The REAL FAQ (v2.1) By P.J. Stahl stahlp@ix.netcom.com January 2, 1999 The REAL FAQ: Part 1 (v2.1): Introduction and General FAQ Outline
Introduction General FAQ Outline (Including General Questions) Logical Foundations ALT.CONSPIRACY.JFK (REALFAQ v2.1): INTRODUCTION As most of us are aware, alt.conspiracy.jfk is a newsgroup dedicated (as its name implies) to a discussion of the *conspiracy* which we believe underlies JFK's assassination. The REAL FAQ, naturally adopts the conspiracy viewpoint, i.e.showing in detail how and why we believe a conspiracy is at the root of the JFK assassination. The term 'REAL FAQ' itself arose at a time the only other (unofficial) FAQ available was actually founded on the 'lonenut' doctrine. That is, the 'official position' that one lone, deranged gunman was responsible for what happened on November 22, 1963. Most of the questions used have been culled from four years of postings - dating back to mid-1994, when I first 'arrived'. Questions on the same or similar topic are included under the general 'header' of a main question, i.e. 2), 2A) 2B) 2C) Etc. A variety of sources will be cited - not merely books, but also videos where appropriate - since visual documentation is often as important than written. An Addendum gives the remarks, often critical, of a (claimed) "ex- MI6 agent " that I encountered at Brittania Hutte, near Saas-Fee, Switzerland, in July, 1997. The conspiracy viewpoint gives no preferential benediction to any particular source or source type- firmly believing that the serious information seeker should avail him/herself of as many diverse sources as possible and arrive at his/her own decision regarding the assassination - rather than being 'force fed'. One aim of The REAL FAQ is to present, in one place, what the author has found to be the most compelling sources, from differing viewpoints: Oswald's personality; Oswald's links to the CIA through his files; the evidence available, including films (Nix and Zapruder) and the Neutron Activation Analysis; the Warren Commission - composition and background; and the nature of information warfare. Each of these sheds a certain 'light' on the whole issue of conspiracy. And, *in concert*, provides a compelling case for it. While the other (lone assassin) side doubtless can 'counter' any or all of these points, that is not the issue central to this REAL FAQ presentation. We already know, through the history of the case, that countless points brought forth have been 'countered'. The end result has been an ambiguation, in the absence of hard evidence. The bulk of this is still controlled by the official agencies (CIA, DIA, ONI, NSA etc.) which arguably could have been involved at some level. This may account for 'official positions' such as that of the DOJ, which upholds the lone nut doctrine as the only 'official' version of events. This may also explain the inertia of the mainstream media in aggressively purusing the conspiracy angle in their investigations. (Apart from the fact that many of them have had contacts in the above agencies, see,e.g. Part 5) No, the real purpose is to show: a) there is a definite conspiracy viewpoint that can be validated through reference to existing documents available; and b)there is enough in these documents to at least compel reasonable doubt that Oswald was the lone assassin, by making assertable propositions to the contrary. My position, in this FAQ, is that the sum of these assertable propositions renders the lone nut doctrine counterfactual, and by estension, the 'official position' of the government on this event. No reference is made to the viewpoint of the 'lone assassin', because frankly, a FAQ has been written to represent that viewpoint. (I cannot help it if the author does not consistently repost it, as I do mine) My FAQ, by contrast, is intended to fill an existing void - to wit, provide a case supporting the conspiracy viewpoint in general. It is also conceded from the outset that there could be multiple variants of this viewpoint (i.e. as to number of shots, shot sequence, acceptance or rejection of certain evidence etc.) but that the existence of this diversity does not undermine the central viewpoint, any more than differing scientific interpretations, say to do with the evidence for evolution (fossils, mutation rates etc) - undermine the basic or core postulate of evolution. A NOTE ON SOURCES -REFERENCES- CITATIONS: The method used to provide citations is similar to that used by various scientific research journals, with some variation. Thus, at the point a quote or reference is made you will see something like (2, p354), which means for example, the *2nd* reference listed at the *end* of the section, page 354. A further note, for future reference, on the meaning of reference citations for those interested: ibid. (Lat. "ibidem") - "in the same place, i.e. page, as previously cited" op. cit. (Lat. "opus citato") "in the work, i.e. book, previously cited (with page given from that work)" Bear in mind, all such sources are given at the *end* of each FAQ section, so as not to have to continually redo them all over and over. Footnotes, by contrast, are denoted by asterisks (*, **, *** etc.) and are used very sparingly relative to general citations. Footnotes are always placed very near to the text to which they pertain. They are used to provide a very difficult to find confirmatory reference or work, or to provide a greater - but more technical - descriptive basis to the information already given. Sources themselves are not 'tarred' or prejudiced for the reader by the infusion of any 'background' (i.e. personality) 'baggage' of their authors or anything else. Whatever personal issues they have had (or not) or whether they've been in altercations with other (i.e. conspiracy) authors, is no concern of mine . Personal gossip in any form is counter-productive to a unified cause. I believe that this is the best way for the interested reader to proceed without bias - and also to encourage him/her to read widely (and critically) from *all* sources listed, cross-checking wherever possible. Information is what s/he is after, and in that regard - must conscientously filter out all personal references and intrusions in their readings. (I.e. made relative to other authors). FAQ OUTLINE: The general layout of the FAQ will be as follows: I. Introduction A. General Questions 1. Isn't there an unofficial FAQ already available? If so why add another? 2. How extensive or comprehensive will this FAQ be? 3. How important are the definitions? 4. What about sources? 5. What about the use of the FAQ - say to disseminate? B. Logical Foundations 1. Equivalent, converse and inverse statements 2. Contradictory and contrary statements 3. Confusion of sufficient condition with 'the only sufficient & necessary condition' 4. Confusion of weak and strong conspiracy positions 5. Logical Fallacies: a) Begging the Question, b) Confusing chronology and causality c) Either/or reasoning d) Over reliance on authority e) False Analogy f) Personal attack g) Red herring h) Slippery Slope i) Straw man j) Sob story II. Questions concerning Oswald's Personality: A. Could Oswald have been the 'lone assassin'? 1. Oswald's character: What is a 'loner'? Differences between personality types and disorders (paranoid, schizotypal, borderline, antisocial etc) 2. Can psychological 'profiles' be reliable? 3. What personality disorder(s) did Oswald have if any? 4. Would this have made him more or less likely to be the assassin? B. The Manipulation and Sheepdipping of Lee Harvey Oswald 1. What is sheep-dipping? 2. What is a '201 file'? Did Oswald have one? 3. Was there an Oswald 'double' in Mexico City? What evidence is there? 4. Was Oswald's involvement in the Fair Play For Cuba Committee real, or a role? 5. What was Operation Mongoose? Was Oswald involved in it? III. Questions concerning the Evidence: A. What is the 'magic bullet' and 'single bullet theory'? 1. Can all bullets and fragments be linked to the Mannlicher-Carcano? 2. What is Neutron Activation Analysis? What light does it shed on the case? 3. Could CE399 have caused all seven wounds in Connally in JFK? 4. Did the FBI tie Oswald to the rifle carrying bag or not? 5. Is it true that several different snipers nests were set up? 6. How good a rifleman was Oswald? B. The destruction and compromise of evidence. 1. What happened to the limo windshield? 2. What happened to the limo, after the assassination? 2. Were the original autopsy notes destroyed? Who did it? 3. What was the wound placement and how does it compare with the official version? 4. What was the reason for appointing a new acoustic team in the HSCA investigation? 5. What did the new team (Ramsey Panel) find? 6. Was a bone fragment dislodged from JFK's head? 7. Is it true that a message was sent to all FBI offices warning of the assassination in advance? What happened to it? 8. There was a LIFE photo of Oswald and a rifle - was it fake or real? C. The Zapruder and Nix Films: 1. What is the difference between Nix and Zapruder films? 2. Was the Zapruder film tampered with? How? 3. How the Zapruder and Nix films disclose the underlying physics of the head shot. 3a. Is there a new version of the Zapruder film available? 3b. How is it different from versions shown earlier, i.e. in newsreels, documentaries. 4. Can the actual shot timing be deduced from either film? D. The rifle(s) used: 1. Could the rifle found in the Book Depository have fired the fatal head shot? 2. Was the rifle found a Mauser or a Mannlicher-Carcano? 3. Were there really curtain rods? If so, what happened to them? IV. Questions Concerning the Warren Commission: A. Who were the Warren Commissioners? B. What was the Katzenbach Memo, and what has it to do with the Warren Commission? C. What was the actual purpose of the Warren Commission? D. Update: What was the conclusion of the HSCA? Did it confirm the Warren Commission conclusion or not? V. Questions concerning the continued cover-up: A. Can the evidence be subjected to further test - by independent bodies? B. What is happening with regard to the release of files related to the case? C. Has the Mannlicher-Carcano been test fired by disinterested 3rd parties? D. What is information warfare? Is it part of a coverup? E. Why is a.c.jfk always so full of rancor and hostility and noise? (Role of possible psy-ops tacticians in diverting discussions, raising 'noise' levels, keeping interested people away) VI. Questions Concerning the Motives Behind the Assassination A. Questions Concerning the Motive(s) Who (which groups) had the motives and the means to kill JFK? B. Questions concerning why JFK had to be killed at all. Addendum: The Fascist Connection Remarks and comments on the FAQ from a claimed "ex-MI6 agent" Reference checks to provide independent confirmations - when and where possible. My own comments and interpretations. ---------------------------------------------------------- Unofficial FAQ: alt.conspiracy.jfk (Conspiracy Viewpoint) - I. INTRODUCTION: A. General Questions: 1. Isn't there an 'unofficial FAQ' already available? If so, why add another? The other one available (but not regularly re-posted) has been written by an adherent to the official version of what occurred, as espoused in the Warren Commission Report and other documents. As we know - and can agree, this "official version" holds that: a) there was *no* conspiracy, and b) one single "deranged" individual (Lee Harvey Oswald) did it. This is emphatically opposed to what even the minimalist conspiracy proponent accepts. Hence, it does not reflect the conspiracy viewpoint. Hence, in the context of this newsgroup, it is not 'real'. 2. How extensive or comprehensive will this FAQ be? The FAQ I have submitted here makes no pretense to being either exhaustive or 'comprehensive' - in the sense of covering every single bit of minutiae surrounding the case. Rather, I have identified what I believe to be the most critical elements - which have repercussions (either directly or indirectly) for a multitude of ancillary or parallel issues/events. 3. How important are definitions? Definitions are extremely important - and one reason so much noise exists in discussions between opposing sides. People approaching the case come from many divergent backgrounds - law, the arts, politics. science (even *different* sciences) and so on, and hence bring many preconceived definitions with them which may not be correct in a given context. Wherever and whenever possible, therefore - I will give relevant definitions - at the Part of the FAQ (or sub-part) where they are used. For example, in relation to the wound placement (from the autopsy report) I will give the reader the definitions of the parts of anatomy referenced (e.g. 'acromion process', 'mastoid process' etc.) from Gray's Anatomy - the standard source for anatomy. 4. What about sources? At the end of each Part of the FAQ, sources will be given - again in terms of being key sources. These will not be comprehensive, because the reader will be able to secure further sources from these works on his own. Sources will include not only books, but make reference to videos as well - believing that direct visual and kinetic stimuli are equally important to the cold, passive text of books. Neither, as noted earlier, are sources 'filtered' by their authors' personal reputations. (Many of these have been confabulated from lone nut adherents) The general rubric is that if cross-checking discloses a given author has an objective insight or point to make, on a particular issue or controversy, it is referenced. No 'ratings' games are played, in terms of assigning value to sources. The reader is left to decide for himself, in concert with the other sources referenced, which s/he can cross-check. 5. (By e-mail) How good are your sources exactly? I've read in one thread, for example, that John Newman's text ('Oswald and the CIA') is full of errors? The sources are selected - as far as possible, to comport with a standard of 'accepted texts' and authors amongst conspiracy viewpoint advocates This is not to say there will not be differences in opinion, with specific books. but by and large - and through a number of years - these books are relatively *more* trusted than many others. It must be pointed out here, that so long as a vast constellation of crucial files remains locked away, this sort of situation is inevitable. A situation replete with too many 'possibilities' and too few hard facts. This will not be significantly mitigated until the various agencies holding files (e.g. CIA, NSA, DIA, ONI etc.) trust the people enough to open their vaults for file release - as per President Clinton's 1995 Executive Order. (Which continues to be largely ignored, especially after a recent pretext to cease release of files 'en masse'. See Pt. 5) As for John Newman, the attempts to place him on a level with say, Anthony Summers, are specious to say the least. Professor Newman- as the book jacket to 'Oswald and the CIA' makes clear, is an academic (Assistant Professor at the University of Maryland) and has twenty years' experience as "a military intelligence officer". Comparing him to Summers, is like comparing chalk and cheese. (Summers is neither an academician in any remote sense, nor has he had military intelligence experience). Newman's support includes 85 pages of Notes, as well as 90 pages of actual documents obtained under FOIA release. Thus, most of his cited facts can easily be validated by any reader willing to take the time and trouble. (In the case of other facts, the reader may have to use a bit of logic and analysis. However, this is no 'biggie') By comparison Summers' book ('Conspiracy') though it has some 92 pages of sources and notes, lacks even a single page of FOIA obtained documents. This can easily be confirmed by the simple expedient (noted above) of 'cross-checking'. Finally, be sure when you read such 'criticisms' to look at the source. Nine will get you ten that it is a lone nutter, or lone nut apologist. If such is the case, an old Chinese saying may be borne in mind: "The attacks of my enemies do me honor." 5. What about use of the FAQ - say to disseminate? I have no problems with a fair use policy, quoting or citing one or other PART of the FAQ, or section therein - so long as it is understood this is *not* to be altered in any way, and any sources cited in the section/Part are to be included as well. B. Logical Foundations: At the heart of many of the discussions surrounding the assassination of JFK, many issues and errors of logic reside. These clearly diminish the quality of the discussions, and therefore this section is included to make the reader aware of what many of the pitfalls are - as well as providing a grounding in basic logic. Ordinarily- in any empirical field (e.g. physics) such logical concerns might recede in importance, giving way to the priority of experimental and other results, as well as a more inductive approach. However, because much of the first hand evidence (e.g. the tape examined by the Ramsey Panel) in the JFK case remains inaccessible to interested inquirers, a data vacuum exists. The data vacuum engenders many competing notions and arguments, which in the end, can only be sifted through with rigorous logic. This means that logical argument and second order (derivative) evidence assume an import they would otherwise have not. It further means that they assume a significance in discussions that they otherwise would not. One therefore should be aware of the logical foundations and elements in every thread and exchange that appears. 1. Equivalent, converse and inverse statements. Two statements are *equivalent* if p -> q and q -> p, or p <-> q where p, q denote statements: Examples: p(a) : 'CE399 is the 'magic bullet'' is equivalent to: 'CE399 made all seven wounds in JFK and JC' q(a): 'The 'magic bullet' is CE399' is equivalent to: 'The bullet that made all 7 wounds in JFK and JC is CE399' We can also say that p is the converse of q, and q is the converse of p. The inverse statement is always: (~p) -> (~q) where ~ denotes 'not' or similar negative. Thus: (~p(a)) is: 'CE399 is not the 'magic bullet' which is the *inverse* of p(a) above. similarly: (~) q is: 'CE399 did not make all 7 wounds in JFK and JC' which is the inverse of q(a) above: 2. Contradictory and Contrary statements: Two statements p, q are contradictory, if: [p -> (~ q) ] /\ [ (~p) -> q] For example, the statements: p: 'Lee Harvey Oswald alone was observed in a window of the Texas School Book Depository" and q: "No one was observed in a window of the Texas School Book Depository" are contradictory statements. If the first is valid, the second must be invalid and vice versa. If the first statement (p) holds, the second does not hold (~ q), *or* if the second statement holds (q) the first does not hold (~ p). It is very important to observe that the word 'contradictory' should not be confused with 'contrary'. Two statements p and q, are contrary if they cannot both hold, i.e. if: ~ (p /\ q) Thus: p: 'All of the bullet fragments recovered were from a Mannlicher-Carcano' and q: 'All of the bullet fragments recovered were from a 7.65 mm Mauser' are contrary statements. Note that two contrary statements may *both* be *false*!! Note also that all contradictory statements are contrary, but many contrary statements are not contradictory: e.g. 'Lee Harvey Oswald was observed in a 6th floor window' and 'A swarthy Latin man was observed in a 6th floor window' 3. Confusion of a sufficient condition with 'the only sufficient and necessary condition' Often in the newsgroup many rancorous arguments break out on grounds of some evidence presented which is taken to be predicated on an exclusively sufficient and necessary condition - but which in fact is not anything of the sort. In fact - this is a conflation of two distinct types of argument: a) If p then q and b) *If and only if p then q* This leads to disingenuous arguments like: "If Oswald was the shooter, then there could be no conspiracy." The point is, can we be sure that Oswald was 'the only shooter'? This FAQ will show, at the minimum - and to a reasonable doubt, we cannot. or: "If Howard Brennan said he saw Oswald in the 6th floor window, with a rifle, then Oswald had to have been the assassin'. 4. Confusion of weak and strong conspiracy positions. Very often it is argued that if conspiracy advocates believe a conspiracy has occurred they must give an accounting of how it was done, including all particulars, agencies, resources, times, strategies and so on and so forth. This is egregious, and confuses what the conspiracy position is all about. For most conspiracy advocates (we disdain the term 'buff' as a pejorative) their position amounts to a simple withholding of belief (or acceptance) of the 'official version', to wit - one lone nut did it. This is completely analogous to the position of the atheist who simply withholds his or her belief in a deity. This withholding of belief, however, certainly does not make it incumbent upon the atheist to provide a comprehensive theory of how the cosmos came to be. No - all the atheist is asserting is his right to differ with the *theistic* versions that hinge on a supernatural creation. So, just as withholding of belief in a divinity does not make it incumbent upon the unbeliever to provide an alternative theory of the origin of the universe, so also the withholding of belief in the primary conclusion of the Warren Commission Report does not make it incumbent upon the withholder to provide an alternative version of events. He simply does not concur with the Warren Commission's version that 'one lone nut' did it. Lastly, in the 'weak' conspiracy position, all that is necessary is to be able to show that at least one other gunman was needed to effect the shots made. Once that condition is satisfied, then the (minimum) conspiracy position is satisfied, It is absolutely not incumbent to go any further - i.e. presenting an exhaustive hypothesis of 'how' it could be done, motives, persons, strategies, allocations etc. Nor any 'coherent' theory that attempts to embody and relate all the above. This is merely a 'red herring' to distract from the point that once the minimum condition has been satisfied, a conspiracy has been demonstrated. By contrast, if one claims any 'strong' conspiracy position, i.e. claiming to know unambiguously that one or other specified person, persons or agencies was involved (directly or indirectly) then s/he is responsible for presenting evidence, sources to support that claim. However, merely to claim conspiracy (minimal) does not require support beyond satisfying the minimal condition (showing at least two shooters were needed). 5. Logical Fallacies: A number of logical fallacies are interjected into discussions from time to time. These include (but are not limited to): a) Begging the question: Also called 'circular reasoning' - one makes the same statement over and over but using only different words, without arriving at a different result, i.e. 'Lee Harvey Oswald must be the sole assassin because only his fingerprints were on the rifle' 'The rifle had only Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints, so he must have been the sole assassin' b) Confusing chronology with causality ('post hoc, ergo propter hoc') One event preceded another in time, so it is assumed to be the cause of the latter event, i.e. 'JFK and Connally were shot, with seven wounds between them. Then a bullet was found on the stretcher. Therefore, the shot that made the seven wounds was from the bullet found." c) Either/Or reasoning: This is assuming there are only two sides to a question. e.g. 'Oswald made the shots from the Texas Book Depository, so there could be no grassy knoll shooter'. d) Overreliance on authority. The assumption something is true merely because an expert or authority says so, without presenting any reasoned argument in support of it. e.g. 'The Warren Commission said the back wound was in the base of the neck, therefore it must be true' or 'You may only cite standard sources, like the Warren Commission Report'. e) False analogy Assuming because one event or object is similar to another, conclusions can be drawn which can be applied to another situation or object, i.e 'You say no one saw Oswald shoot the rifle from the 6th floor, but no one saw a grassy knoll shooter either'. or 'If Oswald shot and killed Tippitt, he must have shot and killed JFK' f) Personal Attack Demeaning the proponents of a claim instead of their argument. ('Ad hominem' attacks): 'You buffs just make our jobs so very easy - 'slam dunk' time' 'Stop playing with your keyboard buffboy!' 'Buffs have to be the stupidest, laziest, dumbest people in the world.' g) Red Herring Attempting to misdirect discussion or thread, by raising a wholly unrelated point. 'Who cares if Oswald's shooting declined while he was in the Marines, look at what he was saying in his interview on WDSU about Marxism and socialism.' h) Slippery Slope Assuming that one thing or event inevitably leads to another. 'We know Oswald got the job at the Book Depository, and he brought a suspicious package he said contained curtain rods in the building. Therefore he must have killed the President.' i) Straw man Arguing against a statement or proposition no one actually holds, but merely used to belittle the opponents claims. 'If all these people were really involved in the conspiracy - FBI, Masons, Federal Reserve, Mafia, CIA, Warren Commission,. Military, Oil companies, right wingers, Teamsters, there would be no one left in America who wasn't involved. or 'Look at the UFO claims some of these conspiracy buffs make, why should we take their claims in the JFK case seriously if they are out chasing little green men?' j) Sob story The tactic of using emotive arguments to try to manipulate readers' emotions to entice them to draw unjustified conclusions. 'Lee Oswald was a cold, calculating loner, who regularly beat his wife and hated everything America stood for.' or 'You're prepared to exonerate a communist who hated everything America stood for?' Logical resources: 1- Dimnet, Ernest:1956, 'The Art of Thinking', Fawcett Books. 2- Flew, Antony: 1975, 'Thinking About Thinking', Fontana, Gr. Britain.