JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"
John Mytton:
Conclusion of No Conspiracy
By now it has to be more than obvious to the reader of this book that Oswald acted alone in killing the president. Not only does all of his conduct speak unerringly only to this conclusion, but also, as I believe I have demonstrated, the various conspiracy theories are utterly vapid and bankrupt. Does what you have read prove beyond all doubt that there was no conspiracy in Kennedy?s assassination? Probably not, if only because such a degree of proof will perhaps always be unattainable. Why? Because, first, Oswald is dead (and absent a confession from a conspirator, only Oswald could tell us if he acted in concert with anyone), and second, it?s normally much more difficult to prove a negative than a positive. However, there is sufficient evidence to satisfy, beyond a reasonable doubt, the world?s leading skeptic that Oswald acted alone?that there was no conspiracy. That Oswald, a lone nut, killed Kennedy and was thereafter killed by another lone nut, Ruby. Two small men who wanted to become big, and succeeded. Or, to ennoble their ignoble deeds, as author David Lubin says, ?the lethal tussle in the basement of city hall was a fight between two would-be paladins. Each regarded himself as a knight on a mission to avenge wrong and restore right.?
If, as is the situation with the conspiracy theorists, there is no evidence to support your allegation, from a legal standpoint you?re out of court. But even if you?re out of court, if you can at least argue that ?well, there?s no evidence of this, but logic and common sense tell you it is so,? you still have talking rights and you can still play the game, as it were. But when you not only have no evidence, but logic and common sense tell you it isn?t so, it?s time to fold your tent.
No evidence plus no common sense equals go home, zipper your mouth up, take a walk, forget about it, get a life. Of course, the hard-core conspiracy theorists, who desperately want to cling to their illusions, are not going to do any of these things. If they were to accept the evidence of no conspiracy, those whose lives have been heavily immersed in the assassination for years would also have to accept that they have ?wasted? the last twenty or thirty (or however many) years of their lives on something that has no merit. And consciously or subconsciously, it is difficult for anyone to do this. So they are prime candidates for being ?in denial? and impervious to the points being made. It should be added that if these conspiracy theorists were to accept the truth, not only would they be invalidating a major part of their past, but many would be forfeiting their future. That?s why talking to them about logic and common sense is like talking to a man without ears. The bottom line is that they want there to be a conspiracy and are constitutionally allergic to anything that points away from it. In fact, if Oswald himself appeared in front of them and said, ?Hey, guys, knock off all this silliness. I killed Kennedy and acted alone,? they?d probably tell him, ?Look, we know a heck of a lot more about this case than you do, so go back to wherever you came from.?
It?s essentially become a religious belief with the theorists that there was a conspiracy behind Kennedy?s death, and with religious beliefs, the believer knows the truth, so there has to be an explanation for everything that seems to contradict that truth. Their reasoning, then, is to start the debate assuming the very point that has to be proved (Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy), and anything that is at odds with this belief has to have an explanation, no matter how ridiculous and far-out it may be. Nothing you tell the conspiracy theorists can shake their belief in a conspiracy. In situations where even they can?t come up with an explanation, they shield themselves from the evidence by either distorting or ignoring it. This type of intellectual carpentry by the buffs allows them to proceed forward with their fantasy, unfazed by the inconvenient interposition of reality.
The example I am about to give illustrates the religious obsession and startling illogic of conspiracy theorists. A very prominent and well-respected medical doctor who is a sincere and eloquent member of the new wave in the conspiracy community wrote me (on August 30, 2001) that ?for nearly ten years now, I have slept, jogged, eaten, gone to the bathroom, and dreamed about this case.? This doctor went on to tell me, unbelievably, that it was terribly illogical of me to say that one shouldn?t reject the findings of the Warren Commission without bothering to first read the Warren Report. Such a reading was unnecessary, he said. The profound passion and equally profound irrationality reflected in that way of thinking are the norm, not the exception, in the ethos of the hard-core conspiracy community. The arguments that follow are not just for the conspiracy community, but mostly for the millions of Americans who, not knowing the facts, have been duped by the conspiracy theorists into buying their drivel, misinformation, and flat-out fabrications.*
As with the evidence of Oswald?s guilt, which has already been presented in very abbreviated, summary form, here?s the evidence of no conspiracy. As you are reading this list, I would ask you to take a moment to ask yourself whether the individual point you are reading, all alone and by itself, clearly shows there was no conspiracy. I believe you will find this to be the case with many of the points.
RHVB
JohnM
John Mytton:
1. Perhaps the most powerful single piece of evidence that there was no conspiracy in the murder of President Kennedy is simply the fact that after all these years there is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that any of the persons or groups suspected by conspiracy theorists (e.g., organized crime, CIA, KGB, FBI, military-industrial complex, Castro, LBJ, etc.) or anyone else conspired with Oswald to kill Kennedy. And when there is no evidence of something, although not conclusive, this itself is very, very persuasive evidence that the alleged ?something? does not exist. Particularly here where the search for the ?something? (conspiracy) has been the greatest and most comprehensive search for anything in American, perhaps world, history.
I mean, way back in 1965, before over forty additional years of microscopic investigation of the case by governmental groups and thousands of researchers, Dwight Macdonald wrote, ?I can?t believe that among the many hundreds of detectives, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Secret Service agents, and [counsel] for the Warren Commission?not one would be bright or lucky enough to discover or stumble across some clue [of a conspiracy] if there were any there.?2 But not one clue of a conspiracy has ever surfaced. And this is so despite the fact that the two people the conspirators would have had to rely on the most not to leave a clue, Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby, were notoriously unreliable.
A conspiracy is nothing more than a criminal partnership. And although conspiracies obviously aren?t proved by the transcript of a stenographer who typed up a conversation between the partners agreeing to commit the crime, there has to be some substantive evidence of the conspiracy or partnership?s existence. And in the conspiracy prosecutions I have conducted, I have always been able to present direct evidence of the co-conspirators acting in concert before, during, or after the crime, and/or circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable inference of concert or meeting of the minds could be made. In the Oswald case, if, for instance, Oswald had disappeared for a few days before the assassination without adequate explanation, or within these few days he was seen in the company of a stranger, or there was evidence he had come into some serious money, or he had made any statement to anyone, such as Marina, suggesting, even vaguely, a conspiratorial relationship, or someone had called him at the Paine residence and he left the room and took the call in another room, or he was seen getting in a car after the shooting in Dealey Plaza, or any of a hundred other possible events or circumstances had occurred, that would be one thing. But here, there is nothing, nothing. Just completely foundationless speculation and conjecture.
Traditionally, the way to reach a conclusion in a criminal case is to draw reasonable inferences from solid evidence. So the evidence is the foundation on which all inferences and conclusions are based. Conspiracy theorists, in contrast, make completely baseless assumptions and then proceed to make further assumptions based on these assumptions. As an example, they assume, without any evidence, that there was a conspiracy in the assassination and that Oswald was an unwitting participant. They then proceed to assume, again without any evidence, that Oswald became aware of this conspiracy at the time of the shooting in Dealey Plaza, and believe that he was being set up to take the fall for the assassination, and this is why he fled the Book Depository Building. But where is there any evidence to support either of these two assumptions?*
This is particularly startling and noteworthy when one stops to realize that those making the allegation of conspiracy necessarily have the burden of proof. I mean, it makes no sense for A to say to B, ?I allege that there is a conspiracy here. Now you prove there isn?t.? The alleger always, by definition, has the burden of proof. To say that those alleging a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination have not met their burden of proof would be the understatement of the millennium. Here, the absence of any credible evidence of a conspiracy is bad enough for the conspiracy theorists, but, as demonstrated on these pages, there is much, much evidence pointing irresistibly in the direction of no conspiracy.
RHVB
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhA54xrPTOE
JohnM
Steve Howsley:
--- Quote from: John Mytton on June 10, 2018, 06:51:10 AM ---Conspiracy theorists, in contrast, make completely baseless assumptions and then proceed to make further assumptions based on these assumptions.
RHVB
JohnM
--- End quote ---
I liken their approach to engineers on the planet Bizarro in the late 1920s. When designing the bizarro Sydney Harbour Bridge they decided to commence construction from the middle of the bridge and then extend from there to each side on the banks of the harbour. When asked what will support the central sections above the waters during the period when there were no other sections in place they replied "we'll deal with that when the time comes." Of course they ran out of sky hooks and everytime they made a start the material fell into the harbour and sank to the bottom.
CTers need a solid foundation on which to build but that's where they come unstuck. They should keep this image in mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Harbour_Bridge#/media/File:Early_construction,_Sydney_Harbour_Bridge.jpg
Howard Gee:
The Warren Commission only said there was no evidence of a conspiracy, foreign or domestic - and laid out the case against Saint Oz.
Bugliosi goes a step further and mocks the kooks for mindlessly insisting there had to be a conspiracy, even though there's still no evidence of one 50 years later.
He not only hangs their hero, he rubs their snouts in their own feces.
No wonder they hate him.
Steve Howsley:
--- Quote from: Howard Gee on June 10, 2018, 09:41:38 AM ---The Warren Commission only said there was no evidence of a conspiracy, foreign or domestic - and laid out the case against Saint Oz.
Bugliosi goes a step further and mocks the kooks for mindlessly insisting there had to be a conspiracy, even though there's still no evidence of one 50 years later.
He not only hangs their hero, he rubs their snouts in their own feces.
No wonder they hate him.
--- End quote ---
Yes VB certainly ripped them a new one. He was intolerant of stupidity and saw no need to use diplomatic language when calling them out especially the obvious liars and attention seekers who deserved to be hit right between the eyes.
I have a gut feeling that some CTers believe Oswald was the shooter on 11/22 but because VB "rubs their snouts in their own feces" they will never admit it. They react by trying to trash the WC and Bug's contribution in RH. Those especially scorned are the conspiracy authors who have undertaken decades of 'work' in their respective area of 'expertise' and their life's work will be seen as meaningless if they fold up their tent and depart the scene.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version