Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Libra
April 17, 2005 2:01 PM   Subscribe

The Academic JFK Assassination site is an unbelievably thorough compendium of information on the Kennedy assassination. It's an excursion into conspiracy theories without any crackpottery. Some of the articles are immensely readable. See, for example, Richard Popkin's 1966 New York Review of Books article The Second Oswald.
posted by painquale (21 comments total)

 
I found this link when searching for information on Richard Popkin, the historian of ideas who just died. It's an excellent site and seems pretty old, so I'm a little worried that this post is a double, but I couldn't find any trace of the site in the archives.
posted by painquale at 2:04 PM on April 17, 2005


Why is it that people need to think there was a conspiracy? I've been to Dallas (for a meetup, no less!) and stood where the motorcade was, and it's an easy fuckin' shot.
posted by notsnot at 3:07 PM on April 17, 2005


Kennedy wasn't even the target. Connelly was. Combine that with the target moving away from the shooter, and his using a cheap-ass rifle, and you have a whole new perspective on the whole damn thing.
posted by clevershark at 3:38 PM on April 17, 2005


Boy, if that's true, imagine the "OOPS" moment Oswald experienced.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:35 PM on April 17, 2005 [1 favorite]


On the other side of things, the McAdams Kennedy site is indispensible on this subject, and was a big factor in moving my gut instinct from "probably a conspiracy" to "probably not."
posted by BackwardsCity at 8:39 PM on April 17, 2005


Well, it WAS Connelly's signature on Oswald's dishonorable discharge papers.
posted by clevershark at 8:42 PM on April 17, 2005


Grassy knoll
posted by caddis at 9:30 PM on April 17, 2005


It's kind of funny that the site I linked to has a stated goal of dismantling the assassination conspiracy theories and supporting the lone gunman hypothesis. I've always thought that the conspiracy theorists were a bunch of crackpots, but reading some of the articles on the site (particulary the "Second Oswald" article linked above) has me wondering if I haven't been too hasty.

This seems to me to be one subject where I'm perfectly willing to say, "I have no opinion on the matter." It really makes no difference to the world what I believe or not, and working my way to an informed opinion would take too much reading and work that could be devoted to my more primary interests. (I'll bet a lot of casual creationists feel this way about evolution. Unfortunately, while any one person's viewpoint isn't too important, their collective views do have real impact on science policy. Coordination problem, here).
posted by painquale at 9:49 PM on April 17, 2005


I counted a total of 40 theories in the two Esquire articles. For a lot of reasons I'm with Gerald Posner on the JFK assassination; "Case Closed". The Warren Commision examined 5,000 pieces of physical evidence and produced a 20,000 page report. In spite of the evidence there are people who will forever have beliefs or convictions that there had to be some other far more mysterious cause for President Kennedy's death.
posted by X4ster at 10:23 PM on April 17, 2005


I heard the Cigarette Smoking Man did it.
posted by keswick at 11:21 PM on April 17, 2005


He did do it, there's an X-Files episode all about it. It includes the real shooter's position, in the storm drain.
posted by gsb at 2:23 AM on April 18, 2005


Oh, nice link, by the way.
posted by gsb at 2:24 AM on April 18, 2005


Nonsense. Everyone knows the gunman on the grassy knoll was John F. Kennedy.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:02 AM on April 18, 2005


Umbrella Man made me a believer.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:13 AM on April 18, 2005


The motorcade sped on.
posted by gubo at 9:15 AM on April 18, 2005


I leery of anyone who suggests that they know one way or another. For some, their opinion may have to do with their political leanings. Others have a bent towards conspiracies. But it IS possible to talk about "conspiracies" being generally goofy, without suggesting that one involving JFK's assasination is goofy as well.

I'm not overly interested in the subject, but think that there are too many holes in the "official" line. The reason why so many who believe in a conspiracy come of as "buffs" is that they often go a step beyond said "holes" to hypothesis.
posted by foodeater at 11:17 AM on April 18, 2005



On the other side of things, the McAdams Kennedy site is indispensible on this subject, and was a big factor in moving my gut instinct from "probably a conspiracy" to "probably not."


Its not like McAdams doesn't have apparent holes in his information:


posted by foodeater at 11:24 AM on April 18, 2005


.....http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id151.htm
posted by foodeater at 11:25 AM on April 18, 2005


thank you for refueling my JFK assassination obsession with this post.
posted by aGreatNotion at 12:58 PM on April 18, 2005


The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone. Who are we to question its findings? Besides, everyone knows conspiracies only happened in the olden days.
posted by gigawhat? at 1:20 PM on April 18, 2005


*places tinfoil hat squarely on head*
*peruses site*
*removes TF hat*

Ok, good post.

Still, lotta 'lone nuts' doing a lotta shooting back then....
posted by Smedleyman at 4:04 PM on April 18, 2005


« Older Lightning begin their Stanley Cup Defense...  |  Oxford University has just ann... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments