Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book

[Gerry Simone]

Just hopping on.  James Di Eugenio has critiqued Gagne's book at the Kennedysandking.com website.

P.S. The publisher for Gagne's book (Routledge) seems friendly to anti-conspiracy authors. I've critiqued an article by one of them who dismisses all JFK conspiracy theories.

[Gerry Simone]

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.

Strawman arguments.  6 out of 7 mock trials have resulted in either a hung jury or acquittal in favor of Oswald - in other words, there is reasonable doubt as to his guilt. (The exception was a farcical trial).

We need not know who pulled the trigger or who planned it*.  All that is relevant to conclude the assassination was a conspiracy is that the evidence shows that Oswald could not have pulled it off and that it had to be by others.  It also doesn't help the lone gunman scenario that a cover-up of the truth by the Warren Commission and certain agencies or departments of the government occurred.

*People can theorize how, who and why after the fact - if the police didn't theorize, nobody would go to jail.  There are theories that fit the facts better than the SBT.

[Richard Smith]

Strawman arguments.  6 out of 7 mock trials have resulted in either a hung jury or acquittal in favor of Oswald - in other words, there is reasonable doubt as to his guilt. (The exception was a farcical trial).

We need not know who pulled the trigger or who planned it*.  All that is relevant to conclude the assassination was a conspiracy is that the evidence shows that Oswald could not have pulled it off and that it had to be by others.  It also doesn't help the lone gunman scenario that a cover-up of the truth by the Warren Commission and certain agencies or departments of the government occurred.

*People can theorize how, who and why after the fact - if the police didn't theorize, nobody would go to jail.  There are theories that fit the facts better than the SBT.

UFO believers require a government cover up to explain why they can never prove the existence of aliens.  Those men in black are always showing up just in time to hide the evidence.  Some JFK CTers need to claim that this case can't be solved for similar reasons.  They can't prove an alternate conspiracy theory.  Nothing adds up much less the existence of any actual evidence that point to anyone except Oswald. Rather, like middling defense attorneys (or Inspector Clouseau) they can "suspect everyone and suspect no one."  A lazy but amusing approach that allows them to eat their cake and have it too.  After nearly six decades, the bottom line is they don't know what happened.  Never will.  It just can't be Oswald.  If a time machine was invented to allow these types to witness the event, they would gouge their own eyes out before witnessing Oswald pull the trigger. 

[Martin Weidmann]

UFO believers require a government cover up to explain why they can never prove the existence of aliens.  Those men in black are always showing up just in time to hide the evidence.  Some JFK CTers need to claim that this case can't be solved for similar reasons.  They can't prove an alternate conspiracy theory.  Nothing adds up much less the existence of any actual evidence that point to anyone except Oswald. Rather, like middling defense attorneys (or Inspector Clouseau) they can "suspect everyone and suspect no one."  A lazy but amusing approach that allows them to eat their cake and have it too.  After nearly six decades, the bottom line is they don't know what happened.  Never will.  It just can't be Oswald.  If a time machine was invented to allow these types to witness the event, they would gouge their own eyes out before witnessing Oswald pull the trigger.

The classic LN "if you can't prove (with evidence I will never accept) that there was a conspiracy, Oswald is guilty by default"

After nearly six decades, the bottom line is they don't know what happened.

And neither do you. You only think you do.

It just can't be Oswald.

I have no problem accepting Oswald as the lone gunman, when actual persuasive evidence (and not opinions) is provided to support such a finding. So, go on then....provide it.

Wait, I forgot, you can't show that evidence and blame it on me for asking for something so impossible. 

[Richard Smith]

The classic LN "if you can't prove (with evidence I will never accept) that there was a conspiracy, Oswald is guilty by default"

After nearly six decades, the bottom line is they don't know what happened.

And neither do you. You only think you do.

It just can't be Oswald.

I have no problem accepting Oswald as the lone gunman, when actual persuasive evidence (and not opinions) is provided to support such a finding. So, go on then....provide it.

Wait, I forgot, you can't show that evidence and blame it on me for asking for something so impossible.

Unless you are suggesting that JFK committed suicide, the options are that Oswald did it or a ton of evidence was manufactured to make it look like he did.  You are constantly implying the latter. Which would be a conspiracy.  There is a mountain of evidence confirming that Oswald did it. That is why some CTers allege the evidence was planted.  To frame Oswald for the crime.  The fact that this evidence doesn't satisfy the subjective criteria of a contrarian loon doesn't change that.   Again, the case against Oswald has been publicly known and available for nearly six decades.  You know that evidence.  Why do you keep asking me for it?  Do you think I have evidence that wasn't available to law enforcement and the WC?  You are constantly confusing your own impossible subjective standard of proof on the topic with facts and evidence.  Every contrarian doesn't have to be convinced for something to be a fact. 

FACT:  Oswald did it. 
FACT:  there is no credible evidence of anyone else being involved.  After nearly 60 years, you can't and won't even articulate any counternarrative.  That speaks volumes as to the lack of evidence of any conspiracy. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Unless you are suggesting that JFK committed suicide, the options are that Oswald did it or a ton of evidence was manufactured to make it look like he did.  You are constantly implying the latter. Which would be a conspiracy.  There is a mountain of evidence confirming that Oswald did it. That is why some CTers allege the evidence was planted.  To frame Oswald for the crime.  The fact that this evidence doesn't satisfy the subjective criteria of a contrarian loon doesn't change that.   Again, the case against Oswald has been publicly known and available for nearly six decades.  You know that evidence.  Why do you keep asking me for it?  Do you think I have evidence that wasn't available to law enforcement and the WC?  You are constantly confusing your own impossible subjective standard of proof on the topic with facts and evidence.  Every contrarian doesn't have to be convinced for something to be a fact. 

FACT:  Oswald did it. 
FACT:  there is no credible evidence of anyone else being involved.  After nearly 60 years, you can't and won't even articulate any counternarrative.  That speaks volumes as to the lack of evidence of any conspiracy.

the options are that Oswald did it or a ton of evidence was manufactured to make it look like he did.

What "ton of evidence" would that be?

There is a mountain of evidence confirming that Oswald did it.

If that's true, why do you constantly fail to present that evidence?

Again, the case against Oswald has been publicly known and available for nearly six decades.  You know that evidence.

You mean the "evidence" that doesn't actually prove what is being alleged?

Why do you keep asking me for it?

Because you continue not to produce it. You make all sorts of claims about a paper bag, Oswald being on the 6th floor and going down the TSBD stairs within 75 seconds after the last shot, and much more, without actually ever producing a shred of conclusive evidence for it.

Do you think I have evidence that wasn't available to law enforcement and the WC? 

Well, you must have, because the WC never actually claimed there was any evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when Kennedy passed by. They just said he was. Yet, you claim there is such evidence. So, where is it?

You are constantly confusing your own impossible subjective standard of proof on the topic with facts and evidence.

What "facts and evidence"? After about six months of asking, I finally gave up asking for the evidence you said existed that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and that he ran down the stairs, unseen, within 75 seconds after the last shot. Are you now still claiming that such evidence exists?

FACT:  Oswald did it. 

A fact can be proven. So, prove it or it isn't a fact

FACT:  there is no credible evidence of anyone else being involved.

That's not necessarily true. Within the body of evidence that the WC provided, there is enough to make a circumstantial case for a conspiracy, but you will never accept any of it.

After nearly 60 years, you can't and won't even articulate any counternarrative. 

Don't have to...

That speaks volumes as to the lack of evidence of any conspiracy.

No it doesn't.

[John Iacoletti]

Unless you are suggesting that JFK committed suicide, the options are that Oswald did it or a ton of evidence was manufactured to make it look like he did. 

Wrong again, “Richard”. There isn’t a “ton of evidence” that looks like Oswald did it. There’s a ton of false or unsubstantiated claims that you keep regurgitating and calling it “evidence”. Big difference.

FACT:  Oswald did it. 

LOL. FACT: “Richard” is delusional

FACT:  there is no credible evidence of anyone else being involved.  After nearly 60 years, you can't and won't even articulate any counternarrative.  That speaks volumes as to the lack of evidence of any conspiracy.

LOL. Every delusional LN evangelist nut doesn’t have to be convinced for something to be “credible”.