It has to be remembered that this is the "...it never ends" thread currently in its third split, hence the III in the title, and that we regulars have been in this thread for years and have discussed and debated quite a few theories, as well as quite a few attempts to acquit Oswald. That's not to say we must have seen and heard it all, but when a newcomer tells us he has to start at the beginning and set the stage again, yes it does become droll.
It's also quite droll to suggest that somewhere, sometime in the past that 'X has been demonstrated' and that passers by must take that judgement of assassination buffs who appear on this thread year after year are decisive.
I'd prefer he go back and read the previous threads. But that would mean wading through the thousand fringe resets of Robert Prey, and I wouldn't really want to inflict that on anyone. However, it's disheartening to hear every single conspiracy theorist come in and imply that no one but him knows the material and that he has to start from first principles.
In the wider world outside of this thread students of the assassination do not imply that they are the only ones who know the material. Nor do I claim that for myself.
If it's a product of the evidence, having been synthesized from it, then it shouldn't have an introduction.
Yes, indeed. Which is why critics of the Warren Commission, having studied the evidence, should be treated to the exact same standards as those who accept the Warren Report.
Indeed. Most of the conspiracy theories start with the premise that the Warren Commission got it wrong (for whatever reason) and that Oswald was set up somehow.
Actually, the critiques of the Warren Report start with a healthy skepticism and examination of the evidence, which then leads inexorably to the conclusion that it was a flawed project.
So it is not a premise as such, as it is an evidence-based conclusion.
Having made that case, then they try to "close the loop" inappropriately and argue something like, "Now that we know Oswald can't have done it, what else is possible?"
Your strawman version of the critical examination of the WC case starts with the flawed premise and goes quickly into the rough.
Indeed, here you seem to be contradicting your earlier assertion:
Why not? Isn't the point to determine who killed Kennedy, if not Oswald?
Why, yes it is. No one has asserted it isn't.
But according to you, he is exonerated. What has it changed for you? You're left with a dead President and no suspects. At least the Jack the Ripper aficionados have a few hopefuls to choose from...
...People asking who the facts show killed Kennedy, if not Oswald, are in my opinion the only people asking a useful question.
Yes, I agree. People who are looking at alternate scenarios are the ones asking the useful questions. However, it is my contention we need to proceed in a thoughtful and rational manner.
...JFK conspiracism is not about finding out who killed Kennedy for either legal or historical reasons.
While in the following you seem to agree with the approach that if Oswald is exculpated, then Warren Commission critics are correct to look at other scenarios (as they famously do):
However identifying other suspects is not a requirement. It's a consequence....
...I have yet to see a JFK conspiracy theorist who has any interest whatsoever in solving JFK's murder.
The above opinion betrays a very basic unfamiliarity with the literature which is skeptical and critical of the Warren Commission's case. If indeed you have never seen anyone suggest
anyone other than Oswald as being responsible I could put together a relevant reading list for you. ( I suppose someone
could go back and see whether any of the 'conspiracy theorists' in previous parts of this thread have made such suggestions...)
I'm simply noting a huge difference between people who study the Whitechapel murders and JFK conspiracy theorists. The former have some interest in actually solving the crime. The latter do not.
Oops! Backsliding again!
So what investigating have you and others done in the past several decades that has identified any other suspects? I hear from you and from practically every other conspiracy theorist who has come and gone at JREF that trying to find who actually killed Kennedy is not a focus.
I said no such thing - and seeing you misrepresent me in such a blatant manner to my own face, I have no reason to consider your characterization of others to be the least bit credible.
I'm saying that's what appears to be common among JFK conspiracists -- that there is no interest among them to actually solve the crime.
...and just who do these so-called 'conspiracists' suggest are in conspiracy? And by exposing a conspiracy to murder the President - how exactly does that not solve the crime?
It's fairly obvious your 'arguments' such as they are are self-refuting.
But back to this current reversal of your 'argument':
Based on that flawed approach they purport to set up some other scenario which, they say, the evidence more appropriately favors.
Your strawman 'history' of Warren Commission critics doesn't hold up to the least bit of scrutiny. There is nothing 'flawed' about treating a government issued report with skepticism, and nothing 'flawed' about having rejected that report's conclusions going on to try to solve the crime -as most students of the crime exhibit interest in doing.
The reason it's flawed is because the evaluation of other scenarios is based on accepting as fact that Oswald can't have done it, and therefore that evidence purporting to show Oswald as the killer must "somehow" be wrong and can be thus safely discarded.
Your premise is flawed, thus your analysis bears no recommendation for anyone to take it seriously.
That is, they never allow the two theories to run head-to-head to see which one has the preponderance of evidence.
Obviously, when skeptics examine the theory offered by the Warren Commission and go on to show how the evidence in their view suggests a different scenario, they are allowing the two to run 'head to head' testing the robustness of one against the other.
In my experience, from reading widely on this subject, is that you have here misrepresented the work of scholars and students of the assassination.
It's that insidious two-step process that turns off mainstream history to conspiracy theories.
Actually reading history, one will find any number of conspiracies discussed. The existence of conspiracies are a wisely accepted matter of historical record.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/caesar/f/032410Caesar1stAssassin.htm
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/lincolnconspiracy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Fidel_Castro
In fact, historians do sometimes choose to embrace conspiracy theories.
Again, your flat assertions are provably wrong.
