/disgusted by sloppy thinking. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/287 "2009-08-03T02:50:53Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Message too long, please shorten to no more than two characters. Message too long, please shorten to no more than 1 character. Do you think psychology is bunk. Has JR/CSIOPS debunked it? ---
**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 3, 2009, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/288 "2009-08-03T02:54:38Z")
Heh, just noticed this. > [@Telemark](#): > > Yes, the SS agent looks a bit confused and perplexed, but it’s not clear why. The narrator of the video claims to know why, your uncle claims to know why, but without more information it’s pretty hard to know if this is something serious or just an agent having a bad day. Well, it was gonna get a heck of lot worse. Anyway, rather than speculate on the motives of the people arguing with you, jake, why not respond to their actual arguments, if you can. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/289 "2009-08-03T03:12:47Z")
> [@Algorithm](#): > > What part of > > isn’t a made up belief you are ascribing to another person? This isn’t psychology, it’s just fabricated beliefs you assign to your opposition as a way of making it easier to disregard their point of view. > > If you want to be taken seriously, argue with what people _actually say_ rather than arguing with made up stuff. Okay, I’ll address what you said. My post deals with cognitive closure. Cognitive closure - is a need to to eliminate ambiguity and arrive at definite conclusions (sometimes irrationally). You said “…to disregard their point of view”? You mean kind of like CSIOPtics when they post the classical Rules of Woo type posts? ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/290 "2009-08-03T03:17:18Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Would you mind sharing some of the evidence from the conspiracy side? Preferably something more solid than opinion or conjecture. Well, let me get to that, but in the mean time, could you please link me to the site that you consider proof positive…not the Warren Commission, though. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/291 "2009-08-03T03:38:50Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > I’ve noticed that CSIOPtics are as extreme and polarized as what they call a “True Believer”. They are True-Non Believers. They will always come down on the side of believing the Official Story no matter what. There may be some people like that (TWIAVBP), but I don’t think I am, nor are the majority of the people who hang out here. We’re resistant to your ideas because we’ve already struggled through all that, seen just about all the evidence, and come to a tentative conclusion. The standard story has a mountain of evidence behind it, and the conspiracy idea has pretty much nothing. Then we get newcomers here who post completely lame arguments in support of the conspiracy idea, stuff we’ve been through maybe dozens of times, and then those folks tend to get testy when the regulars here aren’t swayed by it. That’s what’s happening here; sorry, it’s not just you. > [@jakesteele](#): > > Here’s why I am agnostic: I have seen studies done that prove the lone gunman theory that seems very logical and plausible. I have also seen reports that debunk the lone gunman theory that seems logical and plausible. Well, those latter reports would be the ones to lead with here. What reports have you seen that debunk the lone gunman theory? What did you find convincing about them? I haven’t seen anything that contradicts the lone nut theory that seems even a little bit credible. Let’s get off what your step-uncle thought of a few seconds of a video showing a secret service agent shrugging his shoulders, that’s going nowhere. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/292 "2009-08-03T03:55:31Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > It is easier to make up arguments and motives than to deal with the most common reason people dispute your conspiracy contentions - they’re offended/amused/disgusted by sloppy thinking. There you go again, straw man, are you even aware when you do that? That’s why I brought up psych issues. I am not making conspiracy contentions, I said that that vid ‘stuck in my craw’ in a later post and in a more recent post I said this: “As to the reason, at this point in time it is unknowable what the reason was he was recalled for. It could have been for a sinister purpose, it could be from nothing more than a foot soldier not being privy as to why his superiors gave the order who had a good, valid reason for doing so.” No conspiracy contentions. My personal opinion for myself is to take an agnostic approach on this. I see good points from both sides. Both sides think that anybody that doesn’t agree with them on this are wrong or possibly wacko. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/293 "2009-08-03T05:21:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Please stop misusing the phrase “straw man”. Ray Bolger is spinning in his grave. > The point of CurtC’s “motorcade” observation, as far as I can tell, is that a lot of decisions were being made about where to go, how to get there, what to do, etc. and if one is determiend to believe in a conspiracy, it’s easy to cherry-pick any of those decisions and try to cast them in a sinister light. > > An agent is being told not to ride on the back of the limo? CONSPIRACY! > The motorcade slowed down to take the turn? CONSPIRACY! > The bubble-top wasn’t in place? CONSPIRACY! > > And so forth. Throught this thread I’ve noticed a pattern of CSIOPtics **™** to constantly pull a simple statement I made about “…stuck in my craw” and stating I am agnostic on the matter due to too many conflicting testimonies, i.e. WC/HSCA, and try to turn it into a conspiracy debate, it’s not. There seems to be an urgent need to convert or defeat as a way of eliminating shades of gray, uncertainties and ambiguity to achieve a deep seated need for cognitive closure. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/294 "2009-08-03T08:39:24Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Would you mind sharing some of the evidence from the conspiracy side? Preferably something more solid than opinion or conjecture. > [@CurtC](#): > > The standard story has a mountain of evidence behind it, and the conspiracy idea has pretty much nothing. I hear this so often from hardcore skeptics it’s starting to get annoying. If the incontrovertible evidence you types require was available, there wouldn’t be any “CT’s”. It might be considered ‘sloppy thinking’, but I think when dealing with the claims of the obscenely rich, powerful and influential, even seemingly unreasonable suspicion should be sufficient enough to demand access to their methods. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/295 "2009-08-03T08:47:09Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I hear this so often from hardcore skeptics it’s starting to get annoying. > > If the incontrovertible evidence you types require was available, there wouldn’t be any “CT’s”. “Damnit, don’t you people _understand?_ If we were required to use facts, have evidence, or apply consistent logic, we’d be out of business!” ---
**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 3, 2009, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/296 "2009-08-03T11:35:28Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > Throught this thread I’ve noticed a pattern of CSIOPtics **™** to constantly pull a simple statement I made about “…stuck in my craw” and stating I am agnostic on the matter due to too many conflicting testimonies, i.e. WC/HSCA, and try to turn it into a conspiracy debate, it’s not. There seems to be an urgent need to convert or defeat as a way of eliminating shades of gray, uncertainties and ambiguity to achieve a deep seated need for cognitive closure. Well, I didn’t want to discuss motives, but if you insist - what you’re describing isn’t some compulsive need to shut down people who are seeking the truth; it’s a lack of patience for people who insist they know the truth but have no facts to back themselves up. If you had some facts (like the testimony of the shrugging agent), we’d take your uncle’s observation more seriously. Anyway, I’m prepared to admit some ambiguity about the Warren Commission’s findings, in that some trivial details are speculative such as the exact timings of the shots and such, because the source evidence is drawn from the imprecise technology of 1963. Had the assassination occurred in 2008 with the modern Zapruder holding a digital camcorder (as well as numerous other spectators snapping pictures with their cellphones), the ambiguity would be lessened. Anyone who wants to claim major errors (willful or otherwise) in the Warren Report is going to need some hard evidence. If this is what you’re claiming, what do you consider to be the single biggest exculpatory nugget of evidence? If this is NOT what you’re claiming, and for you this is all just an exercise in keeping your mind open to ambiguity and such, then I guess I’ve wasted my time trying to discuss issues of fact with you. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/297 "2009-08-03T14:06:21Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I hear this so often from hardcore skeptics it’s starting to get annoying. > > If the incontrovertible evidence you types require was available, there wouldn’t be any “CT’s”. And if there really was proof the Holocaust occurred, there wouldn’t be any deniers. QED. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/298 "2009-08-03T15:07:51Z")
Oswald acted alone. Period. If I hadn’t already believed that, my visit to the [Sixth Floor Museum](http://www.jfk.org/) would have convinced me. Oswald could not have picked a better place to shoot from, and the grassy knoll would have been a horrible place to shoot from. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/299 "2009-08-03T16:01:21Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > And if there really was proof the Holocaust occurred, there wouldn’t be any deniers. QED. Actually, he was saying the other way around. If the CT ideas had solid evidence, they wouldn’t be relegated to the “CT” crowd, they’d be mainstream. It was an unintentional admission that they got nothin’. It really is like saying “If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.” Or if alternative medicine had good evidence, it wouldn’t be “alternative.” ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978/300 "2009-08-03T16:22:42Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > I see good points from both sides. Both sides think that anybody that doesn’t agree with them on this are wrong or possibly wacko. This is another common tactic from the Kingdom of Woo - trying to sow doubt about a solidly established thesis by pretending that the doubters/deniers have equal standing with people who’ve applied critical thinking to the matter. We see this not just with political conspiracy theories but also matters of science (i.e. evolution and vaccination). “Gosh, both sides have valid things to say, and the extremists just turn me _off_, and can’t we find a _middle ground?_” Even when the proponents of “compromise” are being sincere in this aspiration, the consequences of a middle ground between logic and solid science on the one hand, and nitwittery on the other, is half-wittery. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-conspiracy-yes-or-no/503978.md?page=16)