What is left in the still classified JFK assassination files?

[spifflog]

@Omniscient

Ruby comes across as a guy who was conspiracy minded in his own right at the time and was clearly more than a little wrapped up in Oswald. He confessed that the killing was in fact premeditated and was initially convicted on that which casts additional doubt on the idea that Ruby just stumbled upon the event and killed Oswald on some emotional outburst. Ruby repeatedly claimed that he had additional information to give to the Warren Commission. Maybe this is just a bit of gamesmanship on his part to avoid or delay the proceedings but it calls into question this narrative that it was just happenstance

I was a child when Kennedy was assassinated, so I’ve lived though the entire debate period. I think the frustration we are sensing is indicative of all of these arguments. A conspiracy theorist trots out a theory, lacking accepted facts, and are met with logic and factual evidence. We are then told, “I was just asking questions” or “interesting but it still calls into question . . . “

The Jack Ruby issue above which I won’t recount completely is a case in point. We know Ruby’s a hot head, known to be impetuous, his mouth is always running, and he can’t keep a secret. We add a stripper (one of the first people I’d get involved in a conspiracy) Jack leaving his beloved dog in the car, and Oswald himself helping delay the departure for hours (which there is no way Ruby could have known, predicted or been told about). Having noting that, Ruby gets there just in time. After all of this, be most we get from the current discussion from a CTer is in essence “there are still questions.”

It seems obvious that if one is a CTer, then no amount of factual evidence is going to change their mind. Frustrating for the rest of us.

[Moriarty]

@Omniscient

Repeatedly in this thread the assertion is that conspiracies are impossible to keep secret because people talk. This is somehow treated as evidence that any supposed JFK conspiracy, ranging from the massive government cover up and collusion with the mob to something simple like a second person having discussed with, encouraged or financed Oswald in some minor way, is complete lunacy and IMPOSSIBLE because “everyone talks”.

I’d defy you to find somebody, other than you, saying that a conspiracy is “impossible”.

Instead, people are saying that there’s no evidence of one, so it makes no sense to believe in one.

@Omniscient

Am I howling at the moon because I think that using examples of known conspiracies as evidence that there could not possibly be an unknown conspiracy is a flawed argument?

You are misunderstanding the argument. An inevitable follow up to the position noted above (e.g. in the absence of some credible evidence, there’s no reason to believe something happened) is to ask, “well, what evidence should we be looking for?”

In answering that question, it’s instructive to look at other conspiracies to see what evidence they had. What people are trying to get you to understand is that the most likely evidence of a conspiracy is talking about it.

And so, as further confirmation that there is no evidence of a conspiracy, people are noting that there is no discussion of a conspiracy by Oswald or people he might have conspired with.

@Omniscient

Oswald’s transfer was a scheduled event.

Precisely.

And it did not occur as scheduled. There are two reasons for this. One, a postal inspector showed up to interrogate Oswald (they were already tracking down information about the fake ID Oswald had in his possession and connecting it to the rifle they’d found, which Oswald had purchased through mail order). And, he wanted to put on a sweater, so the police allowed him to change clothes.

This caused the scheduled event to not happen as scheduled. The pool of reporters had to just stand around and wait.

But while they were doing that, Jack Ruby was doing other things, namely wiring money (and, as has been noted, this is specifically confirmed by Western Union’s precise time stamping of the transmission).

Whereas, if Ruby had pre planned his attack, he should have been standing amongst the throng of reporters who were waiting because the scheduled event wasn’t happening on schedule.

[Great_Antibob]

@spifflog

I was a child when Kennedy was assassinated, so I’ve lived though the entire debate period.

This is probably the operative bit. In about ~10-20 years, the number of JFK and moon landing CTers is going to drop off precipitously just as we get the last of the files, which will likely reveal that much of it was indeed related to revealing names and locations of intelligence assets rather than any assassination plots.

There’s a lot of raw emotion surrounding JFK that just won’t be there for anybody who wasn’t alive back then and this board does skew older.

[spifflog]

Interesting point.

I wonder if a poll was done on people in their 20s and 30s asking if the Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman and if the moon landings were faked what the results would be. I think their first reaction would be “who cares” and their response would be zero for two on the conspiracy front.

[mordecaiB]

@E-DUB

One thing that I’ve never heard asked, let alone answered. If you’re a gunman shooting at a target would you prefer to shoot at a target advancing toward you or one receding away, given that the natural tendency of the driver of a vehicle taking fire would be to attempt to accelerate . Then why not shoot when the motorcade was proceeding up Houston street rather than waiting until it had turned and was driving away along Elm? One logical reason (albeit not the only one possible) would be to coordinate with a second shooter stationed elsewhere

@Moriarty gave a pretty good explanation already but there are a couple more reasons.
#1- Oswald would be much more exposed, being centered in the window rather than off to the side. As a matter of fact upthread someone posted a still frame from a movie camera that shows Oswald ( or a mysterious second shooter ) centered in that window as the limo moved in his direction.
B- His shooting time would be shortened by quite a bit because the limo would have accelerated strait thru the intersection, rather than slowing down to take a hard left turn and only then be able to speed down a long winding road that was still in the kill box. As it turned out, it was the kill box.

For those not familiar with firearms or angles of fire, there is an old 3d first person shooter game called JFK Reloaded where you can play out any scenario you would like to, with you being Oswald. This will give you some good insight into how easy the shots were.

One I tried was shooting the limo driver in the head as the car approached. Then I could just shoot anyone I wanted because the limo stopped in the middle of the block. But even as old as this game is, that wouldn’t always play out that way. I shoot the driver in the head, he accelerates right thru the intersection before I got another shot. Or he jumps the curb and spins out all over the grass covered area across from the depository.

You can find a free copy here. Or just search for JFK Reloaded, you’ll find a few sites you may like/trust better.

Quick hint if you try the game. At first you just have a normal view looking down the rifle barrel. You fire by clicking the mouse. Try a few scenarios that way to get a feel for the game, where the parade route runs, all the basic stuff. When you try your next scenario, right click the mouse first and that will bring up the scope on the rifle. This brings it’s own problems to a lot of shooters. A much smaller field of view, making it more difficult to find your target and to stay with it as it moves.

It’s not a perfect game by any means, but it does give you a pretty good overview of the whole plaza and the positions of the vehicles and police escorts. Oh, sometimes after you kill Kennedy , cops rush your building so you can shoot a few of them. And if you want a bit of collateral damage, just open fire on all the civilians.

[ASL_v2.0]

@Omniscient

I don’t even particularly believe that Ruby was involved in any conspiracy. Ruby comes across as a guy who was conspiracy minded in his own right at the time and was clearly more than a little wrapped up in Oswald. He confessed that the killing was in fact premeditated and was initially convicted on that which casts additional doubt on the idea that Ruby just stumbled upon the event and killed Oswald on some emotional outburst.

So, something I’ve learned, is that “premeditation” can consist of mere seconds of thinking out an act immediately preceding the actual act. That Ruby was convicted of premeditated murder, then, doesn’t require that the jury believed he took hours or even minutes to plan. Only that he took a moment, thought things through, and decided, “Yep, I’m going to go see if I can’t just kill that SOB.”

[Kent_Clark]

It’s amazing what people will focus on. When Martin Luther King was shot, James Earl Ray’s fingerprints were found on a rifle and binoculars outside the boarding house from where the shots were fired. Ray left Memphis and drove to Atlanta. Three days later he made his way into Canada. He somehow obtained a Canadian passport under another name and flew to London. He later flew to Lisbon, then back to London and was finally arrested, where authorities found he also had a second fake passport.

It seems to me there’s pretty clear reason to believe that Ray had some assistance in all that. Yet the idea of a conspiracy to kill Martin Luther King has not attracted 1/1,000th the interest of a JFK conspiracy.

And despite the evidence against Ray, the King family believes he’s a scapegoat.

“That weapon [the rifle with Ray’s fingerprints found nearby] was not the weapon,” Martin Luther King III said. “You’re going to kill somebody and then drop the gun right there?”

Sometimes people just have to believe what they believe.

[UltraVires]

@mordecaiB

Oh, sometimes after you kill Kennedy , cops rush your building so you can shoot a few of them. And if you want a bit of collateral damage, just open fire on all the civilians.

Yeah, that part does make you question your own morality. After you have accomplished the game’s objectives, I hate that I “enjoy” shooting the driver so the car stops and then snipe everyone around. Maybe I should tweak the ole meds.

[Omniscient]

@spifflog

I wonder if a poll was done on people in their 20s and 30s asking if the Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman and if the moon landings were faked what the results would be. I think their first reaction would be “who cares” and their response would be zero for two on the conspiracy front.

I think you’re very wrong. The younger folks tend to be more distrusting than older folks, by quite a lot. “The man” is a much bigger boogeyman these days than it was a half century ago. I wager a majority of 20-somethings would say that they believe there was some JFK conspiracy if for no other reason than pop culture. I’d wager that a much, much smaller percentage would think the moon landing was faked but still a frightening long ways from zero. 20-somethings aren’t going to distrust science and technology the way older people will so they’ll be far less likely to question this, but too many think that everything government does is nefarious so you can’t project that number going to zero.

[Miller]

A majority of all groups think that there was a conspiracy involved in the JFK assassination, but 18-35 year-olds are slightly less likely to believe it was a conspiracy than 36-64 year olds, and are the most likely to believe that Oswald acted alone.

[Omniscient]

@Moriarty

I’d defy you to find somebody, other than you, saying that a conspiracy is “impossible”.

How else can you possibly interpret this.

@Exapno_Mapcase

Everybody in a conspiracy eventually talks.

If that statement is true then he’s making the blanket assertion that there are no conspiracies which have not been discovered.

[ASL_v2.0]

The Kennedy assassination certainly is a nice introduction to the world of conspiracy theories–including how they survive and thrive–and I must admit it’s the only “conspiracy theory” I ever gave any credence to. The narrative put forward by films like JFK are what led me into it. But the first solid refutation of the main talking points (of the conspiracy theorists) was enough to convince me that the conspiracy theory did not warrant belief and that the best evidence, more than sufficient evidence, pointed to Oswald as a lone–and loner–gunman. That so many hold onto a belief in a conspiracy–or cling to the “I’m not saying it was a conspiracy, I’m just saying you haven’t proven it wasn’t” line, even after a solid refutation–has helped me to understand at which point it becomes fruitless to engage with the facts and start turning to the “What else do you believe–or refuse to rule out–based on such evidence?” line of approach. Unfortunately, that is a much lengthier conversation (or series of conversations, not always on the subject of JFK) and not one well-suited to the internet.

[Omniscient]

@ASL_v2.0

has helped me to understand at which point it becomes fruitless to engage with the facts and start turning to the “What else do you believe–or refuse to rule out–based on such evidence?” line of approach.

You do realize that many will consider this arguing in bad faith, right?

[mordecaiB]

@Kent_Clark

“That weapon [the rifle with Ray’s fingerprints found nearby] was not the weapon,” Martin Luther King III said. “You’re going to kill somebody and then drop the gun right there?”

“Leave the Gun, Take the Cannoli.” It’s a time honored tradition.

@UltraVires

Yeah, that part does make you question your own morality. After you have accomplished the game’s objectives, I hate that I “enjoy” shooting the driver so the car stops and then snipe everyone around. Maybe I should tweak the ole meds.

Gotta take your fun when you can. It’s been a long time since I played, but I’m pretty sure Jackie may have sustained collateral damage a few times. I don’t recall if Umbrella Man is in it, but I probably would have shot him too.

I really do think it’s a good tool for people that have questions about the difficulty of the shots as it lets them see for themselves what the whole layout and timing of the shooting.

@Miller

A majority of all groups think that there was a conspiracy involved in the JFK assassination, but 18-35 year-olds are slightly less likely to believe it was a conspiracy than 36-64 year olds, and are the most likely to believe that Oswald acted alone.

Yeah, I don’t understand how anyone would think otherwise. The farther away the event, the less they have invested in it. I think it’s that way for most people. Barring the internet, I have never encountered anyone that wanted to talk about conspiracy theories that happened 20 years before I was born.

@ASL_v2.0

That so many hold onto a belief in a conspiracy–or cling to the “I’m not saying it was a conspiracy, I’m just saying you haven’t proven it wasn’t” line, even after a solid refutation–has helped me to understand at which point it becomes fruitless to engage with the facts… /snipped

I don’t even bother with conspiracy people. The answers to every one of the questions posed in this thread are easily available at reputable online sites like the aforementioned McAdams one. Trying to engage someone online who gets all their info from alienskilledJFKdotcom is pointless. They’ll be right back posting the same questions in the next JFK thread, and the next one… They just have too much of their lives invested in the CT, if they accepted facts it would blow their world apart.

@Omniscient

You do realize that many will consider this arguing in bad faith, right?

Aren’t you the one who dismissed the McAdams site after two minutes of looking at it? That site is heavy on documentation and sources and you dismissed it out of hand.

[Omniscient]

@mordecaiB

Yeah, I don’t understand how anyone would think otherwise. The farther away the event, the less they have invested in it.

Did you look at the data? While Miller’s summary is factually correct, the delta is tiny. For the various segments there’s a tremendous agreement across just above every slice. The only ones that seems to have a meaningful delta are college educated vs. not and white vs. not. Age seems to be a really weak indicator and 65 year-olds and 21 year-olds are very closely aligned. You can accurately say that 6 in 10 people regardless of age believe there is a conspiracy.

@mordecaiB

Aren’t you the one who dismissed the McAdams site after two minutes of looking at it? That site is heavy on documentation and sources and you dismissed it out of hand.

Lol, nice appeal to hypocrisy.

[Great_Antibob]

@Miller

A majority of all groups think that there was a conspiracy involved in the JFK assassination,

I see this as an example of how survey design can affect your data points.

If, as implied, the survey was a direct choice between “one man acted alone” and “there were other actors”, that will, just by the nature of the question, lead more people to answer that multiple people were involved. I’m a little surprised FiveThirtyEight would print something quite this sloppy.

You could conduct a similar survey asking if one person or multiple actors (no pun intended) were involved in Betty White’s death and get a disconcerting number of responses implying a conspiracy behind her death. It doesn’t necessarily mean the respondents actually believe there truly was such a conspiracy behind her death. But merely asking the question will have many of them want to question the ‘official’ line.

[Omniscient]

@Great_Antibob

If, as implied, the survey was a direct choice between “one man acted alone” and “there were other actors”, that will, just by the nature of the question, lead more people to answer that multiple people were involved. I’m a little surprised FiveThirtyEight would print something quite this sloppy.

Why is it sloppy? It’s the opposite, it’s quite precise. If, as some people in this thread are attempting to do, you make the other option some variation of “a grand conspiracy involving potentially the mob, CIA and LBJ” you’ll get a wide range of assumptions about what that means. Was he acting alone or not…that’s as unambiguous as you can make it. And it has the benefit of aligning to the legal definition of conspiracy.

Frankly this is the point I’m making. There’s a shitload of daylight between “Oswald acted alone and the Warren Report accurately accounts for every aspect of the event” and “there might have been other parties who were never brought to justice”. But the critics love to move the goal posts so that the more moderate questions get lumped in with the lunatics…which of course is the reason they do it.

[Czarcasm]

@Omniscient

Lol, nice appeal to hypocrisy.

So you don’t dismiss it?

[Great_Antibob]

@Omniscient

Why is it sloppy?

As I explained, one difficulty in survey design is figuring out how to ask questions that don’t, by the nature of how they were asked, bias responses.

I was serious about the Betty White thing. If you asked the same question, you will likely have a not insignificant number of respondents say that multiple actors were involved with her death. And that will be, in no small part, due to survey design. If you ask the same question in a different way (say “How did Betty White die?”), I fully expect that most people, even ones who would answer the other question by stating multiple people were involved, to say that she died of natural causes, despite the fact that this would contradict their other response.

That’s why it’s sloppy. It’s a very difficult problem to tease out true beliefs and opinions from people. Asking the same thing two different ways can produce different poll results.

[spifflog]

It’s about this time a College professor friend of mine would trot out his adage that “50% of the people are dumber than the average guy” and I’d be forced to say, “You have me there.”

Almost 60 years, hundreds of books, and Presidential and Congressional investigations later, all of the evidence points to Oswald being the lone gunman. At this point, you and the CTers need to bring more to the table than “moderate questions.”