Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Yes, another triumph of hope over experience but here's an interesting and excellent (so far, I'm only about half way through it) work debunking the conspiracy claims: "Thinking Critically about the Kennedy Assassination: Debunking the Myths and Conspiracy Theories". It's by a French-Canadian author, Mr. Michel Gagne. Never heard of him before but his bio is here: https://www.routledge.com/authors/i22003-michel-gagn#bio

A review is here:  https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2022/11/gagne.html

One of his key points (not original but he states it quite well) is that the Camelot myth that was created after JFK's death, largely by Jackie, has led to an "evolving conspiracy narrative", a narrative that changes based on the particular myth that the conspiracist believes. For example, the myth that JFK was a peace maker, specifically he was going to end the Vietnam War, and it was for that that he was killed. Another mythical JFK was going to end the exploitation by the wealthy, the Texas oil men, and it was for that that he was killed. Another myth has JFK going to dismantle the CIA, the out of control agency that ruined the aspirations of Third World people liberated from colonialism, and it was for that that he was killed.

And on and on. Myth after myth, fable after fable and conspiracy narrative after conspiracy narrative.

What he shows is what we, those who tangle with the conspiracists, know: if you listen to 15 different conspiracy believers they will give you 15 different explanations as to what happened. Different explanations as to who killed JFK, how they did it, who covered it up and why. They are all different from beginning to end. In each case the conspiracist simply starts with his mythical conclusion - JFK was going to end the Vietnam war or JFK was going to end the power of the oil companies or he was going to dismantle the CIA - and then finds facts to support that conclusion. Conclusion first, facts, second. And because each conspiracist has his own myth they each have their own explanation. Thus the thousands of books claiming a conspiracy yet at odds with each other on what happened.

So here we almost are some 60 years or so later and the conspiracists can't agree on anything other than there was a conspiracy. Was Oswald a participant? Or was he totally innocent? CIA? FBI? Dallas oilmen? Who did it? They disagree on any of these. Because, again, they are starting with their own conclusions and arguing backwards from there. A hundred different conclusions, a hundred different answers to our questions.

[Walt Cakebread]

Yes, another triumph of hope over experience but here's an interesting and excellent (so far, I'm only about half way through it) work debunking the conspiracy claims: "Thinking Critically about the Kennedy Assassination: Debunking the Myths and Conspiracy Theories". It's by a French-Canadian author, Mr. Michel Gagne. Never heard of him before but his bio is here: https://www.routledge.com/authors/i22003-michel-gagn#bio

A review is here:  https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2022/11/gagne.html

One of his key points (not original but he states it quite well) is that the Camelot myth that was created after JFK's death, largely by Jackie, has led to an "evolving conspiracy narrative", a narrative that changes based on the particular myth that the conspiracist believes. For example, the myth that JFK was a peace maker, specifically he was going to end the Vietnam War, and it was for that that he was killed. Another mythical JFK was going to end the exploitation by the wealthy, the Texas oil men, and it was for that that he was killed. Another myth has JFK going to dismantle the CIA, the out of control agency that ruined the aspirations of Third World people liberated from colonialism, and it was for that that he was killed.

And on and on. Myth after myth, fable after fable and conspiracy narrative after conspiracy narrative.

What he shows is what we, those who tangle with the conspiracists, know: if you listen to 15 different conspiracy believers they will give you 15 different explanations as to what happened. Different explanations as to who killed JFK, how they did it, who covered it up and why. They are all different from beginning to end. In each case the conspiracist simply starts with his mythical conclusion - JFK was going to end the Vietnam war or JFK was going to end the power of the oil companies or he was going to dismantle the CIA - and then finds facts to support that conclusion. Conclusion first, facts, second. And because each conspiracist has his own myth they each have their own explanation. Thus the thousands of books claiming a conspiracy yet at odds with each other on what happened.

So here we almost are some 60 years or so later and the conspiracists can't agree on anything other than there was a conspiracy. Was Oswald a participant? Or was he totally innocent? CIA? FBI? Dallas oilmen? Who did it? They disagree on any of these. Because, again, they are starting with their own conclusions and arguing backwards from there. A hundred different conclusions, a hundred different answers to our questions.

I've never heard of Mr Gagne.... But obviously he believes he's superior to any CT.....  But I'll wager that none of the theories in his book are based on a deranged madman who was a heartbeat away from the presidency, and his cohort that was the director in charge of the most powerful police agency in the world....Mr FBI.

[John Iacoletti]

Pot-kettle.

Warren Commission:  conclusion first, facts, second.

[Richard Smith]

Yes, another triumph of hope over experience but here's an interesting and excellent (so far, I'm only about half way through it) work debunking the conspiracy claims: "Thinking Critically about the Kennedy Assassination: Debunking the Myths and Conspiracy Theories". It's by a French-Canadian author, Mr. Michel Gagne. Never heard of him before but his bio is here: https://www.routledge.com/authors/i22003-michel-gagn#bio

A review is here:  https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2022/11/gagne.html

One of his key points (not original but he states it quite well) is that the Camelot myth that was created after JFK's death, largely by Jackie, has led to an "evolving conspiracy narrative", a narrative that changes based on the particular myth that the conspiracist believes. For example, the myth that JFK was a peace maker, specifically he was going to end the Vietnam War, and it was for that that he was killed. Another mythical JFK was going to end the exploitation by the wealthy, the Texas oil men, and it was for that that he was killed. Another myth has JFK going to dismantle the CIA, the out of control agency that ruined the aspirations of Third World people liberated from colonialism, and it was for that that he was killed.

And on and on. Myth after myth, fable after fable and conspiracy narrative after conspiracy narrative.

What he shows is what we, those who tangle with the conspiracists, know: if you listen to 15 different conspiracy believers they will give you 15 different explanations as to what happened. Different explanations as to who killed JFK, how they did it, who covered it up and why. They are all different from beginning to end. In each case the conspiracist simply starts with his mythical conclusion - JFK was going to end the Vietnam war or JFK was going to end the power of the oil companies or he was going to dismantle the CIA - and then finds facts to support that conclusion. Conclusion first, facts, second. And because each conspiracist has his own myth they each have their own explanation. Thus the thousands of books claiming a conspiracy yet at odds with each other on what happened.

So here we almost are some 60 years or so later and the conspiracists can't agree on anything other than there was a conspiracy. Was Oswald a participant? Or was he totally innocent? CIA? FBI? Dallas oilmen? Who did it? They disagree on any of these. Because, again, they are starting with their own conclusions and arguing backwards from there. A hundred different conclusions, a hundred different answers to our questions.

I give those CTers who at least articulate a theory some credit.  They have to defend those positions with evidence and arguments even though these efforts fail.  In contrast, the CTer contrarians won't even articulate who they believe was behind the assassination.  Like Inspector Clouseau, they suspect everyone, and they suspect no one.  There is apparently a dim realization that there is no evidence that points toward anyone other than Oswald.  Certainly no evidence that points toward anyone else that satisfies the impossible standard of proof that they apply to evidence of Oswald's guilt.  That also allows them to take the lazy defense attorney approach by suggesting doubt of Oswald's guilt without grappling with any of the direct implications of their claims having validity with all the obvious absurdity that entails.   

[John Iacoletti]

I give those CTers who at least articulate a theory some credit.  They have to defend those positions with evidence and arguments even though these efforts fail. 

Says the guy who never defends his own position with evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

Says the guy who never defends his own position with evidence.

Richard feels that everybody who studies this case has to have a theory about what happened. He desperately needs such a theory to have something to attack and ridicule, instead of having to explain and defend his own pathetic claims.

The irony is that this, by itself, illustrates the weakness of the case against Oswald. If Richard really considered the case solid, he wouldn't have to resort to this kind of behavior. He would simply present the case, back it up with persuasive evidence and be done with it, regardless of what other theory anybody has. The mere fact that he doesn't do that is in fact an admission of just how weak the case against Oswald is.

[Richard Smith]

Richard feels that everybody who studies this case has to have a theory about what happened. He desperately needs such a theory to have something to attack and ridicule, instead of having to explain and defend his own pathetic claims.

The irony is that this, by itself, illustrates the weakness of the case against Oswald. If Richard really considered the case solid, he wouldn't have to resort to this kind of behavior. He would simply present the case, back it up with persuasive evidence and be done with it, regardless of what other theory anybody has. The mere fact that he doesn't do that is in fact an admission of just how weak the case against Oswald is.

You have reached a conclusion.  You just won't admit it or explain it.  For example, you concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination.  The only implication that can be drawn from that conclusion is that Oswald could not have assassinated JFK from the 6th floor. since the stairs were his ONLY apparent means to reach the 2nd floor minutes later.   Yet you refuse to acknowledge that you are a CTer or explain what you are suggesting.  It just begins and ends with a conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." 

You keep suggesting that I or some other LNer must present a "case" to you that satisfies your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic of Oswald's guilt.  I've explained a dozen times or more that the evidence of Oswald's guilt was compiled by the law enforcement agents charged with investigating the case.  The WC laid out that evidence in excruciating detail almost six decades ago. Arguably, the most investigated criminal case in history.   That evidence is widely available.  That is the evidence of Oswald's guilt.  That evidence is known to you.  Why do you keep trying to deflect the discussion to reiterate the same evidence over and over so that you can roll out the same contrarian responses?  You have had that discussion with dozens of posters here taking every discussion down the same rabbit holes and making a mockery of this forum.  You really want to do it again?  Why not just confirm that you accept the only apparent implication of your own conclusion that Oswald couldn't have been the assassin because "he didn't come down the stairs"?  Are you such a contrarian that you take issue even with yourself?