Print

[JoelWhy]

Very enjoyable episode.  I think I was a bit like you, in that I grew up assuming there was a conspiracy until I learned that it was just a load of horse crap.  I'll never forget seeing the movie JFK, getting to the part where the VP was in on the conspiracy, and thinking "sorry, Oliver, I think you're a bit off the rocker."

Once thing I would have liked to hear more about would have been about Ruby.  I frankly thinks that's the best evidence that there was, in fact, a conspiracy.  Ok, so it really doesn't evidence a conspiracy at all.  But, it at least raises suspicions.

[mindme]

Unless something comes out of the archives with someone's signature authorizing a hit on JFK, there's not smoking gun evidence of a conspiracy. It's not at all unreasonable to think the Soviets or the Cubans might have wanted to kill JFK. It's not an extraordinary claim like 9/11 was an inside job. JFK gets a little more extraordinary when you claim it was a coup.

Beyond speculation of means/motive/opportunity about who could have been the players in a conspiracy, the conspirators try to look for evidence of the conspiracy in the actual shooting. If there is solid evidence of two gun men, then it's by definition a conspiracy. Everything I've seen indicates the lone gunman theory is possible and plausible.

On a side note, lots of times conspiracies are built around odd timings that seem improbable. Like in 9/11 the government had some exercise the day before about a terrorist event. Well, ho ho ho. Anyway, I was reading about the columbine massacre and at the very moment the two killers set up a bomb in the caf was the moment the janitor switched tapes on the security cameras and the incident wasn't recorded. Well, what were the odds? Seems a little too perfect, don't it? One could easily point to that when trying to build a case that, oh, there was a third gunner or whatever.

[Chew]

I'm a Lone Nutter; I think all the evidence shows Oswald acted alone. But I would not be at all surprised that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy. But it's been 45 years and nothing but false confessions, attention seekers, and faked evidence has come out.

I'm like a moth drawn to the blazing light of stupidity of conspiracy websites. One great one no longer around had a "ground breaking" photographic analyse of the Moorman polaroid photo and the author found 14 people standing behind the picket fence, and he gave them nicknames based on how they looked: "Dog-Faced Man", "The Jockey" (a 3 foot man who wore a jockey's helmut), "Shotgun Man", etc. All standing within a 5 feet section of fence.

Ruby killing Oswald was sheer serendipity. The transfer of Oswald from the Dallas PD to the city jail was delayed by 10~15 minutes because Oswald asked for a sweater. The only reason Ruby went downtown that day was to wire some money to one of his strippers then he walked to the police station and showed up just seconds before Oswald was brought out.

Did anybody see "Oswald's Ghost" on Frontline? Excellent study of the assassination in general and Oswald in particular.

[mindme]

The idea that the conspiracy had two gunmen would imply the conspirators are like every conspirators involved in the tinfoil hat conspiracies: they have great power but they make really fundamental mistakes. A bullet from the front and back would be obvious to investigators. A pristine bullet would make no sense.

 

[JoelWhy]

On a side note, lots of times conspiracies are built around odd timings that seem improbable. Like in 9/11 the government had some exercise the day before about a terrorist event. Well, ho ho ho. Anyway, I was reading about the columbine massacre and at the very moment the two killers set up a bomb in the caf was the moment the janitor switched tapes on the security cameras and the incident wasn't recorded. Well, what were the odds? Seems a little too perfect, don't it? One could easily point to that when trying to build a case that, oh, there was a third gunner or whatever.

That's definitely true.  I don't like the term "anomaly hunting" because it implies that the CT are looking for things that don't add up -- well, what's wrong with that?  A good detective should look for things that don't add up.  I think I prefer "coincidence hunting" as a disparaging term.  What they frequently do is look for coincidences and then claim this as evidence of a conspiracy.

As far as JFK goes, Oswald being killed isn't a coincidence; it's just that his being killed is the kind of thing you would expect the CIA to do as part of the cover up.  Of course, wouldn't it have been a bit less suspicious if they had killed him while capturing him as opposed to afterwards?  Perhaps this is just like the South Park 9/11 episode -- there really was a government conspiracy and cover up.  And, the conspiracy was to make up a conspiracy theory afterwards so that Americans can go on beliving the government can and does control everything!

[Chew]

The idea that the conspiracy had two gunmen would imply the conspirators are like every conspirators involved in the tinfoil hat conspiracies: they have great power but they make really fundamental mistakes. A bullet from the front and back would be obvious to investigators. A pristine bullet would make no sense.

Right. But the batshit crazies have an explanation for the great power/fundamental mistakes paradox: the all-powerful conspirators reveal just enough to the outside world and the special few who know they really, really exist will know who is really in power.

One of the less famous conspiracy authors postulated-- postulated is the wrong word. He was absolutely certain 5 gunmen took over 10 shots at JFK but only one man scored hits. It's like Star Wars. Not 1 out of 500 crack Imperial Storm Troopers can hit the side of a planet.

[mindme]

The idea that the conspiracy had two gunmen would imply the conspirators are like every conspirators involved in the tinfoil hat conspiracies: they have great power but they make really fundamental mistakes. A bullet from the front and back would be obvious to investigators. A pristine bullet would make no sense.

Right. But the batshit crazies have an explanation for the great power/fundamental mistakes paradox: the all-powerful conspirators reveal just enough to the outside world and the special few who know they really, really exist will know who is really in power.

Or as in the moon hoax goes, people involved make this bonehead errors to tip off others in the know that it's all a fake.

[Nigel]

Yes, very good episode, but Nigel, if that is his real pseudonym, speaking off the cuff made a few very minor errors and in a few cases could have expanded on a few details that left unaddressed could lead the uninitiated to incorrectly infer something else.

These details only matter if you participate in discussions with JFK conspiracy theorists. Those of you who don't can just skip the rest of this post.

David Lifton, not Lipton, wrote the book about JFK's wounds being altered.

The head shot happened between Zapruder frame 312 and 313, not the earlier frames Nigel mentioned (the alleged missed shot probably happened in the 150-160 range).

The stretcher bullet (the "magic bullet") that dislodged from Connelly's thigh and fell onto the stretcher was found after Connelly was transfered on to the emergency room stretcher. Connelly's first stretcher was then moved by an orderly from the emergency room out into the hallway and pushed against a wall, which caused the bullet to roll off the stretcher and was found by the orderly.

These are piddling details, I know, but if you don't get every piddling detail absolutely... well, you know how it is.

Please don't flame me for being petty.

Ha. No problem Chew. Thank you for the corrections. A podcast is sometimes just two people talking and not trading google links. So when you're trying to recall details you read the night before it's not 100% accurate. Like I suggested Woody's dad shot a judge. No, I was wrong and it was a cop.

Don't you people get it? I did not make in error in Lifton vs. Lipton and the frame number 312/313 vs 150-160 on the Zapruder film.  I am trying to hint that even though I'm in the pay of the military industrial complex (or is it the Cubans), that it was actually a giant plot that went all the way to the Masons or the lizard overloads under Denver International Airport.  You can lead a skeptic to water . . .

Just a joke.  Thanks for the corrections. 

Regarding Ruby --Ruby was not the type of guy the mob, the CIA, the Soviets, or the international banking cartel would use to rub out Oswald.  He was bit of a flake.  That in itself is not evidence that he was not part of conspiracy, but he would be a bizarre pick.  There is no solid evidence that Oswald was connected in any meaning way with the mob.   I don't have my books and tabbed websites handy, but it was always Ruby was once seen in the same room with so and so.  I also think Ruby being from Chicago "the land of the mob" just makes it sound plausible.  Ruby left his dog, Sheeba (and if that's not the correct name, well more evidence I'm a schill) in the car when he shot Oswald.  From all accounts he loved that dog and would never leave her in the car if he knew he was about to go to prison.  There is no telling what exactly drove Ruby to shoot Oswald, but I think it was an emotional reflex action.   

If Oswald was killed because he knew too much the best place to kill him was right after he left the book depository building not after he was in the hands of the police. 


As I noted in the podcast, people are going to nitpick the evidence to find that it was something larger than one young guy with a rifle that killed Kennedy.  The actual ballistics and hard evidence clearly point to it being Oswald, and almost as likely that it was Oswald on his own. 

[JoelWhy]

Thanks for the info, Nigel.  You did a great job on the podcast (as opposed to that "Karl" guy; talk about a government shill!)

Now, if you'll give me a moment to play conspiracy nut:

Regarding Ruby --Ruby was not the type of guy the mob, the CIA, the Soviets, or the international banking cartel would use to rub out Oswald.  He was bit of a flake.  That in itself is not evidence that he was not part of conspiracy, but he would be a bizarre pick. 

Of course they're going to pick a flake!  It's the perfect cover for an assassin!  Plus, they're not going to use one of their really great ops to go on the equivalent of a suicide mission!

There is no solid evidence that Oswald was connected in any meaning way with the mob.   

But, we start will the null-hypothesis: There is no evidence that he was not in the mob.  See?

Ruby left his dog, Sheeba (and if that's not the correct name, well more evidence I'm a schill) in the car when he shot Oswald.  From all accounts he loved that dog and would never leave her in the car if he knew he was about to go to prison.  There is no telling what exactly drove Ruby to shoot Oswald, but I think it was an emotional reflex action.

Hmmm, interesting about the dog.  So, we're all in agreement that this was CIA mind control?  (Where's Knight when you need him...?)

[Chew]

Don't you people get it? I did not make in error in Lifton vs. Lipton and the frame number 312/313 vs 150-160 on the Zapruder film.  I am trying to hint that even though I'm in the pay of the military industrial complex (or is it the Cubans), that it was actually a giant plot that went all the way to the Masons or the lizard overloads under Denver International Airport.  You can lead a skeptic to water . . .

Shit. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to blow your cover. I missed last week's meeting (I was out tainting the Swine vaccine with anti-freeze).

A Dallas cop once said if you wanted to spread a secret around town just tell Jack Ruby.

[mindme]

Conspiracy Skeptic Unplugged 10 is up: Hayley Stevens of the Righteous Indignation podcast comes on to talk about the supposed assassination of Princess Di.

http://www.yrad.com/cs/

(Podcast threads are getting moved to Other Media so maybe this one should follow them.)

[Nigel]

Karl,

I downloaded some older Righteous Indignation podcasts (yours, Watsons, and few others) and in your interview you discussed how CS has changed format since its inception.  Have you ever considered doing a retro one for old times sake, or a change of pace?  I don't know a Very Special Conspiracy Skeptic for Chanukah/Christmas/Kwanza/Boxing Day.  I suggest adding in Dean Martin's "Gold diggers," but that would be crass. (Don't take this as a criticism of the current format.  I must be feeling nostalgic.)

Just a thought.

 

[stands2reason]

Good episode. But I have to say, if you call her "Princess Die", don't be too surprised when, you know...

[Joe B]

Working my way through the old episodes. Love the podcast. Keep up the great work.

[mindme]

Karl,

I downloaded some older Righteous Indignation podcasts (yours, Watsons, and few others) and in your interview you discussed how CS has changed format since its inception.  Have you ever considered doing a retro one for old times sake, or a change of pace?  I don't know a Very Special Conspiracy Skeptic for Chanukah/Christmas/Kwanza/Boxing Day.  I suggest adding in Dean Martin's "Gold diggers," but that would be crass. (Don't take this as a criticism of the current format.  I must be feeling nostalgic.)

Just a thought.

 

I've done 10 "classics" and I think I still owe 2 more. I really intend to do 12 in that format.