<i>The promotion of false conspiracy theories is not harmless. In the past, what one historian dubbed as the "paranoid style of American politics" has led to fear of and antipathy toward certain religions and social and political movements.</i><p>This is a stretch in my opinion. This article is thinly veiled legacy defending. Not admitting to any of the Warren Commission's flaws just plays into the hands of the conspiracy theorists. Frankly there is a lot to be suspicious about. I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, but the Warren Commission deserves to be criticized.<p>For example:
Seth Kantor's testimony of encountering Ruby at Parkland hospital after JFKs assassination remains a baffling thread that the Warren Commission dismissed out of hand. Kantor had a very normal and somewhat productive journalistic career up until the assassination. During the Warren Commission he wasn't even suggesting any ideas for what his encounter with Ruby might have meant, he just wanted it out there that it happened. Later he became a little conspiratorial (from what I've heard), but who could blame him after watching the President get shot and running into the assassin's killer soon thereafter (if he was telling the truth)?<p>If I had to be I'd say there is probably no conspiracy, but I think it's very safe to say that the Warren Commission is not even close to the entire story. People can't be blamed for filling in the details with their own imagination.
For those who are pointing to the "magic bullet" theory, it's all a matter of understanding how both Kennedy and Connally were seated in the limo. No "magic" bullet required:<p><a href="http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm" rel="nofollow">http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm</a>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory#Theorized_path_of_the_bullet_CE399" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory#Theorized...</a><p>I grew up with a steady diet of conspiracy theories. My mom could be considered a guru on JFK. But after venturing out on my own and reading actual source materials, like many of the interviews in the Warren report, such as the doctors, Marina Oswald, and even the bus driver that picked Oswald up after the murder, makes it clear that Oswald did it.<p>I'll admit that there are still some weird parts to the story, like Oswald's visit to the Cuban embassy in Mexico city, but I'm willing to bet that Oswald was some sort of CIA source or contact and that fact needed to be covered up. It would have been supremely embarrassing. But I don't think that there's any wider conspiracy.<p>Edit: For those that are interested, I think the McAdams site is the best "anti-conspiracy" site out there, despite its 1990 internet look: <a href="http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm" rel="nofollow">http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm</a>
It's not that there's no conspiracy, it's that there are too many credible, and not even mutually exclusive, options (some with strong supporting evidence) to pick from.<p>My three favorite isolated pieces of evidence: (a) the pristine "magic bullet" found on the stretcher JFK was brought in on (it wasn't just magic how it supposedly hit two people 1/12 of a second apart, but it took no damage in the process, and was found lying on a stretcher), (b) the perfect handprint of Lee Harvey Oswald found on the rifle by Dallas PD -- which happened to have custody to Lee Harvey Oswald's corpse -- after the rifle was returned by the FBI lab which found no prints at all, and (c) the implausibly large number of witnesses with strong mob connections (many of whom died in suspicious circumstances over the next ten years). Each of those, on its own, is enough to launch a thousand conspiracy theories.<p>BTW: I really love <i>American Tabloid</i> by James Ellroy. It doesn't pretend to be "true" but it's a lot more compelling that <i>JFK</i>.<p>Anyway, in 2025 the LA Times can declare that Jimmy Hoffa died of natural causes.
Magic bullet. ✓<p>"The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it." -John F. Kennedy April 27, 1961 <a href="https://archive.org/download/jfks19610427/jfk_1961_0427_press.flac" rel="nofollow">https://archive.org/download/jfks19610427/jfk_1961_0427_pres...</a>
Why is it that in a lot of recent American articles, the words 'conspiracy theory' are invariably linked with 'nutjob' 'wacko' 'tinfoilhat'. (This is the 'inception' of conspiracy theories.)<p>I am a European wacko and proud; I believe that whole JFK thing was highly suspect.
<i>And if a last-minute interrogation of Oswald had not delayed his transfer, Ruby would not have been at the jail in time to kill Oswald. These unfortunate coincidences are not, however, consistent with a conspiracy.</i><p>That seems consistent with a conspiracy though; ie: Ruby wasn't ready, so delay Oswald.
One thing that I'd recommend any supporter of the official story* (~1963) to look into, and invite them to elaborate on, is the story of Eugene Dinkins.<p><a href="http://themostdangerousbookintheworld.com/index.php/hot-articles/item/1-the-strange-tale-of-eugene-dinkins-by-robert-mitchell" rel="nofollow">http://themostdangerousbookintheworld.com/index.php/hot-arti...</a><p>*Note: As of 1979, the official story changed. A Congressional Report from 1979 suggested that JFK was assassinated as part of a conspiracy. This was 16 years after the Warren Commission.<p><a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/congressional-report-john-kennedy-assassination-probably-a-conspiracy" rel="nofollow">http://www.examiner.com/article/congressional-report-john-ke...</a>
I confirmed one of the claims in the movie JFK myself.<p>I'm always more interested in proof of a conspiracy, than in evidence of any particular parties guilt. This is usually easier to find, because the conspiracy itself leaves more evidence in harder to control situations than the crime does.<p>One good example of this is something I was able to confirm myself by direct examination.<p>In JFK there's a scene that really struck me, where Kevin Costner is getting filled in by Mr. X in Washington. He tells JFK that the papers in New Zealand have full write-ups of LHO that would be impossible without a pre-planted cover up story.<p>So, one day I found myself in New Zealand and went to a university library and looked up the papers on that day.<p>LHO was arrested approx. 1:40pm, Dallas time.
Time Zone differences: NZ is UTC +12 hours, Dallas is UTC -6 hours.
Thus LHO was arrested on November 23rd, at 7:40AM NZ Time.<p>Yet the morning papers on the 23rd, a Saturday, which came out between 8AM and 10AM (it varies by the edition) had a write up of LHO's dossier.<p>In the 1960s they did have telephones so the news could have easily reached NZ by then. However, printing tonnes of newspapers takes time, as does writing a story and distributing the papers.<p>The papers likely went to print in the middle of the night before-- which is before the assassination even happened.<p>I wanted proof, and I got it.<p>The people who don't believe are not interested in evidence and will take any rationalizations presented to them at face value. This is the reason that, every year or every 5 years, in November, we get these asinine "there was no conspiracy" stories like this one.<p>Check my account name, I won't be back (assuming I don't get hellbanned for the "crime" of disagreeing with the hive mind, like so many do.)
The frightening thing is that all of the usual suspects--CIA, FBI, Mafia--committed assassinations regularly and it would have not been out of character for them. And for most motives, you can't count out LBJ either--whoever wanted Kennedy dead likely had some belief that LBJ would be better for their purposes, and what better way to ensure that than to involve him in the plot?<p>On the other hand, knowing JFK it could have just as easily been a jealous husband.
I highly recommend the book 'Crossfire' by Jim Marrs which is full of interviews and perspectives the Warren Commission chose to ignore. Marrs was a Texas new reporter at this time. The term 'conspiracy theory' has no place in a functioning democracy - if we don't question authority and keep our wits about us our democratic rights are quickly stripped away as we increasingly find
Everything surrounding the De Mohrenschildt persona is most peculiar. His brother founder of Radio Free Europe, his close connection to Jackie Kennedy, his correspondence with H.W.Bush<p>oh and let's not forget Hoovers 29.11.63 memo on "information furnished by George Bush of Central Intelligence Agency"
There's no doubt it was a conspiracy. The Warren Commission is the most famous, but most people are unaware of the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations, which ruled in 1978 that JFK's assassination was part of a conspiracy and that even further, Cuba and the USSR had <i>no</i> involvement in it.
Science at the time may have "proved" the origin of the bullets, but I thought modern science, including audio processing was a bit more ambiguous....
"The promotion of false conspiracy theories is not harmless. In the past, what one historian dubbed as the "paranoid style of American politics" has led to fear of and antipathy toward certain religions and social and political movements."<p>The allusion to "paranoid style" is rather galling because that essay attacks right wingers exclusively... and there is no doubt whatsoever that the Warren Commission purposely downplayed Oswald's communist background as not to hurt Johnson's re-election.