Six questions about the JFK Assassination

As some of you know, I have done research into the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

My interest began as I was forming political opinions early in my childhood. That wasn’t too unusual given the circumstances: we lived in Montgomery County during Watergate, and my dad worked for U.S. Customs as a lawyer. Among the things he did was review FOIA cases. FOIA wasn’t brand new then (it passed in 1967) but was novel enough that experts on it were more rare than they are today. Again, this was the time of Watergate, and most people in the area were familiar with the workings of the U.S. government and took it for granted that it represented a conspiracy at the highest levels of government. When you then do a bit of research and find out that roughly ten years before (at that time), a popular Democratic Party President was assassinated, then his alleged assassin was himself killed two days later while in police custody…well, it would be unusual not to be suspicious.

My feeling is that there was a conspiracy that resulted in the assassination of Kennedy. It’s only a feeling, however; one thing I have discovered in my research is that the definitive evidence — for any theory, including the “lone gunman” — simply isn’t there, due to secrecy, meddling, incompetence, and disinformation. Listening to the “lone gunman” accounts being discussed by believers, you’ll find that they descend into the same tropes that “conspiracy theorists” do: conjecture, cavalier dismissal of sources, ad hominem, circular reasoning, the lot.

(Subsequent conspiracy allegations against the government in the decades since have also caused me to realize that most people, regardless of their supposed professionalism, prefer to champion a point of view based on their politics and then search for specific information to support them, rather than form an independent theory. 9/11, Benghazi, Russiagate, Jeffrey Epstein…all suffer from a huge degree of nonsense that’s deliberately thrown about to push a political advantage.)

So, denied the ability to verify primary evidence, I’ve concentrated on a more detached and philosophical approach. As part of that, I came up with six yes/no questions several years ago which I believe detail the best case for a conspiracy in the assassination of John Kennedy. I would submit that if any one of these questions can be answered “yes”, then the door is open for the possibility of conspiracy. I’d go so far as to say that anyone who asserts strongly that all of these can definitely be answered “no”, then we are dealing with a “coincidence theorist” — and I don’t countenance coincidence theory any more than conspiracy theory. (My definition of coincidence theory: The belief that in a world where elites are highly placed in global affairs, are highly interconnected, and capable of personal or coordinated decisions which affect the public at large, all significant events without exception are attributable to impersonal, random, and unconnected forces.)

So here are the six questions. They can be a bit dense, especially the fifth one, but I think if they are contemplated honestly, one can see that there are some undisputed assertions which, when considered as a whole, make a conspiracy the simplest explanation for the assassination.

1. Was Lee Harvey Oswald a CIA asset?
2. Was Jack Ruby involved with the mob?
3. Has evidence of this crime been fabricated, destroyed, suppressed, or altered to present a particular theory – either in favor of or against a lone gunman?
4. Is there evidence of other contemporary plots to assassinate the President?
5. Is there evidence of collusion between any two of the following elements in conducting secret or illegal activities — including assassination plots, either inside or outside the United States — prior to or contemporary with the assassination: the CIA, or IC in general; the mob; extreme right-wing organizations; anti-Castro Cubans?
6. Did the U.S. Government have the means, motive, and opportunity to conceal factual information concerning the assassination from the public?

{“type”:”block”,”srcClientIds”:[“48a2ff8a-8d6c-4d32-a396-c101a4baa1fa”],”srcRootClientId”:””}

It looks as though something has happened…

no bullshitReposting here from my entry on 43Things.

I did my usual and rather morbid yearly ponderance on the assassination of John Kennedy yesterday, and I believe today that my sister will be screening the movie JFK. It’s still interesting, and in some ways, still relevant.

There’s a logical construct called Occam’s Razor, which, generally speaking, posits that if you are given a set of possible causes for something, the simplest one is the most likely correct. This is often brought up with respect to “conspiracy theories”, and it’s helpful. For example, the whole 9/11 conspiracy thing tends to fall apart when you examine it under those conditions. Was it a controlled demolition? Okay, who did the demolishing? And what did they do it with? Did someone literally sneak in hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives without anybody noticing, or was the building collapsed by (much more simply) having a plane fly into it?

The thing is, I’ve read the stories of many of the “lone gunmen theorists” with respect to JFK, and under the same conditions, it’s their theories which start to come apart. Oswald just happens to have been a communist defector and re-defector to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. Ruby just happens to have been a mobster originally from Chicago. People with foreknowledge or who witnessed something different were guessing, they were crazy, they were mistaken, they were greedy or self-aggrandizing…after all of that, it’s pretty clear you’re dealing with a “coincidence theory” – one that’s harder to justify that just simply saying more than one person, in some sense, was involved.

The shot heard by no one

I haven’t written here for a while, but there’s a particular reason for that.  The GP’s convention occurred the weekend before last, and it’s safe to say that it had an impact on my view of the Party and the actions that I’ve been taking and planning to take as an activist.  I figured that the best thing to do was to take some time and sort out exactly how I felt about the whole thing.  (As an aside, I do wish more people, particularly journalists, would do exactly that; however, the 24-hour news cycle demands immediate filler and “breaking news” even when it would be best to report the bare bones of a story and leave analysis to a later time, once things develop – in other words, say it is too early to tell because it is, and leave it at that for a bit.  Of course, this can’t be done, and in any case such tactics are best for those who create the policy rather than those who report on it.  I have a foot in both camps, to an extent, so I find myself in the ever-popular “weird area”.)

So my silence hasn’t been because of neglect, but rather a deliberate consideration as to my next move: what I’m going to say, how I’m going to say it, and what I’m going to do next.

In the meantime, I was struck by a few recent developments of JFK assassination lore: the publishing of a new home movie taken on the day of the assassination, and the publication of Vincent Bugliosi’s voluminous defense of the Lone Gunman Theory. Continue reading

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started