Why Agnostic?
Did Oswald kill JFK?
I supposed he could have.
But did he? That’s the real question.
Unlike Booth or Czolgosz, no one really got a good look at the guy pulling of the job.
So we’ll never really know.
There’s certainly other people who could have hit Kennedy
So maybe Oswald didn’t do it.
Decide for yourself who whacked the Chief.
As for me, I remain agnostic.
Having spent the last 40 years exhaustively studying the assassination of President Kennedy as well as many other political assassinations here and abroad, I do not suffer from agnosticism. While much disinformation has been spread intentionally by the intelligence agencies and their media outlets, and red herrings purporting to be alternate explanations of the evidence that you seem to buy into, and a parade of multiple suspects which are not necessarily contradictory if a palm wants to wiggle fingers to disguise itself, I have worked instead from the actual record, the medical, ballistic and forensic evidence, the best eyewitness testimony and from things that have been said and confessed to afterwards by key players in the assassinations, as well as working for the release of more records on all the assassinations. I agree with Vincent Salandria’s analysis in False Mystery, that the evidence to solve the case and identify the source of the political actions has been available almost from the beginning, once a falsely transparent “lone assassin” story was discounted. It is only by relating to the mystery as a parlor game or tabloid celebrity gossip fest that one can continue to give equal weight to ever variant that appears to explain or obfuscate it. It is the clear implications of the assassinations of JFK, his brother, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X that lead to the ongoing denials and pretense of confusion and agnosticism in these cases, because to realize why that hope was killed and by whom is to be forced to stand against those same agencies and killers ourselves if we wish to live in a democracy of any sort. It is much more comfortable to either buy the official prevarications or to spend decades acting as if the particular gunmen or mechanics can tell us anything about the crime. You can call me a conspiracy theorist if you call everyone else a coincidence theorist, but I am merely a researcher and historian who has revealed a different paradigm based on the facts, and as William S. Burroughs once said, “Paranoia is having all the facts”. For those interested in the serious and ongoing presentation of the best research and analysis of political assassinations, I recommend the website of the Coalition on Political Assassinations at http://www.politicalassassinations.com as well as our regional meetings at regular intervals in Dallas, Texas (annually in late November), Memphis and Los Angeles (every 5th year anniversary) and New York (for Malcolm X, whose 45th anniversary will be February 21, 2010 at the old Audubon Ballroom where he was shot, now the Dr. Betty Shabazz and Malcolm X Memorial and Educational Center in Harlem. The best evidence has already told us who killed JFK if we are willing to face it. Those same military-intelligence-industrial forces killed RFK, MLK and Malcolm X among others and continue to carry out political assassinations in secret at home and abroad to this day. These murders are not historical curiosities of the last century, they shaped our current world and elevated those who carry out a permanent war economy, a genocidal world economic model, and the continued erosion of democratic and Constitutional government (as outmoded as it has become) in our country. We must re-envision democracy and liberation and make it happen against these forces if we hope for our future survival and that of the rest of the human race and this planet. JFK’s assassination is a Rosetta Stone to comprehending the culture and political reality we now face in the post-9/11 world. In both cases, these crises led us in exactly the wrong direction. Both must be studied meticulously to comprehend their causes and their deep political reality. In that regard I suggest reading Peter Dale Scott’s two books, Deep Politics and the Murder of JFK and The Road to 9/11, which will hopefully cause you to read the rest of his works. The work of real critics and researchers, serious students of hidden history, is the flashlight out of the dark cave of confusion deliberately created by the National Security State to whom our history is merely a commodity they can bury and distort. “The political paralysis in America is based on the fact that we are allowed to BELIEVE anything but to KNOW nothing, and when we cannot know, we cannot act.” Martin Schotz. But, we can know and we must. This is not a time for agnosticism and confusion, it is a time to realize that political power comes from the ability to clearly define a situation, and to analyze our real history. There are more of us and we can think critically if we wish to. I am done with the posturing and pretensions, the rumors and gossip, the wild speculative theories posited to sell books and webpages. I work with the facts, the historical record, the hard evidence and the best expert opinions. Those lead to the reality of conspiracy, which means in the Latin to “breathe together”. Some have worse breath than others. I don’t have time to address each of your faulty claims on this site, but they reveal to me someone who has not been meticulous, logical and rigorous in his research and reading in the case. Walt Brown’s Master Chronology, a 5,000 page plus compilation of every pertinent fact in the JFK case in order by time, might be a place to start, for the sake of discussion.
Hey John,
Just read Deep Politics, and while Peter Dale Scott’s analysis of our political system is spot-on, his “deep politic” interpretation of the JFK assassination betrays the “shallow reality” of the actual crime.
Scott’s portrayal of the narco-politcal state which governed, and continues to govern us (current examples in my mind are all the Mexican drug money being laundered through NAFTA trucking operations or our continued propping up of the Afghani narco-state) shows us a National Security State which could have whacked the Chief, and presents evidence that such a plan may have been put into motion, but does little to refute the fact that in all probability Oswald simply beat them to it. The “internal adjustment” Scott argues for was in all likelihood not a coverup of the narco-state’s complicity in the crime, but an attempt by our intelligence agencies to cover up their embarrassing knowledge of and connections to Oswald.
This assertion that the assassination of President Kennedy was not the result of outside forces (intelligence operatives, angry cubans, the mob etc.) but an internal adjustment of a narco-political system which is COMPRISED of these forces, is certainly more compelling than most conspiracy books—especially Jim Douglass’s book, which is not a “flashlight out of the dark cave of confusion” but a mediation on the assassination so warped by the author’s own theological BELIEFS about history, that it has a very dangerous potential to lead people back into the darkness. However, by choosing to focus on the deep politics surrounding the assassination instead of the shallow reality of the alleged assassin, Scott essentially silences Oswald’s story and does what other less credible researchers do—turn a real HISTORICAL FIGURE into a FICTIONAL CHARACTER. Was Oswald a fictional character created by the deep politic narco-state? Possibly, but the evidence in this and other books is still little more than circumstantial. I do, however, continue to keep an open mind on the subject. Thank you for suggesting this very interesting book, but despite its author’s earnest research and brilliant assessment of related topics and figures, “Deep Politics and the Death of JFK” does not prove that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. Indeed this volume does a very good job of supporting my assessment of the situation, that due to the culture of coverup that dominated and continues to dominate our political system, an agnostic outlook on the Kennedy assassination is perhaps the most credible stance there is.
-Lee
John Judge is right, the evidence is clear. Assassination agnostic seems to have taken the position that a correctly executed assassination would not leave any fingerprints. The fact that it was not perfectly planned or perfectly executed, that evidence was left, means that it didn’t happen?. That is a startling conclusion.
Instead, the trail of the assassins is evident. The answer to the question “wouldn’t they need to insure an utterly complete cover-up to reap the benefits of their crime?”. Well, no, because they left a factual trail, but with a concurrent effort to obfuscate and confuse, the result is the creation of an “assassination agnostic”, who is representative of far too many of the American people. Although thankfully, the majority can see the forest through the trees.
Given the facts available today, I am wondering what conclusion “assassination agnostic” would come to if sitting on a jury? Undecided?
John suggested several excellent books but failed to mention “JFK and the unspeakable” by James Douglass. So if agnostic does not wish to leave the planet in a state of confusion, I suggest that the information is available that would allow him/her to come to a conclusion.
I find it appropriate that so many people cite Jim Douglass’s Camelot daydream “JFK and the Unspeakable” as the proposed antidote to my agnosticism, since its author’s thesis is essentially a theological assessment of the tragedy in Dallas rather than a historical one. Jim’s perspective on the JFK assassination is constantly framed by his personal religious beliefs, not by any sense of historical objectivity. If I am an assassination agnostic, than Jim Douglass is a Conspiracy Fundamentalist.
It’s worthy of note that you bring up a jury trial, which is exactly what this case needs. The preferred American mode of catharsis for murder is a good old fashioned jury trial. The American people never got that catharsis in the case against Lee Harvey Oswald, and that’s what it still needs to this day—not a whitewashing Presidential Commission, a watered-down Congressional Committee, or a New Orleans circus show. The evidence and testimony should be presented to the American people, and twelve of those citizens should discuss and decide the case of the People Versus Lee Harvey Oswald, so that his name can be justly cleared or convicted in a manner befitting our nation’s standards of justice and liberty.
There would be echoes of the Scopes Monkey Trial at the proceedings, and that has what the JFK debate has become, a religious battle. Those who believe in the Big Bang of Oswald’s three shots or the Intelligent Design of a vast network of Conspirators. The only problem is, both sides act like they’re the rational scientists and the other side is the gang of loony fundamentalists. Until we get our dream trial, it seems like being agnostic is a very sane stance indeed.
Lee, assuming a jury trail would be based on information already in the public domain, then tell me this. What evidence points to Oswald? It seems to me that every piece of “evidence” would be contested, from the identification of the weapon found, the ownership of the rifle, the fingerprints, the autopsy, the Tippet murder, and on and on and on…
On the other hand, it seems to me that a murder of this magnitude, one combed over for decades, could definitively prove that one “lone nut” was the assassin. How could one person do this, unaided, and leave a trail of confusion. On the other hand, if a professional hit orchestrated at the level of the Joint Chiefs, with a patsy to take the fall, this confusion and lack of definitive evidence is exactly what would be expected. To be specific, the WArren Commission itself should have easily reached a definitive conclusion backed up by it’s own body of evidence.
Regarding Douglas’s book, I do not see any reason why he would want to rehash the assassination itself. People like John Judge, Peter Dale Scott, Josiah Thompson, Harold Weisberg and so many others have already proved the case.
You seem to be clinging to your own confusion, but what is there to cling to? What point of evidence? You are adrift, desperately hanging onto something which cannot hold your weight.
But if you are really open to making a decision, let me recommend one of Weisberg’s books. I believe “Post Mortem” summarized his previous works.
Jury trial? With the US Government repeatedly caught lying and with altered evidence, how could anyone think they’d ever let a fair trial proceed? The answer is it will never happen.
My video above shows that the last two shots were fired a split second apart. This is not a guess but is supported by hard evidence. The government found out in 1963 and again in 1978 that lies, BIG LIES can be told. They won’t stop telling lies until we laugh at them.
It’s not necessary to be agnostic. The truth is known and provable, you just have to quit listening to those who are big enough fools to believe a fairytale and especially don’t listen to those liars such as Gary Mack who have sold their souls to keep the truth hidden.
Bill Charleston
The same category of people who killed Kennedy are still running the US.
It’s bankers and billionaires who advocate the exploitation of nature and war abroad as legitimate income source.
It’s the money-making-machine which uses the majority of mankind as serfs and works according to the rules of the more or less hidden pyramid of power by divide et impera.