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”:””}

The Librarian Syndrome

poundAlright, okay.  I haven’t written here in eons.  Chalk it up to a perfect storm of soul-searching, personal drama, dwelling on some insignificant details like where the next meal’s coming from, and a well-deserved vacation from, to closely paraphrase Barbara Bush on post-Katrina New Orleans, “wasting my beautiful mind on something like” the news of the day.  I’m not going to spend a lot of time on the wherefores, because I have a different fish to fry right now.

I do not have extensive experience in politics.  Yes, I helped to lead a political party, but we weren’t exactly in the mainstream; there were many, many backrooms where true political power was exercised that I was not invited to, and I may not have accepted even if I was.  But I can safely say that I have more than the average joe, and from observation, I may have more than the dreadful excuses for punditry whose limp opinions dominate the interminable analysis that news is subjected to, thanks to the 24-hour news cycle.  (That’s a true misnomer, by the way: there simply aren’t 24 hours of news in a day, pretty much by definition, so much of what they say has no value.)  Even if one doesn’t buy that assumption, I would hope I’d be seen as possessing at least a different point of view, informed by different but no less valid information.

With that as prologue, I feel I can say two things are true about politics: Continue reading

The very uncomfortable area

I’ve been reading some of the testimony of Hermann Goering from the Nuremberg Trials; more specifically, from interviews conducted in his cell by a psychologist. Not exactly the best of reading topics at any time, and particularly not now.

I’m struck by the justifications from men in power – the denials, the half-truths, the buck-passing.  It was all further justified by their worldview – that this would have happened in any country and it was the same anywhere, and that they’d suffered at the hands of other countries and of the “Jewish race”.  They were being prosecuted only because they lost, not for any reasons of moral transgression.  It was petty and small, unbacked by any kind of greater vision.  Goering reiterates his hate of communism, because he believes the idea that men are created equal to be a ridiculous notion, unproven on its face; he bristles at the idea of the United States, who took wide swaths of territory from Mexico, condemning Germany for doing the same thing in Europe.  Hess, Goering, Doenitz, and the others mostly blamed those who were dead, playing down their own part when it would have gotten them in trouble, inflating it otherwise. Continue reading

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started