New York Times: JFK conspiracy theorists need to be shunned. Agree?

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Yeah, 9/11 is a big mystery. We saw two planes, on television, fly into the WTC. Eye witnesses and security cameras caught a third plane flying into the Pentagon, and we have the wreckage from the fourth plane. All this is supported by the gate agents, relatives of passengers, air traffic control, phone operators, …

On the other hand we have Rosie O’Donnel. I’d say it’s a toss-up.
[/QUOTE]

Why did Building 7 implode? How did a bunch of Arabs who didn’t care about learning how to land in flight school and were reported to the FBI slip through the cracks?

I’m not suggesting that the way we saw it on television didn’t happen, only that watching the planes hit the buildings doesn’t tell us shit about who was funding what, or why a bunch of Saudi Princes were assassinated shortly after, or why Bin Laden’s were given special flight privileges on 9/12.

You got an explanation for those things? If so, by all means start a thread explaing it, but lets not hijack this one further for you to explain what’s so obvious to you, yet not so obvious to me.

22

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Oh, I was not exercised at you. I just wanted to provide enough synopsis to let others skip the link if they were short on time. :stuck_out_tongue:
[/QUOTE]

Or just don’t like major letdowns. I read that article a while ago, and it didn’t quite deliver what it promised.

23

[QUOTE=mswas]
Why did Building 7 implode? How did a bunch of Arabs who didn’t care about learning how to land in flight school and were reported to the FBI slip through the cracks?

I’m not suggesting that the way we saw it on television didn’t happen, only that watching the planes hit the buildings doesn’t tell us shit about who was funding what, or why a bunch of Saudi Princes were assassinated shortly after, or why Bin Laden’s were given special flight privileges on 9/12.

You got an explanation for those things? If so, by all means start a thread explaing it, but lets not hijack this one further for you to explain what’s so obvious to you, yet not so obvious to me.
[/QUOTE]

WTC 1 and 2 didn’t neatly fall into their own footprints, enough debris fell onto WTC 7 to severely damage it and the subsequent fires were enough to finish the job.

The attacks may well have been stoppable, but I don’t know of evidence to show that FBI or anyone else deliberately ignored any warnings.

24

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

St. John Hunt is driving a twenty-year-old beater and having trouble getting work and Erik Hedegaard makes a living writing celebrity interviews for magazines and had gone to school with the younger Hunt.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, that would explain why that article was the most uncritical piece in the history of journalism.

St. John is also a former drug addict and ex-con whose conspiracy theory is almost exactly what was depicted on an episode of the much-maligned The Men Who Killed Kennedy years before. Wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to think that he caught the show on the History Channel one night and decided it might be a good way to wrangle up a book deal. St. John also seems to think that it was indeed his father in the “3 tramps” photo even though he clearly wasn’t.

Other things said by St. John make no sense. In the article, he states: “And then, like an epiphany, I remember '63, and my dad being gone, and my mom telling me that he was on a business trip to Dallas. I’ve tried to convince myself that’s some kind of false memory, that I’m just nuts, that it’s something I heard years later.” How convenient. Naturally, a man planning an assassination would give his family an alibi placing him at the scene of the crime.

Howard Hunt sued a reporter for libel in 1981 who accused him of taking part in the assassination because he didn’t want more “ruination” brought to his name, but now on his deathbed he offers a confession? Ok then.

25

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
WTC 1 and 2 didn’t neatly fall into their own footprints, enough debris fell onto WTC 7 to severely damage it and the subsequent fires were enough to finish the job.

The attacks may well have been stoppable, but I don’t know of evidence to show that FBI or anyone else deliberately ignored any warnings.
[/QUOTE]

Right, and I don’t know whether they deliberately ignored it or not, and that’s my point. Regardless of that however, I know there was a conspiracy, I know who some of the members were, the Al Qaeda members, and I know there was some shady shit with the Saudi Royal family. I know that there were scandals involving the same bank BCCI around Iran-Contra that there were scandals around 9/11. It’s a complex issue, one that is more complex than just “2 planes flew into a tower on TV”, that’s all I’m saying. Let’s just say, I don’t trust spies to tell me the truth.

26

[QUOTE=mswas]
Why did Building 7 implode? How did a bunch of Arabs who didn’t care about learning how to land in flight school and were reported to the FBI slip through the cracks?

I’m not suggesting that the way we saw it on television didn’t happen, only that watching the planes hit the buildings doesn’t tell us shit about who was funding what, or why a bunch of Saudi Princes were assassinated shortly after, or why Bin Laden’s were given special flight privileges on 9/12.

You got an explanation for those things? If so, by all means start a thread explaing it, but lets not hijack this one further for you to explain what’s so obvious to you, yet not so obvious to me.
[/QUOTE]
All of those points have been thoroughly debunked on SDMB and elsewhere, so it is pointless for me to start a new thread. As to why it’s not obvious to you, it could be the same reason that people don’t accept the lone gunman; it is too depressing and scary to think that one man with a rifle could have such a profound affect on history. Likewise, it is hard to accept that handful of men with box cutters could have caused such carnage.

27

[QUOTE=mswas]
The Zapruder film does seem to show impacts from multiple angles.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that’s a supportable assertion. Here’s a version (warning – very gory) that’s been zoomed in to focus on Kennedy. The President and Governor Connally both respond to one shot right after the limo emerges from behind the sign. Then a few frames later Kennedy is hit by a single shot to the head. Where’s the evidence of multiple angles?

28

I don’t believe in the lone gunman theory. How shall I be shunned?

29

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I don’t believe in the lone gunman theory. How shall I be shunned?
[/QUOTE]
If you publish a book on the topic, we will refuse to buy it.

(OTOH, the SDMB has a really poor record for shunning and if you promote the idea, here, you are much more likely to be mercilessly mocked and excoriated.)

30

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I don’t believe in the lone gunman theory. How shall I be shunned?
[/QUOTE]

You can tell us the reasons why you don’t believe it and then we shall point and giggle at you.

31

Shunning might not be a bad idea. At the least, anyone interviewing anyone on the subject should at least know enough about the subject to ask pointed questions. This morning on Faux Noose they had some guy who says he did a spectral analysis of Western Cartridge Co. ammo made at the time of assassination and says that the chemical content of each round did not vary as much as a previous tester had reported. This is not, in itself, positive evidence of a conspiracy (a fact conceded by the interviewee), but the anchor bimbo treated it as if it were some big deal. :rolleyes:

As to the question, why read the book: well, we Bugliosi fans need no other reason than that Vince wrote it. Beyond that, it is an exhaustive treatment of the subject from one who grasps criminal cases as well as anyone around. If anyone can “debunk” the conspiracy gang, it is Bugliosi.

There is obviously a strong need for a book that does a great job of laying out the Oswald-alone case, but this book is way too big to attract a person of average curiosity. W.W. Norton should have split it into three books, at least, releasing them at six-month intervals (probably would have improved sales). Bugliosi’s narrative of the assassination weekend - more than three hundred pages - is a good book in itself. It would be followed by The Case Against Oswald and then The Case Against Conspiracy.

Note to those who read it: ya gotta read the endnotes (all 958 pages of 'em). Bugliosi has long had the habit of putting additional information in endnotes, and these are must reading. One example: his “endnote” discussion of the alleged audio recording of the assassination runs to more than sixty pages!

I got a copy Friday. I suspect I’ll finish it in September. Mebbe we can have a serious discussion of the book then.

32

[QUOTE=mswas]
Why did Building 7 implode?
[/QUOTE]

Explained many times. Do a search.

What cracks? The United States exerts almost no control at all over the entry of immigrants. Nobody “Slips through the cracks,” they just walk right in. Thousands of illegals stroll right in every day and you’ve surprised nineteen guys with valid papers got in?

33

[QUOTE=mswas]
Why did Building 7 implode?
[/QUOTE]

It burned uncontrolled and unfought for over seven hours. That doesn’t do wonders for a building’s structure.

Because a lot of Arabic people come here to learn to fly. Also, ‘not interested in learning to land a plane’ is not something they puton their passports. It is something the trainers noted after 911 took place.

I don’t know about the asasinations, but it was 9/20 that the Ladens left the country. After FBI interviews. It was approved by Richard Clarke, who I doubt would cover up for the Bush admininstration.

We’ve covered 911 conspiracies multiple times on this board.

34

[QUOTE=Johnny Hildo]
You can tell us the reasons why you don’t believe it and then we shall point and giggle at you.
[/QUOTE]
Do you all really want to bring the mockery, excoriation, pointing and giggling in this thread?

35

[QUOTE=RickJay]
What cracks? The United States exerts almost no control at all over the entry of immigrants. Nobody “Slips through the cracks,” they just walk right in. Thousands of illegals stroll right in every day and you’ve surprised nineteen guys with valid papers got in?
[/QUOTE]

Years before 9/11, Tom Clancy, who isn’t a professional security guy but has spent a lot of time thinking about terrorism, was asked how feasible it would be to smuggle a nuclear device into the U.S.

He said something to the effect of "all they’d have to do would be to put it into a large crate stamped “COCAINE.”

The truth is, everybody overlooks stuff all the time, including spies and secret government types. People, as a generalization, aren’t very attentive to details. I recently was given a government security clearance refresher briefing and amused myself making a list of errors in it. They had one expert’s name spelled differently on two different slides; they would establish a new acronym and then
repeatedly refer to the old, discarded acronym; they would make typos in their acronyms, getting the letters in a different order than the long version they were acronymizing. And this wasn’t a rushed project; it was an annual production reminding us all to pay sharp attention to details.

People (and agencies) in real life just flat out aren’t as competent as they are portrayed in movies and fiction. That goes for engineers and construction firms too. Buildings collapse all the time without being hit by airplanes. Read about Charles Perrow’s Normal Accident theory (here’s an online book review). Bad things happen even without conspiracies.

This is not to say people don’t conspire. But disasters don’t require a conspiracy; they happen. And a lot of conspiracies themselves have something go horribly wrong. To err is human.

Sailboat

36

Look, there very well could have been a conspiracy. That conspiracy would have been those who knew Oswald’s plans and either helped him or did nothing to stop him. While there is no evidence that such people actually exist, they wouldn’t contradict the evidence.

The evidence is that Oswald went up to the book depository with his rifle, and fired three rounds and killed Kennedy. Any conspiracy theory that pretends that this didn’t happen is dealing with fantasy. A conspiracy theory that Oswald was working for the Russians, the Cubans, the CIA, the mob, or the grays can at least be considered. A conspiracy theory where Oswald didn’t fire the shots that killed Kennedy cannot be.

Anybody else have the “game” JFK Reloaded? It was trivially easy for Oswald to kill Kennedy, he could have killed dozens of people in that motorcade if he’d wanted to.

37

Re: Oswald and the CIA. Suppose that Oswald (a nut and oddball) was working for the CIA (as an informant, double agent, or something). Would the CIA EVER make this public? I have great suspicins about the CIA-they have done some pretty crazy things, and many things that have harmed this country. Could the CIA have kept such information from the Warren Commission?

38

The only trouble with Oswald as an agent of some group is that Oswald was nuts. Why would any conspiracy trust him? If he was an “agent” it would have had to have been an arms-length arrangement. This is a guy who defected to the Soviet Union, for crying out loud. He might have been used by some group or another, but he was never an insider in that group.

Even if the speculate that the CIA used him to kill Kennedy, that doesn’t make him a “CIA agent”. A CIA agent who handled Oswald at least has the benefit of not being totally impossible. But that Oswald was a deep cover agent? Come on. He was a troubled kid from the beginning of his life, why exactly would the Yalies at the CIA think he was a good candidate to induct into the CIA? What could his defection to the USSR accomplish? Supposing Oswald was a CIA agent, what information could they possibly have gathered from his defection?

39

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Look, there very well could have been a conspiracy. That conspiracy would have been those who knew Oswald’s plans and either helped him or did nothing to stop him. While there is no evidence that such people actually exist, they wouldn’t contradict the evidence.
The evidence is that Oswald went up to the book depository with his rifle, and fired three rounds and killed Kennedy. Any conspiracy theory that pretends that this didn’t happen is dealing with fantasy. A conspiracy theory that Oswald was working for the Russians, the Cubans, the CIA, the mob, or the grays can at least be considered. A conspiracy theory where Oswald didn’t fire the shots that killed Kennedy cannot be.

Anybody else have the “game” JFK Reloaded? It was trivially easy for Oswald to kill Kennedy, he could have killed dozens of people in that motorcade if he’d wanted to.
[/QUOTE]
Well, not really. He had only four rounds of ammo. (Please forgive the nitpik).

Here’s an example of the “tunnel vision” typical of conspiracy theorists (in anticipation of the release of Bugliosi’s book I made myself reread David Lifton’s Best Evidence): Lifton was convinced (a priori, it appears) that no shots came from behind. So it is no surprise that he says nothing about John Connally’s wounds, since the governor had obviously been shot from behind. And in discussing Oswald’s movements after the assassination, Lifton talks about things that could support Oswald’s innocence, but entirely omits the Tippit shooting!. While Lifton isn’t the brightest bulb in the Conspiracy Christmas Tree, his selectiveness is all too typical.

(Of course, even Bugliosi is not perfect. I’ve already seen two typos and three misstatements of fact [which he or his editor really should have spotted] in Reclaiming History.)

[QUOTE=ralph142c]
Re: Oswald and the CIA. Suppose that Oswald (a nut and oddball) was working for the CIA (as an informant, double agent, or something). Would the CIA EVER make this public? I have great suspicins about the CIA-they have done some pretty crazy things, and many things that have harmed this country. Could the CIA have kept such information from the Warren Commission?
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, they could have suppressed information that Oswald was working for them, even if they had no idea that Oswald was going to off the president. As I recall, the FBI deep-sixed a threatening note from Oswald that the Dallas office received a couple of weeks before the assassination (he didn’t threaten the president, but in retrospect they obviously should have told the Secret Service about the guy). Interesting coincidence: just last night I read in Bugliosi’s book that FBI Special Agent Hosty did not connect the unsigned note to Oswald until he went to join the gang-bang interview of the suspect and Oswald tore into him about the matter.

Of course, since thoroughly surpressed evidence looks exactly the same as no evidence at all, one could never say they did or they didn’t. (That was another thing Lifton was good at - the argument from silence.)

40

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
The only trouble with Oswald as an agent of some group is that Oswald was nuts. Why would any conspiracy trust him? If he was an “agent” it would have had to have been an arms-length arrangement. This is a guy who defected to the Soviet Union, for crying out loud. He might have been used by some group or another, but he was never an insider in that group.

Even if the speculate that the CIA used him to kill Kennedy, that doesn’t make him a “CIA agent”. A CIA agent who handled Oswald at least has the benefit of not being totally impossible. But that Oswald was a deep cover agent? Come on. He was a troubled kid from the beginning of his life, why exactly would the Yalies at the CIA think he was a good candidate to induct into the CIA? What could his defection to the USSR accomplish? Supposing Oswald was a CIA agent, what information could they possibly have gathered from his defection?
[/QUOTE]

On the contrary, I think the CIA likes to use unstable, borderline individuals-that way, the guy has little credibility. look at the people the CIA worked with (in the plots to kill Castro)-Mafia gangsters (who very likely informed Castro of the plot); or the idiots that the CIA thought would make up the new government of IRAQ (Ahmed Chalabi). Fact is, the CIA has gotten into some pretty stupid plots and conspiracies-and recruiting a flake (like Oswald) fits in with how they operated. Why was Oswald travelling to mexico? for an unemployed photo lab employee, he got around!
Oh, and regarding CIA secrecy-how long till we learn the details of Bush’s war on terro?