JFK was murdered, it's not some conspiracy theory

Thanks, Fanboy. Readers will note that Pro failed to engage even one of my counter arguments, preferring instead to continue the same mix of supposition and evidence-free declaration as the last round. For example, I asked why Parkland Coroner Earl Rose would overlook differences between the autopsy and hospital reports; Pro just repeats that there were inconsistencies. Surprisingly few of Pro"s statements specifically address the topic of this debate- the culpability of the CIA. Rather, Pro tosses out a tiresome hodgepodge of popular details from conspiracy lore which may cast doubt on previous investigations" findings by varying degrees but hardly serve to establish a CIA connection. When Pro questions FBI or Secret Service conduct during the investigation he does nothing to forward his case since he has made no causal link between CIA motive and investigative dynamics. Interagency rivalries being well established, why would the Secret Service and the FBI go along with the CIA"s grand plot? Hoover had far more dirt on JFK than LBJ, so he"d be well motivated to maintain that leverage. Even if the CIA did want a coup, why would the Secret Service willingly denigrate their own reputation? Pro casually makes the FBI, the Secret Service, Congress, even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court voluntary conspirators in a CIA plot without bothering to explain how hundreds or thousands of civil servants were suborned by the agency"s treason. Most of the implicated players outrank the CIA in the hierarchy of Washington: so why would the ruling class surrender their authority to mere spies? Pro states with confidence that the last remnant of HSCA records about to be released will indict the CIA without explaining how he knows the content of those sealed records. Pro is offering conjecture without proof: we could claim the that HSCA records will expose Mary Tyler Moore as the real assassin backed by the same amount of proof as Pro. We should also refrain from citing popular polling as evidence. 77% of Americans believe in angels, after all, which in no way serves as evidence of angels. [1]. Only 7% of citizens polled believe the CIA is to blame: why shouldn't that prove the CIA"s innocence in equal measure? [2] Because Pro fails to separate general suspicions from CIA-specific details, most of his argument ends up supporting alternative theories to an equal degree: why would errors and inconsistencies between various investigations necessarily damn the CIA? Wouldn't the FBI or LBJ be in a better position to obscure evidence? Besides, there"s little surprise in the notion that multiple elaborate investigations found small inconsistencies over the decades- memories change, motives become infused with sensation, facts become confused with speculation. Each new investigation is driven to emphasize small changes or risk accusations of redundant time wasting. We can toss out any claims that don't directly lead to the CIA: bullets & guns, photos & witnesses- since evidence of CIA interference is not claimed in those details, Pro"s case is not advanced. In fact, the only CIA specific argument Pro makes is that only the CIA had the power to seal records. Last round, I pointed that these records were sealed & later unsealed by Congress. I included the relevant Acts. Pro did not respond this round but adjusted his claim: only the autopsy records remain sealed as only the CIA has the power to do. Unfortunately for Pro"s lone argument, the CIA has no authority to seal Congressional records & Congress is hardly likely to cede such power. The truth is that autopsy report was made public in 1966 and can be viewed here on the National Archives website. [3] The CIA did not conduct witness interviews in the assassination"s aftermath. Neither Hill, Molina, or Hoffman claims to have been contacted by the CIA so even if FBI detectives did engage in intimidation, how is the CIA implicated? Hill claims she saw Jack Ruby running away from the assassination. No other witness confirms a man of any description conforming to Hill"s testimony. Jean Hill"s testimony can read here [4] including her complaints regarding agent Featherstone. Future Senator Arlen Specter"s interview does not strike me as particularly suppressive. Molina"s testimony is only that he heard 3 shots, he couldn't tell from where. Although he was fired a month after the assassination, his testimony does not seem worth suppressing. Hoffman"s story has changed significantly over the years: his report of a man with a gun was not included in his FBI interview and did not surface until news reports ten years later. The FBI threats were first claimed in the 90"s. At the original interview, Hoffman"s father & brother warned the FBI that he was prone to making up stories. [5] Likewise, lists of dead mobsters and reports of smoke over the grassy knoll bring us nowhere near the CIA: why are they included here? Let's conclude by reviewing Scientific American"s conspiracy theory detector: 1. Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of "connecting the dots" between events that need not be causally connected. Check. The Babushka lady"s missing camera = CIA. Molina lost his job = CIA, etc. 2. The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. Check. The CIA killed Jack Ruby with lung cancer, etc. 3. The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements. Check. The CIA got Oswald his job in advance & somehow manipulated the presidential motorcade route to that site, etc. 4. The conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. Big check. The Secret Service, the FBI, Congress, the Supreme Court, Jackie Kennedy, Dallas Police, Parkland Hospital, soldiers at Walter Reed & Andrews AFB all are implicated by Pro & have kept the CIA"s secret for 50 years. 5. The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. Check. The CIA wanted a big war in Viet Nam so that corporations could get rich. Huge numbers of people were willing to kill their president to make somebody else a billionaire. 6. The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events. Check. Gun shots echo in a small city plaza = multiple shooters. 7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events. Check. Smoke sighted above the train yards = gun smoke, not trains. 8. The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality. Check. Only the CIA could seal Congressional records, for example. 9. The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies. Super dooper check. Pro said it himself at the end of round 2. 10. The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth. Check and mate. My thanks to FanboyMctroll for this opportunity to brush up on JFK assassination facts & mythology. If readers believe as I do that Pro has failed to make a convincing case for CIA complicity in the Kennedy Assasination, please vote CON. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com... [2] http://www.gallup.com... [3] https://www.archives.gov... [4] http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu... [5] http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu...