Perhaps more pertinently, younger people aren’t really going to CARE. American baby boomers care a lot; JFK holds a sort of mythical status in their minds. To my kid, JFK is about as relevant to her as William McKinley was to a baby boomer.
No it doesn’t.
Regardless of whether her “notes” were taken (and I ask for a cite on that; all I seem to find is one guy who has turned this into his personal CT), whatever supposed bombshell facts that those notes would have documented wouldn’t change.
And it would be those mysterious facts that would theoretically contrast with “Oswald acted alone.” (The notes are merely tangential to the issue)
Except those facts don’t exist.
Of course, you may disagree with my assertion. But if the only “evidence”you can bring is the fact that somebody who once spoke with the people involved in the assassination later died, that’s incredibly weak.
But if our only limitations are the limits of our imagination, then we can just as easily avoid the inevitable conclusion of a JFK conspiracy as we can arrive there.
Dorothy Kilgallen, for example, was a prominent reporter. There was a story that she had a falling out with Frank Sinatra. Boom - there’s your mob hit right there. And she was apparently unfaithful towards her husband - so her death was also a jealous husband’s scheming. And she was a regular on What’s My Line, and the scandalous game shows of the 50’s have their own rabbit hole we can go down.
Why’s it gotta be because she had something revolutionary about JFK’s death that nobody else managed to corroborate?
This is hilarious. Do you remember what you yourself said when Project Azorian was mentioned?
I’m glad you agree with me that covert actions are categorically different.
Now could we get back to the topic of conspiracy theories, perhaps?
I would like a cite that there was ever a widespread conspiracy theory about Azorian BEFORE it was exposed in the media. In other words, please provide evidence that there were large numbers of people claiming that Hughes Glomar was being built to retrieve a sunken Soviet submarine BEFORE it was confirmed to, in fact, have been built specifically to retrieve a sunken Soviet submarine.
Interestingly, AFTER the story broke, some CTs did surface, none of which have been remotely proven true, making this an interesting case of a proven conspiracy which spawned several conspiracy theories:
Exactly. That governments do secret things is in their nature. That journalists and other investigators find out about them is in their nature.
That therefore the ravings of idiots must be looked at seriously, or worse, taken as obviously true because governments do secret things constitutes a gigantic blight on democracy, rationality, and public discourse. You cannot separate the lunacy of modern internet conspiracy theories from older ones. Any historian knows how old and how deep that thinking lies in American history. (And others, of course.) They form a continuum of hatred and suspicion that demagogues have traditionally amplified for their own benefit.
Anyone who examines the way that conspiracy theories are expressed knows they have commonalities that make them immediately identifiable, and therefore dismissible. The specifics are distinctive, but overall it’s as obvious as spotting racist or sexist behavior. You don’t need hundreds of hours of research to make a determination of bigotry: it leaps out at you. Both kinds of behavior will be fiercely denied, of course, and the accusers will often be the ones vilified. The world has made strides toward getting the various forms of openly expressed bigotry unacceptable, but we’re nowhere near that point for conspiracy theories.
I hope you’re not referring to Mark Shaw, but I have a terrible dread you are.
Anyway, the cite (fifth paragraph from the bottom) - Did Journalist Dorothy Kilgallen's Probe of JFK's Assassination Lead to Her Death? | HowStuffWorks
I have no idea what was in the notes…uh, assuming they really existed and went missing. I don’t think anyone (besides Kilgallen and Ruby) knew what was in the notes at the time, yet someone felt the need to make sure no one else ever saw them. That strongly suggests they were afraid of what MIGHT be in them. I took it for granted, perhaps rashly, that those responsible for the JFK hit felt they had to do some cleaning up afterwards.
You forgot the drug-crazed hippies from the Sheppard case. We can’t rule them out, either.
And don’t get me started on the Second Sinatra Theory.
This is absolutely ridiculous. These are not “witnesses” in any sense of the word. The CT’s have taken everyone, and I mean everyone involved to the ten degrees of separation from someone tangentially related to the Kennedy assassination and taken their untimely death and used it as…something…about a conspiracy.
So some guy who was the husband of the lady who rented Oswald his house’s friend dies in a car accident in 1966? So what? Is the implication that it wasn’t really a car accident and that the government, mafia, CIA, Castro, LBJ, had this guy killed and made it look like a car accident? For what purpose? Because he “knew too much”?
What about the orders of magnitude more people who did not suffer untimely deaths who were at least as connected as the people on the list? What evidence is there that the people on this list “knew too much”?
That’s the problem with the CTs. They throw out this list but don’t explain why it means what it says they mean. Just garbage to sell books.
Hey! What about the other five people riding in the car with Kennedy? All dead!
While I agree with the notion that people who question the Warren Commission findings are often branded as CTs or Truthers and the supporters often do not listen to what they have to say…
what about the nation as a whole ? Remember the hue and cry when the Zap film was shown in all its gory detail on national television ?
Even the NY times who called the Warren Commission report the most elaborate and eloquent of its time, changed its tune.
The film planted a seed of suspicion in the mind of the nation that still grows to this day.
While I agree that the newer generations possibly have no interest in all this, the still continuing quest for answers must surely be proof that the nation did not swallow the Warren Commission pill as a whole.
For me an average Joe it is still hard to swallow.
Lets leave the LGT for a while and work on the pristine bullet for a bit : )
From the time it "rolled " on to a gurney it has been mocked, tracked, lost and analyzed to kingdom come.
- In what way did The New York Times “change its tune”?
- With proper nourishing and a good bit of fertilizer, things can grow.
There is nothing about the Zapruder film that remotely calls into question the lone gunman findings. Anyone familiar with firearms knows that what you see in that video is an exit wound from a high powered rifle. Such a reaction from a shot from the grassy knoll is what is impossible from viewing that video.
All of which is common knowledge that has been pointed out over and over again, which supports the theory that CTers are not interested in answers at all, and in fact feel threatened by them.
“Pristine bullet”-A term only used by CTers.
Most proper analyses come up with the same solution, btw.
Oh, please, let’s not trot out that ridiculous piece of misinformation once again.
This “single bullet,” which was full metal jacketed and specifically designed to pass through the human body, was deformed and not in a pristine state as some detractors claim. Though a side view seems to show no visible damage, a view from the end of the bullet shows a significant flattening which occurred’ when, according to the theory, the bullet struck Connally’s wrist, butt end first. The metallurgical composition of the bullet fragments in the wrist was compared to the composition of the samples taken from the base of CE 399.
I say this for your sake, because as soon as you conspiracy aficionados yank out yet another nugget of debunked fool’s gold you just confirm the skeptics’ worst opinions of your side.
I am sorry, I can’t get the actual page I that read about NYT being not so sure about the rubber stamp LGT anymore but I remember this was right after the Zap film was shown on national television.
You are right about fertilizer but surely the flames are still fanned, CT or not.
So, The New York Times did NOT “change its tune”.
It was just a letter to the Editors.
It was only meant to be a discussion. I don’t necessary conform to CTs.
Just the fact that the subject is still very much alive… and makes interesting discussion.
And sometimes where there is smoke, there is an arsonist.
Do you or do you not support the various misstatements you keep posting about the Kennedy assassination, and do you really think that “I don’t necessary conform to CTs” absolves you of all responsibility when it comes to the spreading of thoroughly debunked rumors?
An honest question: what about it is hard to swallow? I understand that believing that there was a shadowy conspiracy to kill JFK is fun (and it kinda is), but at the end of the day there’s no forest fire behind the smoke. Just a little brush fire.