A week from tomorrow, the city of Dallas (and the country) will commemorate the 50th anniversary of one of the darkest days in American history, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy while riding in a motorcade in downtown Dallas. Whatever one's views of President Kennedy's politics or policies - which are far more conservative than today's Democratic Party that claims him, but I digress - the violent removal of the leader of the free world was a tragedy in every sense of the word, and it is merely good fortune (or God's grace) that has prevented a similar tragedy from befalling the nine Presidents since Kennedy was murdered. Unfortunately, the killing of the President has spawned an ugly industry endemic to capitalistic societies, the unparalleled ability to cash in on his demise. Virtually all of those making money pawn the story that a nefarious and unidentifiable conspiracy overseen by nameless powerful people in the government (or the Mafia) murdered Kennedy and covered it up. And polls show the ignorant American public that believed one could simultaneously implode the health insurance industry and yet leave their own insurance untouched truly believe a conspiracy killed Kennedy, with nearly three out of five Americans holding that view. Such polls do not indicate what Americans actually believe about the evidence but rather show that critical thinking is a lost art. The fact of the matter is that the only thing missing in the case that would prove Oswald killed the President is a video showing him firing the fatal shots. And one must surmise that in the post-Oliver Stone world that we would be informed that this video actually "proves" the conspiracy and was wisely made as a decoy to throw all but the "enlightened" off the scent.
Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and he did it by firing three shots from a manual, bolt-action rifle from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. He then fled the scene of the crime, went back to his boarding house and obtained a pistol, murdered Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippitt, fled to a movie theatre and was apprehended after a scuffle with police. Less than 48 hours later, Oswald was murdered by a night club owner, Jack Ruby, who was given a life sentence and died in prison a few years later.
State your belief in this version today and the smug chuckles and shaking heads prepare to engage before bothering to think through the ramifications of their thought processes. So let's simply deal once again with the most common objections and lead all rational and clear-thinking persons to the only rational conclusion of Oswald's guilt.
Part of the problem is that when engaging people on this subject, they only want to talk about certain things. In short, they miss the forest for the trees. Objections are made regarding the timing of the shots, the killing of Oswald by Ruby, or the so-called "magic" bullet. Each of these are presented as fine points. NEVER are the objectors required to function in the same world where they must first present their entire case. Presenting the case for a conspiracy is so impossible that Oliver Stone had to make up a fictional composite character to make up the missing evidence and bring it all together. Keep in mind that ANY conspiracy theory must be held to the same standards as they impose on the lone gunman theory. In other words, it must not only hold up in the minutiae, it must also withstand scrutiny as an entire entity. And not one conspiracy theory can do this. So let's deal with the most obvious objections and why the counter-proposals simply will not suffice.
1. Oswald could not have fired the shots in the time allotted by the Warren Commission.
Other than the so-called "magic" bullet, this must be the most common objection: Oswald could not possibly have fired the shots. But all one has to do is do what nobody else seems to want to do, which is actually READ the Warren Commission testimony that has been online now for a number of years. One can probably recite the claim from memory given by Lou Ivon in the movie "JFK," that the Warren Commission establishes three shots in 5.6 seconds. The only problem is that they never did this. Read the conclusion for yourself from the last line of chapter two:
Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds.
The 5.6 seconds was a general estimate drawn by conspiracy "researchers" misusing what was stated. In point of fact, the Warren Commission was never this precise because they couldn't be sure. The rest of their report notes that the time span may have been as high as 7.9 seconds. That amount of time would actually permit FOUR shots to be fired. The simple fact of the matter is that the entire conspiracy industry is built upon this lie and the lie about a "magic" bullet. Having dispensed with the one, let's evaluate the other one.
2. The Magic Bullet was concocted to explain away the wounds of Kennedy and Connally.
The so-called magic bullet is also a myth. Nobody ever said any such thing other than conspiracy buffs. What the buffs are talking about is the late Arlen Specter's proposal that a "single bullet" caused the wounds to both Kennedy and Connally. It should be noted that this theory was not invented in order to find Oswald guilty; it was invented because there was not one shred of evidence of a fourth shot and the wounds had to be accounted for. When Kevin Costner said "we have come to know it as the magic bullet" and then extrapolated on it, he never bothered to mention that we had come to know it by that name not by the Warren Commission but by conspiracy buffs erecting a straw man. Pictures long ago showed that Kennedy and Connally were not right in front of each other but were somewhat diagonally. That is unless you think the pictures were also invented, in which case this rational discussion is not for you and perhaps a comic book can alleviate your irrationality.
WHAT ALL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS MUST ULTIMATELY EXPLAIN
The principle of Ockham's Razor basically says that the easiest explanation is most probably correct. Rarely are the tables turned on the conspiracy buffs, who excel in asking rhetorical questions but then invent answers that are more irrational than if the "magic bullet" were reality. Keep in mind the following things must all be explained rationally to exonerate Oswald:
1) Why was his palm print on the weapon?
Oliver Stone got around this via an incredibly ridiculous solution - just take the gun to the morgue and press his hand on it. Stone is apparently unaware that dead man do not perspire and thus do not make fingerprints but then again Stone is unaware of a number of rational things anyway.
2) Why did Oswald flee the Texas School Book Depository?
OK, this one might be rationally answered by trying to argue that Oswald figured work would be cancelled for the day, the very reason he gave the police. But this begs the question as to how Oswald even knew the President had been shot since he was not part of any group of people watching the motorcade. His whereabouts are unaccounted for yet he somehow knew the President had been shot. Furthermore, it proves (with the next question) why one cannot merely cherry pick small points of data without constructing a larger picture of the entire assassination.
3) Why did Oswald kill Officer Tippit?
This is the question upon which every "Oswald as patsy" conspiracy theory hinges: at some point you have to explain why Oswald killed Tippit. And the explanations given are legendary and have not one shred of evidence to back them up. Furthermore, it is indisputable that Oswald killed Tippit. It was only seen by ten different witnesses, most of whom identified Oswald (not all were taken to a line-up). If you hold that Oswald fired the weapon but was part of a conspiracy, you still must explain Tippit. The reasons are somewhat less rational than the "magic bullet" that never was: Oswald didn't kill Tippit, Tippit was part of the conspiracy (though they never say what), Tippit was supposed to kill Oswald and got hit instead, even that Tippit and Oswald were involved with the same woman. Sure that makes sense. Oswald just happens to leave work the same minute the President is killed, goes back to his boarding house, and then just happens to run into a guy he knows is fooling around with the same woman he is. Makes perfect sense. Not.
4) Why did Oswald fight with the police in the theatre?
Maybe I should summarize each of these points with a rhetorical question: if Oswald was innocent, why did he take so many actions that only a guilty person would have taken? How did Oswald know the cops were after him? Because he killed Kennedy and Tippit. Why did Oswald enter the theatre without paying? Because he was desperate to get into the dark and hide because he was being pursued for Tippit's murder.
In short, we know Oswald killed Kennedy because he had the weapon, the site, and he acted like the most guilty man alive. RIP President Kennedy.
No comments:
Post a Comment