The state of the JFK assassination case

 

While I am excited about the new Stone documentary (outstanding) and several recent books, not to mention the level of scholarship the past 5-15 years or so, I am noticing a sea change online from NON-researchers about the JFK case. For one example of many- a local Pittsburgh celebrity posted a short video of Dr. Wecht dismantling the single bullet theory from just the other night and, rather than a bunch of nice comments from the public, the vast majority of the comments (again, from NON-researchers) would make Fred Litwin, DVP, Tracy Parnell and others proud. I have no doubt that, if this video would have been posted pre-2013 and especially pre-2003, the comments would have been largely in agreement.

The public opinion polls used to be hugely in favor of conspiracy. As we know, the last major poll in 2013 demonstrated only a 61 percent pro-conspiracy slant. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the number is even lower now.

One can even see this on Amazon reviews for Hill's three (soon to be 4) books, Gerald Blaine's book, and other (anti) conspiracy books. There seems to be a feeling of "relief" that it was "only" Oswald from the regular folks who post these reviews, something in direct opposition to the silly claim that people seek comfort in CONSPIRACY notions. Uh, if anything, it is the OPPOSITE- people definitely seem to be "relieved" that is was "only" Oswald after swallowing the contents of these anti-conspiracy books hook, line and sinker. The cult of personality associated with Clint Hill is mind-boggling: he was one of the NINE agents who drank and stayed out late that morning and admitted for years that he and his fellow agents failed, even stating several times it is "my fault", yet don't DARE say anything about either the drinking incident, pro-conspiracy notions or the agent's failure on 11/22/63 or these cult-like sycophants will rip you a new one!

Simply put (and it pains me to say this): despite our valiant efforts, they won. The history books will not be changed (most barely mention the controversy or even use the word alleged when talking about Oswald) and time has NOT been a friend. So many witnesses have passed on. Think about it: 30 years ago, when Stone's JFK came out, Jackie, the Connallys, Ted, JFK Jr., and many principal people were still among us. The "evil" George H.W. Bush, ex-CIA director, was president. It was a heady time when conferences were just beginning again after a huge lull in the 1980's and the blossoming internet (largely computer bulletin boards) AND print journals spread the interest and inspiration for the masses.

Now, the net is old news (everyone has access to it and has for ages) and anyone can post anything they want about the case, free of charge. Society has changed a lot in 30 years- the dawn of the 21rst century, 9/11, other (corrupt) administrations, etc.

Don't get me wrong with this "downer" post- we have achieved a lot: many books of a scholarly nature; several major documentaries (TMWKK 1-9, A Coup in Camelot, JFK Revisited, etc.); the ARRB and the file releases, including recent ones in 2017-2018; and so on.

Again, this is just a reminder that time is not a friend.

I even see it online for my own self with my You Tube channel and various blogs and social media platforms: the vast amount of pro-conspiracy comments are silly, stating that Greer or Hickey shot Kennedy; James "I am not in any" Files killed JFK; Jackie (!) shot her husband; and a fair amount of "get a life-it was Oswald", something that almost never happened pre-2013 unless it came from a well-known anti-conspiracy person/author...now these comments come from John Q. Citizen!

Just my two cents. Thoughts?

 

 ***RESPONSES***

 

PAT SPEER:

 

I wrote about this in 2013. There was a decided and perhaps co-ordinated effort among the major news media to downplay the possibility of a conspiracy, and make conspiracy theorists look like loonies. As a result, those wanting to feel smart without actually doing any research took to dismissing the case with a wave of a hand. Things continued to slide from there, with the sloppiest, stupidest and bloodiest videos getting the most views, to such an extent even that many newbies are first exposed to Files-did-it, Greer-did-it, Hickey-did-it, and Judy-did Lee nonsense. This pushes the genuinely curious away, IMO. And serves as a filter whereby most newbies developing a marginal interest in the case are gullible and overly excited by bright shiny objects, or cynical trolls who think it's fun to "own" the "nuts"

 

Vince, you're saying that after almost 60 years, slightly over 60% of the US public still believe there was a conspiracy.  It's not just all of us old folks anymore. 

I believe it crept up to as high as 80% in the mid-70's and early 90's. Since that time it's trickled downwards. I attribute that to a number of issues.

1. The media rarely reports on it except to say it's old news and if it was gonna be solved it would have been solved long ago. You could discover a death-bed confession from LBJ and it would barely make a dent.

2. The conspiracy theories that get the most attention on the internet and youtube are everything-but-the-kitchen sink theories that serve to reduce real sustained interest more than they increase real sustained interest. Whether or not it is true, when someone's opening line is that almost all the evidence is fake or that almost all the witnesses lied, most people tune out.  I know that when I developed a real sustained interest it wasn't because I read a book saying the body was altered or the autopsy photos were fake, although yes I did read those books. What got me hooked was that I discovered Rex Bradford's History Matters website, and read for myself the autopsy protocol, the Clark Panel report, and the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel report, and could see that the descriptions of JFK's wounds we're in opposition to each other. In short, people are more likely to take an interest if they can see something for themselves than if they are told what to believe by some old white guy.

3. it's not always the message. Sometimes it's the people receiving the message. We have an epidemic of historical proportions in this country in that many have little understanding of how the world they live in got this way. I mean, why read a book when you can have fun killing people on your computer?

 

Jeremy Bojczuk

The vast amount of pro-conspiracy comments are silly, stating that Greer or Hickey shot Kennedy;

It's worth remembering that the 'Hickey shot Kennedy' nonsense isn't a conspiracy theory, but a lone-nut theory.

Obviously, it's a 'conspiracy theory' in the propaganda sense of the term, in that it's far-fetched and easily debunked. But it proposes that Oswald, the lone nut, was taking pot-shots at Kennedy from the sixth floor, and that neither Oswald nor Hickey were part of any conspiracy.

Although the Bronson film shows that it didn't happen, the hypothetical notion of an accidental head-shot has a propaganda use. It allows two contradictory items to be reconciled:

• (a) the low-entry, high-exit head wounds described by the autopsy pathologists, and
• (b) the notion of a lone gunman shooting from 60 feet above the street.

The theory's function has been to persuade the uninformed public that Oswald acted alone. That is no doubt why it was trundled out on the 50th anniversary, despite having been debunked 20 years earlier, and why it may get put forward as a credible explanation again next year.

Denny Zartman:

 

I think a lot of young people don't see much relevance in the JFK assassination these days. JFK was not an active figure in their lifetime and increasingly not even in their parent's lifetimes. I think what FDR might or might not have known prior to Pearl Harbor would be a comparable example of a historical event also irrelevant to their interests or lives. Something like that would be of interest to those who already had an interest, otherwise it's just a historical mystery involving people that were never current for them.

Of course, interest in true crime mysteries never really go completely out of style. Unfortunately the JFK assassination comes with a lot more baggage than the event spotlighted in your average Netflix true crime series. Almost every single person's first exposure to the JFKA is in the context of someone else characterizing conspiracy theories as crazy. In TV and movies, any conspiracy-minded character has to spout off some sort of wacky connection or theory about the JFKA. In comedies, the wackier the better. It's almost obligatory. That conspiracy theorists are wacky is something the online LN t_r-o_l-l_s take as a natural fact of life. Most of them have never read a single book or seen even one documentary on the subject, but they all know the conventional wisdom that JFKA buffs wear tinfoil hats, twiddle shortwave radio knobs, and think Mr. Spock was shooting from the grassy knoll.

So there will always be that contingent of folks who are uninformed LN's constantly attacking those people who think there might be more to the story than what we've been told. They will only grow more strident with time, I believe. Sunk cost fallacy and all that.

Regarding the people who believe the "Hickey did it" theory, I would wager 95% have never read a JFKA book or seen any other documentary than "JFK: The Smoking Gun", mainly because of its wide availability on free streaming platforms. The Hickey theory also provides them an answer to what happened, while more serious JFKA docs don't come up with a final conclusion that points to one person or a conclusive single account of all events. The Hickey theory is easily comprehensible. It can be digested in an hour or two, while dedicated researchers repeatedly spend decade after decade debating and discussing the fine details of every obscure aspect.

Gene Kelly:

 

• 
  
• Members

·        

•  796
• Gender:Male
• Location:Philadelphia PA

•  

Posted 12 hours ago

Vince

Interesting point about time not being a friend.  When I reflect back to how I first became interested, and then educated myself, it's quite the journey (and I'm still travelling).  First it was certain prominent books (not all of which were accurate or enlightening).  Next were conferences and talks given by certain experts and television specials (which in retrospect weren't reliable sources of valid information). More recently, it's been the computer and websites like the Education Forum, with a focus on whom I personally consider to be the most knowledgeable individuals. The difficult part is wading through a veritable mountain of information - and filtering well-disguised disinformation - to arrive at a coherent story, one that rings true.  It takes great patience and persistence. 

When I think of the current generation (and my own children), they generally don't have the patience to read books, or perform the necessary due diligence.  They want instant news and learn from Tweets (i.e., sound bites).  And with so much out there now - including valid differing points of view - it's an almost impossible task to discern the Truth. As far as the older generation, when I forward information about JFK Revisited to my friends and family, some have taken the time to watch it and were impressed (so that's reassuring).  However, given that the story is now more than 50 years old, I fear that many (young and old) just don't much care, nor does history interest them. 

Last, one thing I've learned in my JFK journey is to respect the many different perspectives and individual views ... that's its healthy to disagree (because that is how we learn). Nor do I like simplistic labels like LN's or CT's; we are all too sophisticated to be simply labelled as such.  The reality is that there's a lot more to the JFK story than simply one guy taking three shots from the 6th floor (all on his lonesome).  Where we all differ is in the details, and who was behind it (and why) ... nonetheless, I believe that the majority (70% or more) still don't buy that simple story. 

Gene

Michael Griffith:

I think you are overestimating the level of public support for the lone-gunman theory. However, we should not be surprised that the numerous anti-conspiracy documentaries and articles over the last 10 years are having some effect. When major networks broadcast seemingly authoritative anti-conspiracy documentaries, when news channels broadcast anti-conspiracy segments, when established newspapers and journals publish anti-conspiracy articles, when YouTube is loaded with anti-conspiracy videos, and when some of the pro-conspiracy videos on YouTube are downright whacky, all these things have their effect. 

How many cable or streaming networks/channels have broadcast JFK Revisited? I certainly hope Oliver Stone is making it as easy and inexpensive as possible for networks/channels to broadcast JFK Revisited. How many pro-conspiracy documentaries are available on Amazon Prime Video or Netflix or HBO?

Finally, if the research community wants to get the truth to more people, they had better stop producing material that attacks/alienates a huge chunk of their potential audience. They had better stop assuming that to believe and care that JFK was killed by a conspiracy you must also accept the liberal view on a number of controversial issues that have nothing directly to do with the JFK case. 

Kirk Gallaway

here are definitely trends and counter trends . Certainly there's a more hard core conspiracy element in the population today, and as I've said before, I think the misinformed people and their wacko theories take the JFKA conspiracy down with it.

 I'm not sure how much faith I put in fluctuating polls about how many people believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. I don't how many here have seen these man in the street interviews with everyday people asking questions about history, politics and geography, but the level of knowledge of the everyday person is just appalling to when I grew up, and these people can seem reasonably intelligent and even articulate!

I think with the everyday person in the general population, the general support is soft. Which can be expected in a now almost 60 year  historic event, and with the  general lack of knowledge or enthusiasm for history presently.  I think the general response to the question, "Was JFK killed by a conspiracy" to the average person who of course has never been motivated to study it at all, and whose main exposure is maybe some documentary on TV .has become  sort of a sociological weather vane now, or a sort of badge  by which he or she might of course acknowledge that JFK died as result of conspiracy to simply reaffirm that they are "no fool" and don't blindly believe what their government or authorities in general say, but will never really translate to any concrete action.

Gene Kelly:

NBC News ran a story in 2017 that stated: 

Most Americans doubt they know the real story of what happened on November 22, 1963. More than 60 percent believe gunman Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone – and they’ve been skeptical from the beginning.

Gallup has tracked the Kennedy conspiracy question since the day of the shooting.  A poll taken immediately after the murder found that 52 percent of Americans believed “others were involved in a conspiracy” while 29 percent thought Oswald acted alone. But by December of 1976, the conspiracy number jumped to 81 percent in the Gallup data. There are likely a few reasons for that spike. The film of the assassination taken by Abraham Zapruder became public in 1975 and that helped lead to the 1976 creation of the House Select Committee on Assassination, which investigated the deaths of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King.  The conspiracy figure stayed relatively high in the Gallup data, not dropping below 74% for decades. The latest numbers from Gallup, from a 2013 survey taken to mark the 50th anniversary of the event, showed 61% of Americans believed the assassination was a conspiracy, while 30% believed Oswald acted alone.

And a new survey from FiveThirtyEight released this week finds that’s right about where the public is today: 61% believe others were involved in JFK’s assassination, while 33% believe one man acted alone. But the most interesting finding in the recent poll is the breadth of the nation’s JFK conspiracy beliefs. More than 50 percent of most every demographic group believes “others were involved” in the assassination: Men and women, whites, blacks and Hispanics, registered voters and non-registered, all age groups.  The one demographic group that believes Oswald acted alone, according to the poll, is college educated white people – and the numbers are very close with 48 percent saying one man killed JFK and 46 percent saying others were involved.

Tom Gram:

I see your point Vince, but I'm not sure I agree with all the pessimism. The goal of historical research should be pursuit of the truth, and the collective understanding of the JFKA and the surrounding history is still inching forward every single day. 

It's unfortunate and sad that attracting new interest in the case has turned into a propaganda war of lone assassin vs. conspiracy. If the media and advocates for Oswald's sole guilt could bring themselves to acknowledge just a sliver of ambiguity in the evidence, and actually encourage people to study the case in depth and come to their own conclusions instead of demonizing those with even a passing interest in the assassination as nutty "conspiracy theorists", we might be able to make some real progress. 

Right now we are right on the cusp of the biggest leap forward since the ARRB. Everyone gets worked up about still-withheld files, but the vast majority of documents that are already released have been locked up at NARA since the 90s and have never been seen or analyzed by basically anyone - other than maybe a handful of dedicated paper junkies. Once NARA digitizes the entire ARC, I guarantee that there will be new major breakthroughs and patterns noticed that we never knew even existed. Online access to the FBI Field Office files alone will be a complete game-changer for research, and for the sake of history we should be encouraging as many people to parse and study those files as humanly possible. 

The problem is that most people don't realize just how inconclusive and messy the evidence in this case really is. The debate has raged on for 60 years for a reason, but it takes a massive time and attention commitment to get to the level of understanding required to make connections and spot problems in the official story. I'm a "new generation" researcher myself, and what ultimately piqued my interest enough to do primary-source research is that the critics, despite all their flaws, frequently come across as more honest, thorough, objective, and interested in an accurate portrayal of history that those defending the conclusions of the Warren Commission. As long as propaganda, deception, and outright denial of genuine ambiguity in the evidence is required to promote the idea that Oswald acted alone to the average citizen, curious people will continue to see right through it and take action to search for the truth.

The best we can do as a "community" is to stick to the evidentiary record; acknowledge when we are speculating; acknowledge that we could be wrong when interpreting inconclusive material; and engage with and genuinely consider the arguments of the other side. That goes for folks on both sides of the fence. I have nothing against anyone's opinions about the JFKA as long as their belief is genuine, they are willing to engage in cordial, collaborative discussion about the evidence and articulate their position, and are willing acknowledge when they might be incorrect. My personal experience with lone assassin theorists on this forum has been generally positive, but I do wish that the LN - CT dialogue in general was a lot more encouraging and collaborative than a fiendish search for flaws in opposing arguments and condescending quips at others' intelligence. 

Basically my point is that as long as we all take the high road and stay committed to finding to truth, even if it contradicts our own deeply ingrained beliefs, interest in and sustained skepticism about the JFKA is here to stay.