JFK Assassination Forum

I have no problem with paying high prices at the pump for the short term. Since I was a child, I read the stories of how much previous generations had to sacrifice during WWII for almost four years. Staples were rationed including food, fuel, rubber, tires, shoes, sugar, coffee, meats and dairy products just so our fighting men would not have to go without. Now we have people who are getting the shorts in a bunch because gasoline has gotten more expensive. Have we become a nation of whiny bitches? Apparently so. Suck it up, buttercups.

I have a bias toward the truth, which means I let the evidence tell me what happened. That approach requires one to be able to weigh evidence for probative value, because in some instances, the evidence is conflicting. For example, we have a large group of earwitnesses who thought the shots all came from the GK and another large group that thought all the shots came from the TSBD. Unless one wants to accept the ridiculous proposition that the GK earwitnesses couldn't hear the TSBD shots and the TSBD earwitnesses couldn't hear the GK shots, the only conclusion is that one of those groups has to be wrong. It is theoretically possible they could both be wrong, but it is not possible both could be right. So how should we determine which group got it right. It's very simple. You let other forms of evidence tell us which group got it right. We have eyewitnesses who SAW a gunman firing from the TSBD and pointed out the window they saw him at. There were no eyewitnesses to a GK gunman. Spent shells were found by the window the eyewitnesses pointed out and a rifle was found elsewhere on the sixth floor that was positively matched to both the spent shells found by the window and the only two recovered bullets. This additional evidence makes it a very easy call as to where the shots came from.

I have been on both sides of the conspiracy question at different times in my life. I would be more than happy to admit there was a conspiracy to kill JFK if somebody could provide any compelling evidence of such. I have challenged CTs for over 3 decades to provide me with credible evidence that someone other than Oswald was complicit in the crime. I have begged them for such evidence. Every time I do, I get a dial tone. After six decades it's safe to say there is no such evidence. It would be totally unrealistic to expect new evidence to show up now given that an army of researchers has looked in vain for such evidence for six decades.

The time to be open minded about the possibility Oswald could be innocent expired a long time ago. There is zero doubt he fired the shots that killed JFK. Anyone who can't accept that is only fooling themselves. If that means I have a confirmation bias, so be it. There is a theoretical possibility that Oswald fired the shots but had accomplices for which no evidence has ever surfaced. The likelihood of that being the case comes down to how many zeros there should be to the right of the decimal point. If I were the oddsmaker on that question, I would say that there is about a .001% chance that is the case. If that makes me closed minded, I am very comfortable with that. I know who killed JFK and it baffles me how so many people can't figure it out.

This is a request for people who might have had some success in recognizing their own confirmation biases and have perhaps had some success in trying to eliminate them when they become a problem. I am guessing that Lance might have some experience (from his career as a lawyer) along these lines and might have some suggestions for eliminating or reducing it.

Currently I am struggling with my own confirmation bias regarding a disciplinary committee investigation that I am leading for a club I have been associated with and a member of for almost all of my 72 years on earth. After often finding myself doing internal 180-degree turnarounds with my assessments of the evidence for a while, it finally dawned on me that my confirmation bias had started me out searching for evidence that tended to show guilt and discounting other evidence that tended to give the other member a defensible position. Once I realized this bias of mine, I began to look at the investigation differently (and I believe more properly). I believe the realization came about as a result of trying to understand my own assessment flip flops.

Anyway, I believe this is also somewhat similar to the what can happen to the biases I see regularly in the JFKA discussions online. So this post isn’t off-topic in my opinion. If we can have a reasonable discussion about this, it might even help some of us avoid a lot of problems in our quests for some answers to the controversy that is the JFKA.

Please respond if you have some constructive ideas or similar experiences. Thanks.

The American Oil Industry is very happy with Trump. They were happy with Biden also for jacking up the price of gas. But they’re even more enthusiastic with Trumps plan because it not only will likely raise prices higher than Biden, it also will forces  a lot the world to have to buy Amercan oil.

And the Military Industrialists are jubilant as well since Trump used up 5 years supply  of missiles in only a few weeks. And there’s talk of adding 1.7 trillion more to 2026 budget. Who needs a balance budget anyway all you TEA party supporter?

This episode illustrates why I have little faith in eyewitness accounts. Minutes apart Baker said Oswald was wearing a light brown jacket over some type of white shirt, then Reid said he was wearing a white t-shirt with no jacket or shirt over it. Both were partially right but got important details wrong because they simply didn't take note of what Oswald was wearing at the time. Why would they? This is typical of eyewitnesses. Are we supposed to believe that after his encounter with Baker, Oswald took his tan shirt off, walked past Reid with just the white t-shirt, then put it back on when he got on the bus and was spotted wearing the tan shirt by his former landlady. Or does it make more sense that Baker and Reid sort of got it right and sort of got it wrong. Putting it ALL the evidence together I conclude that Oswald was wearing both the tan shirt and white t-shirt when he shot JFK, with the tan shirt either partially or completely unbuttoned and that is what he was wearing when arrested and at all points in between. I also know that conflicts with what several witnesses along the way said and I don't care.

I will never understand why people put so much faith in eyewitnesses and accept what they tell us as established facts. When I see somebody start and argument with "So-and-so said that......", my reaction is STFU. Prove to me that what so-and-so said was accurate. Without corroboration, preferably by hard evidence and not another so-and-so, I'm just not going to buy it.

Are we supposed to believe that after his encounter with Baker, Oswald took his tan shirt off, walked past Reid with just the white t-shirt, then put it back on when he got on the bus and was spotted wearing the tan shirt by his former landlady.


Why shouldn’t we believe that? It seems to go together with LHO’s apparent behavior when seen running away from the scene near the Patton and 10th street intersection. (Ditching the white jacket so his appearance would be different due to his then wearing the brown shirt and hopefully making him harder to track.) This is also similar to what “The Fugitive” did on TV that LHO reportedly liked to watch. After shots were fired in Dealey Plaza, LHO did literally become a fugitive. That explanation makes perfect sense to me.