JFK conspiracy... yes or no?

[PlainJain]

@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.

Here’s the problem as I see it: You claim objectivity, but your arguments say otherwise. You carefully avoid stating any real opinion, while trying to pile up a mound of “evidence” against the Official Story. Do I believe every single thing in the WC is true? No, of course not. Humans make mistakes, humans misremember things. But a witness honestly thinking they heard a shot from the grassy knoll doesn’t mean it happened, nor does it point to conspiracy. Neither does botched security orders (not that I believe there were any).

Of course there are gray areas in this assassination. But either one of two things happened with certainty; either there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy (meaning more involved than Oswald) or there was not. What I believe is supported by the most facts.

Simple question, do you think there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy?

[jakesteele]

@Bryan_Ekers

See, that’s a strawman. It’s an extrapolation of my statement in which my observation leads to an absurd situation that you then challenge.

As I understand it (and, as always, I’m prepared to be corrected if mistaken), the agents you were referring to were like your uncle in that they were looking at the event after the fact and reacting to things they thought looked suspicious. That’s all well and good, but lots of Americans have done the same, and it has a basic flaw - it involves cherry-picking details that support your suspicions and ignoring details that don’t.

If any of these agents were on duty in Dallas at the time, then their direct eyewitness details will carry more weight. Hence I asked “How many of these agents were on duty in Dallas that day? [If any of them were, did they] testify about their suspicions?” (altered for clarity)

The website you linked to names six agents, but doesn’t have any detail about what, if anything, they personally witnessed. The author of the website could easily be operating from selection bias - he focuses on the six agents he communicated with who suspect a conspiracy and ignores a possibly much greater number of agents who told him there wasn’t one or who didn’t bother to respond to his inquiries.

It is certainly possible for a Service agent to have evidence of a conspiracy even if he wasn’t in Dallas that day. Did an agent ever step forward and testify, for example, along the lines of:

Agent: Senator, on November 12th, I was at a meeting with my supervisor finalizing the motorcade route. I expressed misgivings about Elm Street and he said, and this is as direct a quote as I can recall, “No, it’s fine, it’ll give Lee a good line of sight, er, ah, never mind.” I thought it strange at the time and made a note of it. Three days later I was recalled to Washington to consult on an ongoing counterfeiting case and when I’d heard over the radio that the President had been shot, my thoughts immediately went to my question about Elm Street and I commented to a colleague. It was only later that I found out that this is where the fatal shooting had actually occurred.

*Agents who believed conspiracy and were in the motorcade:
*
Agent Paul E. Landis, Jr

Agent Thomas “Lem” Johns, who rode in the V.P. follow-up car

Agent Roy H. Kellerman

One point I want to clarify: None of those agents or any other were thinking conspiracy while at ground zero taking incoming fire. In a situation like that, there entire universe consists of three things:

1. protect the president, throw you body over his.
2. get him out of there as fast as possible
3. try to locate shooter(s) and lay down cover fire to kill or hinder the assassin’s attempts

The conspiracy belief/non-belief comes after, not during. It’s usually done later from an overview of the situation where all the available facts, evidence, testimony, etc., is available and one can systematically analyze it.

Brian, We can go back and forth ad infinitum in a marathon posting contest. Or, we can cut to the chase. Since my post was the prime mover of all this falderal, I have the honors of getting the original intent of my post back on the proper track. I am going to steer it back into the agnostic stance by asking you a few simple questions:

1. What do you hope to accomplish here?
2. Are you trying to have me capitulate and get converted to the religion of science and enlightenment?
3. are you trying to get me to admit defeat verbally and/or go away so you can say, “Yeah, baby, another Agent of Darkness bites the dust?

What exactly is your motivation and intent?

[jakesteele]

@Bryan_Ekers

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.

Brian, I think the fact that there are ambiguities from eye witness testimony, which can be very unreliable at times, and different interpretations of an overwhelming amount data, different testimony, and all the rest of it, I am going to stay firmly in the agnostic stance.

A big part of this is because the govt., or certain aspects of it, have shown through past crimes against humanity perpetrated against its own citizens that they would have absolutely no moral compunction about killing a president. So for me that has to be factored into the equation.

However, I will say that I always will lean towards the ‘simplest explanation’ first and then go from there.

[jakesteele]

@Jackmannii

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.

Like I said classical black and white/all-or-nothing thinking typical of a fundamentalist mindset. Extremely bigoted and intolerant of anybody who doesn’t toe their party line and believe like they believe.

[jakesteele]

@PlainJain

Here’s the problem as I see it: You claim objectivity, but your arguments say otherwise. You carefully avoid stating any real opinion, while trying to pile up a mound of “evidence” against the Official Story. Do I believe every single thing in the WC is true? No, of course not. Humans make mistakes, humans misremember things. But a witness honestly thinking they heard a shot from the grassy knoll doesn’t mean it happened, nor does it point to conspiracy. Neither does botched security orders (not that I believe there were any).

Of course there are gray areas in this assassination. But either one of two things happened with certainty; either there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy (meaning more involved than Oswald) or there was not. What I believe is supported by the most facts.

Simple question, do you think there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy?

In any situation I initially lean toward the ‘simplest explanation’. However, when I see so much controversy and disputation over times, places, events, testimony, evidence, etc., I do not rule the possibility out of a conspiracy because our govt. has shown through past crimes against humanity perpetrated on its own citizens that they would have absolutely no moral compunction about killing a president for whatever reason. So, again I don’t know for sure there was a conspiracy and I stand firm on that.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jakesteele

*Agents who believed conspiracy and were in the motorcade:
*
Agent Paul E. Landis, Jr

Agent Thomas “Lem” Johns, who rode in the V.P. follow-up car

Agent Roy H. Kellerman

One point I want to clarify: None of those agents or any other were thinking conspiracy while at ground zero taking incoming fire.

Nor would I expect them to. The kinds of evidence these men might have been able to provide to Warren tending to support a conspiracy theory would be claims that fire came in from multiple angles (backed up by appropriate bullet holes), descriptions of other shooters, and/or a willful attempt by supervisor agents to put JFK at risk, i.e. instructions to slow down in Dealey Plaza. I’m prepared to admit other possibilities and if they offered any such testimony, I’d like to see it. If, however, they started to believe in a conspiracy years later, with no evidence, then I’m hesitant to embrace those beliefs.

The conspiracy belief/non-belief comes after, not during. It’s usually done later from an overview of the situation where all the available facts, evidence, testimony, etc., is available and one can systematically analyze it.

And what are the best available facts, evidence and testimony that point to a conspiracy? As far as I can tell, anything that could be ruled out has been, and anything that couldn’t be ruled out is too tenuous to be of any value.

Are you trying to have me capitulate and get converted to the religion of science and enlightenment?

I have absolutely no illusions of accomplishing anything like this and science is not a religion.

are you trying to get me to admit defeat verbally and/or go away so you can say, “Yeah, baby, another Agent of Darkness bites the dust?

Or this.

What exactly is your motivation and intent?

My own entertainment. Plus I flatter myself that the more rational members of this message board tend to view me in a positive light when I do my best to promote rational arguments.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jakesteele

Brian, I think the fact that there are ambiguities from eye witness testimony, which can be very unreliable at times, and different interpretations of an overwhelming amount data, different testimony, and all the rest of it, I am going to stay firmly in the agnostic stance.

The funny thing is, if all eyewitness testimony was exactly consistent, that would strongly suggest a conspiracy, i.e. all the witnesses memorized a prepared statement from a single source, with some conspiracy leader carefully watching for any variation from the script.

[jakesteele]

@Bryan_Ekers

The funny thing is, if all eyewitness testimony was exactly consistent, that would strongly suggest a conspiracy, i.e. all the witnesses memorized a prepared statement from a single source, with some conspiracy leader carefully watching for any variation from the script.

Not if the conspiracy is small group of members on a need-to-know basis and is tightly compartmentalized, which is what a conspiracy has to be in order to give it the best chance of succeeding.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@jakesteele

Not if the conspiracy is small group of members on a need-to-know basis and is tightly compartmentalized, which is what a conspiracy has to be in order to give it the best chance of succeeding.

Actually, i’m not sure that fully works out - if the groups are entirely based on such a system, the chances that the story handed out per group are the same are probably about as high as if they were all one big group. After all, the cell leaders are all going to pick what they think is the best story to use.

[tomndebb]

@jakesteele

@Bryan_Ekers

The funny thing is, if all eyewitness testimony was exactly consistent, that would strongly suggest a conspiracy, i.e. all the witnesses memorized a prepared statement from a single source, with some conspiracy leader carefully watching for any variation from the script.

Not if the conspiracy is small group of members on a need-to-know basis and is tightly compartmentalized, which is what a conspiracy has to be in order to give it the best chance of succeeding.

You’ve changed the scenario without addressing Bryan’s point.

IF all the eyewitness testimony was identical, that WOULD indicate a conspiracy.

Regardless of little cells or other forms of conspiracy, a unanimous agreement among witnesses would have been a sign of conspiracy because witnesses are never unanimous in their observations unless they have been coached.

[PlainJain]

@jakesteele

In any situation I initially lean toward the ‘simplest explanation’. However, when I see so much controversy and disputation over times, places, events, testimony, evidence, etc., I do not rule the possibility out of a conspiracy because our govt. has shown through past crimes against humanity perpetrated on its own citizens that they would have absolutely no moral compunction about killing a president for whatever reason. So, again I don’t know for sure there was a conspiracy and I stand firm on that.

I don’t disagree that our government is capable of something like this but that’s no indication that it did happen.

I’ll try one last time. I, too, stand firm in my belief that I can not know for certain that there was or was not a conspiracy, but it’s my firm belief is that there was not. I’m not asking if you know, I’m asking what you believe.

[jakesteele]

@PlainJain

I don’t disagree that our government is capable of something like this but that’s no indication that it did happen.

I’ll try one last time. I, too, stand firm in my belief that I can not know for certain that there was or was not a conspiracy, but it’s my firm belief is that there was not. I’m not asking if you know, I’m asking what you believe.

I lean much more towards the side of the lone gunman more than I do a conspiracy, but I do not rule out the possibility of a conspiracy.

[jakesteele]

@tomndebb

You’ve changed the scenario without addressing Bryan’s point.

IF all the eyewitness testimony was identical, that WOULD indicate a conspiracy.

Regardless of little cells or other forms of conspiracy, a unanimous agreement among witnesses would have been a sign of conspiracy because witnesses are never unanimous in their observations unless they have been coached.

Is this what you are saying?

a unanimous agreement of witnesses is a sign of a conspiracy
there was not unanimous agreement of witnesses
therefore, there is no sign of a conspiracy

It would be a very big conspiracy consisting of men, women, childred, police, politicians, secret service, grassy knoll assassins, hobos, bums. How many people were there? Hundreds, a thousand or two? The plausibility of that is making Ocaam’s Razor want to kick someone’s ass.

[tomndebb]

@jakesteele

Is this what you are saying?

a unanimous agreement of witnesses is a sign of a conspiracy
there was not unanimous agreement of witnesses
therefore, there is no sign of a conspiracy

It would be a very big conspiracy consisting of men, women, childred, police, politicians, secret service, grassy knoll assassins, hobos, bums. How many people were there? Hundreds, a thousand or two? The plausibility of that is making Ocaam’s Razor want to kick someone’s ass.

I constructed no (flawed) syllogism. I merely noted that you changed the point when you responded to Bryan.

One phenomenon to which some CT believers point are the various discrepancies in witness statements. From this, they seem to draw the conclusion that there must be a conspiracy. Bryan noted that if there was unanimity of testimony, that would be a sign of a conspiracy. There is no false conclusion toward the reverse of that point. Multiple conflicting witnesses indicates that there were multiple human witnesses and says nothing about the presence or absence of conspiracy.

[spifflog]

The issue that most of us non-CTers have is that now, people want others to react to issues thrown near the wall, even if they don’t even reach the wall, let alone if they stick or not.

This is arguably the most investigated and talked about crime in the last 100 years, possibly in the entire history of the United States. It was filmed, at a time when most didn’t walk around with cell phone cameras. And thank God for the Zapruder film, or there would be no end in sight of the CTers.

The Warren Commission, headed by a Chief Justice of the United States (with a future President) investigated. It was supported by various law enforcement agencies and the FBI. Congress has held hearings on this.

No investigation, or book, or assertion, has poked a significant hole in the findings of the Warren commission’s contention that LHO acted alone and killed the President. We are going on fifty years. And there is no compelling EVIDENCE to the contrary.

As a young man, I believed that there had to be a conspiracy. Because, how could some nut like Oswald just up and shoot the President for God’s sake? But then as I grew up I demanded proof in my life on most things, this included. And there just isn’t any proof that LHO didn’t act alone in killing Kennedy.

Three things completed this assertion, neither one is novel.

First, if anyone could prove a conspiracy, their name would go down in history. In big bold block letters. “Joe Blow was the man who uncovered the most significant conspiracy in American history.” It would make history, and would make someone’s life and career. Who wouldn’t step up to that? No one has because they can’t.

Second, there have been two political dynasties in America in the last 100 years - Roosevelts and Kennedys. If the Kennedy’s felt there was a conspiracy, the attorney General (Robert) and U.S. Senator (Ted) and the rest of the clan, and their money, and their power, would have marched long and hard to uncover it. But they haven’t, because they can’t.

Lastly, I can’t fart in my office without the entire company knowing about it in 20 minutes. There had to be tens of people involved. At a minimum. How do you keep that quiet for 50 years? You just don’t

So the Warren commission has withstood the test of time for going on 50 years. If one wants to maintain there was a conspiracy, they need to come to the party with some real facts. Not some meaningless question. Not my Uncle thinks. Not we don’t know for sure that LHO ate for dinner two nights before so there has to be a conspiricy. Real facts.

It’s too late in the game and there is too much real evidence to get traction with sane, logical adults without some facts. You think my mother killed Kennedy from the first floor? Knock yourself out. But just don’t expect anyone to take you seriously 50 years later unless her fingerprints match LHOs.

And no offense, but my Uncle thinks just doesn’t come close the bar required to be taken seriously after all this time.

[Algorithm]

@jakesteele

Okay, I’ll address what you said. My post deals with cognitive closure.

You fail to comprehend my point, yet again. It has nothing to do with your faux-psychological diagnosis you made over an internet message board. Look, starting a sentence with the words “You will always…” is pure speculation and not actual debate. It’s not psychology, it’s a straw man.

@jakesteele

Cognitive closure - is a need to to eliminate ambiguity and arrive at definite conclusions (sometimes irrationally).

Congratulations, you’ve done a terrible job of communicating your understanding of the concept by copying almost word-for-word from the Wikipedia disambiguation page on the subject:

@Wikipedia

Cognitive closure (psychology), a term describing the human desire to eliminate ambiguity and arrive at definite conclusions (sometimes irrationally).

Throwing around copied-and-pasted definitions of academic terms is not a substitute for actual debate.

@jakesteele

You said “…to disregard their point of view”? You mean kind of like CSIOPtics when they post the classical Rules of Woo type posts?

No. That’s a way of disregarding a fallacious method of debate.

[jakesteele]

[Algorithm;11415338]You fail to comprehend my point, yet again. It has nothing to do with your faux-psychological diagnosis you made over an internet message board. Look, starting a sentence with the words “You will always…” is pure speculation and not actual debate. It’s not psychology, it’s a straw man.
Congratulations, you’ve done a terrible job of communicating your understanding of the concept by copying almost word-for-word from the Wikipedia disambiguation page on the subject:

Throwing around copied-and-pasted definitions of academic terms is not a substitute for actual debate.
No. That’s a way of disregarding a fallacious method of debate.
[/QUOTE]

[jakesteele]

Algorithm;11415338]You fail to comprehend my point, yet again. It has nothing to do with your faux-psychological diagnosis you made over an internet message board. Look, starting a sentence with the words “You will always…” is pure speculation and not actual debate. It’s not psychology, it’s a straw man.

How about CSIOPtics will always: ridicule what they consider to be CTs, Woos, (those into parapsychology,), True Believers, etc.?

Congratulations, you’ve done a terrible job of communicating your understanding of the concept by copying almost word-for-word from the Wikipedia disambiguation page on the subject:

Throwing around copied-and-pasted definitions of academic terms is not a substitute for actual debate.

Congratulations, you’ve done a great job of avoiding the issue entirely. Now that you’ve got that out of your system, let’s break it down and talk about it.
Cognitive closure - is a need to to eliminate ambiguity and arrive at definite conclusions (sometimes irrationally).

Need to eliminate ambiguity – To not find resolution and definitive answers is too unsettling for some people to bear psychologically. They have a tendency to bend, twist, alter or distort reality, sometimes irrationally, to eliminate uncertainties, gray areas any and all ambiguities so as to conform to their reality map. Any answer is better than no answer.

Definite conclusions. Everything must be accounted for, everything must have an explanation or a reason that can be quantified because it is too unsettling otherwise. It will either be ignored, ridiculed or attacked and distored so as to fit their reality map

”…sometimes irrationally” – there is a tendency to employ The Law of Forced Plausible – (every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit.) A classical example of this a show on human levitation on the History Channel. The segment on the Flying Friar has Joe Nickell, of CSIOPtic fame, giving his Forced Plausible to try to explain away something.

- YouTube

go to the 1:15 mark and see Joe give a typical knee jerk explanation that is very indicative of a pseudo mindset.

I give this year’s Baloneysaurus Award to Joe Nickell. “Come on up, Joe, and get your tropy!” It’s a bronze bust of Alfred E. Newman with a pack of Oscar Meyer boloney on his head.

This thread is another typical example of a urgent need for cognitive closure by a CSIOPtic mindset. One post by me about how the Secret Service vid “stuck in my craw” and then my uncle calling bullshit on it, too. Any voice that dissents from the party line is attacked by Rat Packing it to try to:

1. Convert and show the way to the one true beacon of enlightenment.
2. Outright defeat by force of reason that allows you to strut and thump on your chest like an Alpha Male Gorilla
3. Drive away you opponent, which gives one a sense of validation

[Bryan_Ekers]

That’s all well and good as paranoid rants go, but what’s your actual evidence of a conspiracy? I mean, even though you believe there probably wasn’t one, you’ve made reference to proof from both sides of the argument, and I remain curious. I figure there’s nothing paranormal about the assassination, so simple mundane evidence will suffice.

[Cisco]

@jakesteele

I lean much more towards the side of the lone gunman more than I do a conspiracy, but I do not rule out the possibility of a conspiracy.

Do you rule out the possibility that Allah, the God of Islam, is the One True God? Because in both cases, there is only anecdotal evidence, and there’s about 10 million times as much anecdotal evidence in favor of Allah. By the same standards you’re using, you should not rule out faith in Allah. Do you?