From: dtokarew@tokafew.Doc.Provo.Novell.COM (Deb Tokarewich)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Sick and tired of hearing about Kennedy
Keywords: Kennedy, assassination, conspiracy
Date: 12 Dec 92 06:37:52 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc.

In article <1992Dec10.175217.7127@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
> In article <Bz09vE.90M@Novell.COM>
> dtokarew@tokafew.Doc.Provo.Novell.COM (Deb Tokarewich) writes:
> 
> > Considering the improbabilty of your "independent assassins" theory, I  
> 
> No less improbable than a lot of things propounded by the conspiracy
> theorists, eg. one of the witnesses in the Garrison case testifying
> that he met two of the people involved at a certain hotel in Mexico
> (which had not existed at the time of the meeting).  I could go on, but
> I don't have the research handy.

How much more or less improbable one is compared to the other would be  
another never-ending mini-debate debate within the overall never-ending  
debate about the assassination. But one question concerning your example:  
I would concede there will always be people who will "testify" to anything  
for the sake of notoriety or money or lunacy or whatever. But if that  
hotel had existed, would you still think that witness' testimony  
"improbable"--or just inconvenient to lone-assassin theorists, as are all  
the other facts (truly indisputable kind) about the incident?

If that hotel had existed, I would not consider the testimony improbable;  
whereas if all the components of your independent-assassins theory  
existed, I still could not find it probable that all the components could  
come together the way the theory necessitates.

> Well considering the Oswald picture with the famous shadow was proven
> to be possible from the point of physics, the 'magic bullet' could have
> taken the trajectory it did, etc., the people who try to say that just
> because one thing about the 'single gunman' theory is wrong means that
> the assassination must have been a conspiracy fall short too.  Way
> short.

And just because one person's testimony about who he saw at a hotel may  
not have been true, that proves there was no consipiracy? Such a testimony  
does not help prove the conspiracy theory true, but it certainly doesn't  
prove it false either. Lone-assassin theorists would do well to take your  
advice too and not try to discredit the possibility of a conspiracy  
because one thing about it is wrong or questionable. (Yes, I know some  
people feel there's more than just "one thing" wrong in the theory--but  
the same is true for the lone-assassin theory.)

> Would you like me to say more about Kennedy?

Well, no. All I said was that I was surprised you hadn't said more--I  
didn't realize that was a request for you to do so ;-)

> Facts:  He took a Pulitzer Prize for having a book ghost-written for
> him.

I've heard the debate about this. What proof have you heard/read/uncovered  
that finally makes it a fact? 

> Kennedy practised nepotism in making his brother Attorney General and
> his brother-in-law head of the Peace Corps.  IMO nepotism is pretty
> serious.

I agree that true nepotism is pretty serious. But is it automatically  
"nepotism" every time someone hires a friend or relative to do a job or  
every time someone grants a friend or relative a request? No. Only if that  
hiring or request is granted *solely* because of the person's relationship  
(and this is *not* based on my personal definition of "nepotism"). If two  
people show up at your door collecting donations for two different  
charities, and you personally know one of those people, and you have only  
enough money to be able to give to one charity so you decide to give it to  
the one your friend is collecting for--only because of your relationship  
and not because you feel his charity is the best one to give to--then,  
yes, that is nepotism. Same goes for if you hire your daughter to work the  
phone in your family business only because she's your daughter and not  
because she was the best phone-answerer you interviewed. But if you have  
other reasons for giving to that friend's charity or for hiring your  
daughter then, IMO, not only can you do those things with a free and clear  
conscience, but you *should* do those things. Because to not give to that  
charity or not hire your daughter just because of "how it may look" is  
just as bad--and sad--as nepotism.

Can anyone absolutely prove why JFK appointed his brother as Attorney  
General? You obviously have decided it was based solely on nepotism. You  
might even use as one of your agruments the fact that RFK was fresh out of  
law school, so how could he be qualified? Well, I don't know what all the  
qualifications for Attorney General may be, but unless "a long time out of  
law school" is one of them, I wouldn't even bring the point up. I don't  
know who else Jack considered for the position, and I don't know why he  
chose Bobby out of all of them. And although I personally doubt it was for  
nepotistic reasons, even if it were, I'd say he ended up making a good  
choice considering Bobby's effectiveness in the position.

> I won't go into things that are only rumors, nor will I go into the
> rest of the Kennedy family (although I could have a field day with
> them).

Such restraint. (And, no, that's not my request that you do go into the  
rest of the family ;-) You wonder why some people are so fascinated with  
the Kennedys and esteem them...but one might equally wonder why you feel  
so much the opposite toward them. And no matter your reasons, why do you  
care so much about proclaiming those unsolicited feelings to the world?)

Look, the only people who know the whole truth about the assassination  
(and even some who may know only parts of it) have not talked--either  
because they are dead or because they are scared out of their wits (and  
that's obviously true even if Oswald really was the only gunman--because  
if someone's alive who could verify Oswald's solo act, he/she isn't  
talking either). And the facts that could reveal the truth also have not  
"talked"--either because they're too sketchy or blurry, or because they  
haven't all been revealed yet. Maybe we'll never know the truth in our  
lifetime, if ever. But I'm far from "sick and tried of hearing about it,"  
because only through continued investigation and discussion is there a  
chance of ever discovering the truth. And I would think you'd be all for  
that, because then you wouldn't have to hear about it anymore ;-)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa