CHUCK SCHUYLER SAID:
I've always said that belief in a JFK assassination conspiracy is a mile wide and an inch deep. The AVERAGE person--who perhaps has read Crossfire and saw the movie JFK and heard the dad of one of his friends who was in the Marines say that the shots were impossible--can be convinced Oswald acted alone if they read both sides of the argument.
However, the hardcore hobbyist/buff--Anthony Marsh at this board being the prime example--will NEVER be convinced that a large conspiracy didn't kill JFK. Marsh will take it to his grave that a large conspiracy killed JFK, as did Mark Lane and tens of thousands of lesser known buffs.
Anecdotally, I do believe minds have been changing, at least regarding those who participate in online discussions about the case. It is true that the older buffs are retiring from the hobby or passing on, but among the younger buffs without a connection to the 60s, there is at least a willingness to read both sides of the debate and be more objective about it. I participate at a Facebook JFK board which is over 50% CT, and it's remarkable how often these same people who join the group, after perhaps trotting out out a cherished factoid about the assassination that is quickly and convincingly rebutted, announce at some point that they've "converted" to the Oswald Alone viewpoint. It seems that many of these casual buffs have one or two sticking points, and when the sticking point is "unstuck", their mind is free to accept the obvious: Oswald alone, no known help. There's just too much evidence pointing directly to Oswald.
This willingness to convert to the Oswald alone camp can in part be chalked up to the larger number of folks who believe there WAS a conspiracy, but nonetheless I do not see people who read in their HS history book that Oswald killed JFK then going online to this board or watching ABC's Beyond Conspiracy on YouTube, etc. and suddenly becoming a JFK buff.
I'm an example of a converted "buff" who spent my teen years in the 70s believing Oswald killed JFK but that there was foreknowledge and some additional connections. I stumbled upon John's [McAdams] website in the early 2000s and read it for five minutes and all of the CT silliness fell away from me. It turns out that the internet--which is great at spreading fake news--is also pretty powerful in combating it.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's nice to hear that there are at least some people who post on Internet forums who are willing to accept the evidence in the JFK case as valid evidence, instead of trying to pretend (as most Internet conspiracy theorists do) that all (or most) of the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald was fake, planted, or manufactured from whole cloth.
Here are some recent quotes I saw at The Education Forum from a CTer named Rich Pope:
"I don't think LBJ did it, I know he did! .... Anyone who claims Jack Ruby wasn't connected to Carlos Marcello is a fool. .... Anyone who doesn't think LBJ was part of the conspiracy to murder JFK is laughable."
Now, we all know as surely as night follows day and as surely as a thunderstorm follows a car wash that Rich Pope has absolutely no hard evidence whatsoever to back up his claims about LBJ, Ruby, and Marcello. Mr. Pope is doing nothing more than talking through his hat (as all JFK CTers have been doing since 1963).
But despite a total lack of evidence for their claims, the JFK conspiracy theorists continue to spout their unsupportable and outlandish claims year after year (such as Pope's rant that I quoted above). But no matter how dedicated the CTers of the world remain, the true FACTS of Lee Oswald's lone guilt in John Kennedy's murder will never fade into cyberspace.
Here's an exchange I had just a couple of days ago at Duncan MacRae's JFK forum. (For some reason, though, Duncan decided to delete this whole thread entirely, which has me perplexed. So I'm glad I copied these posts before they disappeared.) ....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
All reasonable people who have studied the JFK assassination know beyond any and all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Does this mean that I have to agree with your opinion to be deemed to be reasonable?
DVP SAID:
Yes. Of course.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Or could it be you are in fact the unreasonable one by considering your opinion to be superior to those of people who disagree with you?
DVP SAID:
No. And for one simple (and blatantly obvious) reason:
The evidence (overwhelmingly) shows Lee Harvey Oswald to be guilty of two 1963 murders.
Therefore, the opinion of a person who thinks Oswald didn't shoot anybody on 11/22/63 cannot possibly be a "reasonable" opinion. .... The evidence shows that the Warren Commission was right. Maybe more CTers should learn to face the reality of that fact. It's either facing that unchangeable reality or remaining super-glued to the silly and unprovable notion that all this stuff was faked.
David Von Pein
October 8, 2019
