In the course of decades, various unproven and doubtful ideas have dominated the discourse of the Kennedy assassination. Often a quick fix to the intractable problems of the case using faulty premises is offered. Instead of providing substantial evidence, theories and speculation dominate such ideas. However, in time the evidence always gains on them and forces greater scrutiny. Higher standards of discourse and evidence are required...Read More
Some claim an expansive list of deaths is related to the Kennedy assassination and this is in addition to the complex plot that often accompanies such claims. Yet would a successful plot include the need to eliminate so many? The nature of a successful assassination is to minimize the amount of people involved and those killed because each additional death beyond a handful would attract notice and opportunity for exposure. Thus, we are left to ponder why so many deaths are necessary for a successful plot?Read More
Official and public commentaries have attempted to fill many evidentiary gaps in the Kennedy assassination. Yet these attempts were not all based on rigorous inquiry and evidence. Perhaps a few sought a place in history, to profit, and generated their biased view of events via their own speculative presumptions. The worst of these possible are those attempting to create ideas of whole cloth with a veneer of actual evidence in attempts to gain credibility...Read More
A rebuttal to the famous President's "Warren" Commission Hypothesis
The President's (Warren) Commission has generated divisive findings that some declare are conclusive. However, repeated aspects of the of the single bullet theory do not find support from the Commission's own experts. Unfortunately, the lower evidentiary threshold of a "preponderance of evidence" did not require these discrepancies to enjoy additional review. If an unbiased and complete review occurred, it would regard all testimony by the Commission witnesses. They would not ignore relevant contending evidence to the advantage of their predisposed findings...Read More
A Rebuttal of "In The Blossom of Our Sins" by Charles R. Drago
"Half a century passes, yet our focus remains not on the moon but on the finger pointing to it. As the 50th anniversary of the Dallas operation loomed, petitions were being signed to convince the praetorian guard of John F. Kennedy's killers to stand down and allow the truth to be spoken and justice to be pursued during the official observance of the assassination scheduled to be staged - and I do mean "staged"....at the appointed hour, the black mass was celebrated. Cracked bells tolled, crocodile tears flowed, deceit-driven litanies were regurgitated, truth and justice banished, and sheets of foolscap bearing the name of self-anointed warrior petitioners were cut into small, uniform squares with which the conspiracy's contemporary Facilitators would wipe their..." (Charles R. Drago)i
Some who represent the opposing sides debating conspiracy have seemingly forgone reasonable debate. Many remain skeptical and willing to discuss the contending evidence, others have made their decision. They do not feasibly consider most verifiable facts to deduce probable outcomes because they cannot imagine primary evidence could refute their current ideas and this has left many on the losing side of history. While I agree that a feasible assassination conspiracy occurred, the "Dallas Operation" is not conclusively proven. Drago's lengthy diatribe regarding his feelings about the official event subsequently held in Dealey Plaza, is irrelevant and biased and his confrontational and pseudo-revolutionary prose is unnecessary and counterproductive to actual discussion. Critics and advocates have personally insulted me for my contentions based on evidence they do not "believe", yet it remains on the primary legal record. Evidence does not require you to believe, it is self-evident. If someone wishes to contend evidence, it requires a substantial evidentiary basis to do so...
A rebuttal of "JFK Conspiracy theories at 50: How Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters" by David Reitzes
"To dispel the shock and confusion that ensued after accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was gunned down during an abortive police transfer by a strip club operator Jack Ruby, President Johnson convened a blue-ribbon panel composed of distinguished leaders from both the public and private sectors and consisting of both Democrats and Republicans."i (David Reitzes)
Some critics and advocates of conspiracy offer even handed reports that address the evidence. Some in their reviews of opposing viewpoints offer little evidence and much hyperbole and condescension. Others merely seek to refute opposing arguments with unproven contentions. They overlook the evidence that hampers there favorite official declaration. The article discussed "reminds us that the job of a skeptic is to use critical thinking...to properly assess the evidence, and to use our critical faculties to distinguish verifiable evidence from idle speculation." With that in mind, let us examine the evidence offered and the idle speculation...
A review of the "Real Deal" Podcast interview of Greg Burnham with James Fetzer
In the decades since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, some have asserted that multiple versions of important evidence exist. While this is possible in certain instances, serious questions remain without presented evidence and the ability for critical public review. Greg Burnham and James Fetzer discuss at length the asserted existence of an alternate film of the Kennedy assassination. Burnham claims to have viewed the "Other" film and believes it constitutes additional support for conspiracy...Read More
A rebuttal of "McBride's Folly: How the conspirati avoid the truth about the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit" by Dale K. Myers
"I don’t like to get into the habit of commenting on a rebuttal to something I wrote, but in the case of Joseph McBride’s “Dale Myers and his ‘so-called evidence’” posted on Jim DiEugenio’s website (ironically and absurdly called, Citizens For Truth About the Kennedy Assassination), I’m going to make an exception." (Dale K. Meyers)
Some debating the Kennedy case engage in unproductive and emotional displays. Reasonable criticism often transforms into diatribes of partial fact distorted by personal attacks. Emmy award winning animator and author Dale K. Myers is no exception. His use of hyperbolic jargon and dismissing those who disagree with his chosen conclusions begins with the term "conspirati"...
A rebuttal of "Talking with Jim Marrs about JFK and 9/11 Parallels" by Morgan Reynolds
Jim Marrs in a well-known and often featured conspiracy advocate, unfortunately his speculations and unsupported ideas have also gained fame. Instead of healthy skepticism and review of most evidence, Marrs is content to offer unverified views. Marrs asserts these subjects remain important to him. Yet, his assertions often damage informed review...Read More
A rebuttal of "An End to Conspiracy? Rare Photo of Lee Harvey Oswald Suggests Why he's guilty" by Gary Mack, Time Magazine
As the curator of the Sixth Floor Museum, Gary Mack holds a role in overseeing exhibits offered for the public. However, Mack's feasible desire to use a photograph to assert improbable associations render his opinions untenable. Mack attributes in my view more importance to this photograph than reasonable. Some who advocate conspiracy have their favorite self-determined important picture. Each hypothesis is championed by unverified claims...Read More
"Here, everything pointed toward Oswald's guilt. All the physical evidence, all the scientific evidence. Everything he said, everything he did...Only in a fantasy world can you have 53 pieces of evidence pointing toward guilt and still be innocent." (Vincent Bugliosi)
His first assertion is incorrect. Not all the physical and scientific evidence clearly incriminates Oswald. All the original medical evidence at Parkland hospital disputes the later determinations of the President's (Warren) Commission.i This implies a separate gunman to account for some original wounds, not Oswald. Some important pieces of physical and scientific evidence are contradictory...
A rebuttal of "JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn't even a shooter!" by Richard Hooke w/ Dr. James Fetzer
"I have been invited to the Roxie Theater in San Francisco...and explain what Oliver Stone got right and wrong in his monumental film, "JFK". Most of the film is right..." (James Fetzer)
Incorrect, most of the film is speculation, because it is a film. It is not a primary source and it gets more wrong than right, contrary to Fetzer's opinions. This is not a problem because as a dramatization it is fictional, not a documentary. Yet those trying to legitimize its contentions ignore the many unproven claims in the film...
A rebuttal of "The Kennedy Assassination, Common Sense, facts, and the truth!" by Francois Carlier
When approaching the case of President Kennedy's assassination and the alleged conspiracy that followed, some are not content to rely on the original evidence and the entire record. In the debate between conspiracy advocates and critics, some display only the bias and evidence that supports their chosen side. Instead of just seeking all the facts, some from each group have clearly predetermined the result without full consideration. Belief has seeped into the debate for some and their beliefs can become intractable when enough time has passed...Read More
A rebuttal of "Facts and Fiction in the Kennedy Assassination" by Massimo Polidoro and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
"However, cases are often made more difficult to solve when facts get confused with imagined realities and unfounded conclusions. Eyewitness testimonies and self-styled experts, even in good faith, can alter details and hid important clues that-if untouched-could lead to radically different conclusions." (Massimo Polidoro)
After a reasonable introduction paragraph, what follows is a ham-handed swipe at all sources Polidoro deems unverified due to the implications many present. He offers no actual evidence or repeated documented instances of these allegations, but states it as if the reader should give it regard. Notice that he does not address the many official flaws and clear acts of deception in the case; he instead blames inconsistencies on all the non-officials involved...
Vast majorities of conspiracy theories rely on opinion, implication, or speculation and these unverified ideas often aid critical writers and officials who claim that all conspiracy is untenable. The handful of major conspiracies supported by fact and evidence are lost among popular speculation and some may consider it strange a research author would rebut a pro-conspiracy advocate. While I support everyone voicing their ideas about possible conspiracy, the ideas must have some foundation in reason...Read More