The Instigator
FanboyMctroll
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
levi_smiles
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

JFK was murdered, it's not some conspiracy theory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
levi_smiles
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 873 times Debate No: 103180
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

FanboyMctroll

Pro

JFK was assassinated by the CIA, there are so many facts that prove this was not some conspiracy and the work of one patsy Lee Harvey Oswald. Sure they say he did it but I don't buy it. The CIA assassinated JFK, you don't think so, then lets debate it
levi_smiles

Con

I'll accept this debate and thank FanboyMcTroll for the opportunity to offer skeptical counterpoint to one of many popular but unproven theories regarding Kennedy's assassination.

I do not assert that the findings of the Warren Commission [1] or the House Select Committee on Assassinations [2] necessarily encompass the whole truth of JFK's death although I do think both investigations were generally well intentioned, fairly comprehensive, and sufficiently analytical given their respective contexts.

I need not prove that the Central Intelligence Agency had no role in the affair to win this debate. I don't consider the point provable at such far remove beyond the cacophony of misinformation and disinformation surrounding the event.

Rather, my expectation is that FanboyMcTroll is unlikely to establish as irrefutable that which so many talented investigators have failed to prove; that which if proved would surely demand banner headlines on the front pages of newspapers across the globe; that which would disband the CIA and require treason trials against surviving usurpers.

FanboyMcTroll's job here is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the CIA killed Kennedy. My job is to poke holes in his theory.

Unfortunately, Fanboy has not furnished much by way of word count in which to lay out a theory of such monument nor has he posited any evidence for our evaluation in the first third of the debate. We will just have to look forward to arguments in the second round.

In the meanwhile, here is a short checklist offered by a Scientific American from article entitled "The Conspiracy Theory Detector "

1.
Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of "connecting the dots" between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections"or to randomness"the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.

2.
The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

3.
The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

4.
Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.

5.
The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.

6.
The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.

7.
The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.

8.
The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

9.
The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.

10.
The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

[1] https://www.archives.gov...

[2] https://www.archives.gov...

[3] https://www.scientificamerican.com...
Debate Round No. 1
FanboyMctroll

Pro

I will follow the format you laid out in your checklist with the 10 points covered. next round I can get into the detail of each point as I do not want to write a 8000 word essay in one response.

1. Number #1 proof and the main point of the assassination is the fact that all the records were sealed and the government had 25 years to unseal all the records. This was done by some high ranking, powerful people to seal the records that could not be unsealed even with a warrant. Think for a second who has that kind of authority, I will tell you, the high ranking individuals in the CIA who were already in senior positions to be able to pull this off. The reason they were sealed for 25 years is because by the time the truth comes out, inquisitively it's this year in October 2017, the people responsible that ordered this hit will be dead and therefore will not be persecuted. How convenient of them.

2. The agents were not superhuman, it was a well organized plan with many agents involved. The real shooters, It would not be possible for Oswald to fire off 3 shots with a bolt action rifle in the amount of time on a moving target, not possible, but shots fired from multiple agents is viable. The man on the grassy knoll, the man behind the fence, the lady with the hat, all recorded on the Zepruder film. Coordinated attack by many.

3. It was a complex conspiracy, a patsy and fall guy was needed, Oswald, picked out because of his background, also he needed to be silenced after, in case his story didn't match what happened. The truth would have come out, so how do you silence him, Ruby comes into the picture, how do you recruit a guy who will go down after as well, coercion and threat of death to family (how far would you go to protect your family) Kill a supposed President assassins in order to stop your family from being killed .

4. State secrets are kept everyday by the CIA, NSA and other government organizations. The threat of incarceration, and threat of harm to family usually keeps most people quiet. You didn't know about the spying by the NSA until Snowden and now he has to hide in Russia from being killed by the USA. Enough threats can keep a secret going for a long time. Many involved in the initial case were suspiciously eliminated or accidents were staged including Lee Bowers, Gary Underhill, William Sullivan, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, George de Mohrenschildt, four showgirls who worked for Jack Ruby, and Ruby himself.

5. What drives an economy more then war, the rich and powerful want war, they influenced the CIA to assassinate Kennedy in order to start the Vietnam war which Kennedy was opposed to. Kennedy's death allowed for policy reversals desired by the CIA to escalate the United States' military involvement in Vietnam.

6. Evidence gathered after the assassination was redacted and tampered with to provide an outcome of desired effect portraying Oswald as the only assassin and responsible for the murder, with no one else involved. Pictures of Oswald were altered, Kennedy's body was Once the presidential plane arrived at Andrews Air Force Base, the shipping casket with the President's body in it was taken by helicopter from the side of the plane that was out of the television camera's view. Kennedy's body was then taken to an unknown location"most likely Walter Reed Army Medical Center to surgically alter the body to make it appear that he was shot only from the rear

7. Witnesses who captured the assassination in photographs or on film had their cameras and/or film confiscated by police or other authorities. Beverly Oliver, came forward in 1970 and said she was the "Babushka Lady" who is seen, in the Zapruder film, filming the motorcade. She said that after the assassination she was contacted at work by two men who she thought "...were either FBI or Secret Service agents, the men told her that they wanted to develop her film and would return it to her within ten days, but they never returned the film

8. In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person responsible for assassinating Kennedy. In 1979, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, although it did not identify any individuals or groups

9. NSA, CIA, FBI, DEA, CBP and all other government institutions have secrets, hell we all have secrets, the government keeps secrets to not alarm the general public. Snowden revealed the NSA secrets, you don't think other government organizations don't hold secrets as well. There are cover ups everywhere. In the end it always comes down to money, and many became billionaires because USA went to war in Vietnam, even though the public didn't want them to. Just look at Iraq and Bush with the chemical weapons, there weren't any but a lot of Americans became rich from that war and oil.

10. I don't believe anything the government says, I'm an anarchist first and I know Kennedy was assassinated and on October 22, 2017 you will also get to see the truth, unfortunately the people behind it are already dead, so what are you going to do??? I will just say apology accepted for doubting me.
levi_smiles

Con

1.
Much of the Warren Commission"s 1964 report went unpublished at the time of its release but LBJ laid out a 25 year plan for the release of sensitive material consistent with National security priorities. By 1998, the only unreleased documents were the the tax returns of private citizens and text redacted to exclude the names of living intel sources, undisclosed intel methods, and purely private matters. [1]

The 1979 HSCA report intended that much of its sensitive material remain sealed until 2029 but in 1992, Senator John Glenn sponsored a bill to release most of the evidence by 1998, sealing only the most top secret articles for 25 years with an option to renew. Of the more than 5 million documents sealed in "79, only 3,000 remain sealed with some 40,000 partially redacted. President Trump recently declined to renew, so the last unseen documents will be released on October 26th. [2]

Fanboy"s top argument that "all the records were sealed" fails to note that 99% of sealed records are now public and that the remainder are soon due. He accuses the CIA of the sealing, unaware that both the sealing and unsealing were highly publicized acts of Congress. If those final documents implicate the CIA, why would Bush 41, a former CIA director, sign a bill to accelerate their release? Why isn't the CIA objecting now? If the intention was to wait until all the principles were dead, wouldn't 50 years delay be more effective than 25?

2.
Based on what evidence? The more conspirators, the greater the risk: what was the advantage of involving many agents?

Oswald"s ballistic performance is not relevant to proving CIA complicity but is also proved perfectly plausible by a fair number of forensic tests, including those conducted by the FBI, CBS News and PBS"s Nova. Here's a clip from the 1967 CBS report:

https://youtu.be...

What evidence connects the people on the grassy knoll to the CIA? Were they all shooters? Based on what evidence?

3.
So the real culprits are all in the open, shooting from the crowd on the ground while the patsy is a trained marksman hidden in a sniper"s nest 6 floors above? Isn't it usually the other way around?

If Oswald was coached by the CIA, why didn't the CIA keep a tighter lid on the guy? In the months before the assassination, agent Oswald was certainly threatening to blow the Op: going on radio shows, threatening to blow up FBI offices, trying and failing to assassinate General Walker, wandering off to New Orleans and Mexico City, trying to get to Cuba" Why would the CIA let their patsy shoot a cop and spend a couple of nights getting interrogated by the FBI & Dallas Police? Why permit Oswald to speak at a press conference?

The motorcade route was planned out by the Secret Service on Nov 18th. [3]. How did the CIA control logistics to bring JFK under Oswald"s position? Was the Secret Service in on it? To get Oswald into position, they"d also need to direct his hiring at the Texas School Book Depository in Oct, contrary to the testimony of family friend Ruth Paine and Oswald"s boss Roy Truly. [4] Were they also conspirators?

The strange mix of hyper-competency and ultra-bumbling extends to the choice of Ruby as well. Did they recruit Ruby ahead of time on the off chance they might need to infiltrate Dallas Police HQ? Or did they manage to coerce Ruby in the single hour between Oswald"s arrest and his first visit to HQ with a gun in his pocket? Seems like you"d want a dependable insider to bump off the patsy, not a speed-addicted pimp chatting with every reporter and cop he meets. Nor is a single shot to the gut a particularly reliable kill-shot, why didn't the CIA better train their assassin? Wouldn't the CIA need to kill Ruby as well?

4.
Unlike Pro, I am fairly unimpressed by any large organization"s capacity to retain State secrets.
Look at Watergate, the phony yellowcake uranium scam, the Manhattan project- secrets the executive branch was desperate to protect but which unraveled pretty quickly under pressure. NSA metadata surveillance is another good example. Soon after 9/11 it was public knowledge that the govt. was requesting access to most telecommunications databases as part of the Patriot Act"s terrorist surveillance program. [5]. By 2005, the New York Times was reporting widespread abuses of warrantless authority. [6]
The public didn't appreciate the magnitude of the program until Snowden in 2013 but it certainly was not much of a secret. In my work as a Systems Administrator at Sun Microsystems, I helped build & maintain part of the infrastructure for this program in 2003 and was never asked to keep any secrets on the government"s behalf. Pro is wrong when he says I didn't know about govt. surveillance before Snowden- certainly, the telecommunications industry did. The fact that NSA surveillance continues today mostly unchallenged and unchanged suggests that the govt. never had much stake in keeping that particular secret anyway.

Of the thousands of people who were interviewed or testified regarding the assassination, it"s fairly easy to assemble a list of people who died over the next 10 or 20 years: some lists are far more comprehensive. However superficially damning such lists may appear, closer inspection weakens the case. Shaw and Ruby died of lung cancer- how did the CIA pull that off? Why did the CIA wait for years or decades after testimony before faking suicides and car crashes? What could the showgirls have known to merit such carnage? Why kill witnesses who backed the Warren Commission's findings (like Bowers)?

Fanboy needs some evidence: killers fleeing crime scenes, memos with CIA letterhead, something. The fact that some people fail to survive their natural lifespan is inevitable, not incriminating.

5.
Sheer speculation. Kennedy tripled the number of US troops in Vietnam in "61 and again in "62. At the time of his death there were more than 16,000 American soldiers deployed. There"s no doubt that Kennedy was skeptical of a major escalation but he was also determined not to see South Vietnam collapse. The war was already underway and Kennedy had given the CIA a major role in its conduct. The trouble with Fanboy"s theory is that Johnson was no more hawkish on escalation than Kennedy. And military escalation meant a smaller role for the CIA. History records that the CIA and DoD were divided over full scale involvement in Southeast Asia. Why kill a president who was fairly well aligned with the CIA"s outlook in exchange for an unknown new dynamic?

6.
What proof exists that photos of Oswald were altered? To what effect? What proof exists that the CIA did the altering?

By her own testimony, Jackie Kennedy never left JFK"s casket alone from Parkland Hospital to Bethesda Naval Base. Was Jackie part of the plot?

Why wouldn't soldiers at Walter Reed challenge an unauthorized helicopter carrying an unauthorized casket to an unauthorized autopsy? Was the Army in on it too?

How does one surgically alter an exploded head?You can add new entry wounds but how do you remove the existing wounds? The attending surgical staff at Parkland never reported the alterations? Parkland coroner Earl Rose sat on the HSCA forensic board but never noticed the changes?

7.
Beverly Oliver is far too young to credibly claim she was the Babushka Lady. Her original testimony was that the missing camera was a Yashica Super 8mm. Advised that model camera wasn't manufactured until 1969, she would later testify that she couldn't remember what kind of camera she used. Nor does Oliver's story implicate the CIA in any way.

8. If Pro is going to cite the HSCA to indict the CIA, he ought to include their unequivocal finding: "The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of Kennedy." [7]

9.
Argument #4 re-worded. See my response above.

10.
No arguments made, no rebuttal required.

(Refs in comments)
Debate Round No. 2
FanboyMctroll

Pro

The records that are still sealed are the most important ones, those are the ones identifying the guilty people behind the assassination. The men who ordered the hit to be carried out by the CIA agents on that day. It's too bad that those people are dead already so no one will ever be persecuted for the assassination.

Warren Commission received only information supplied to it by the FBI, and that its purpose was to rubber stamp the lone gunman theory. There are so many inconsistencies with this assassination, there is no way that a lone gunman could have collaborated all of it. 70% of the public also does not buy this story and here is why

There were problems with bullet trajectories, the murder weapon, the ammunition used, inconsistencies between the Warren Commission's account and the autopsy findings, inconsistencies between the autopsy findings and what was reported by witnesses at the scene of the murder, eyewitness accounts that conflict with x-rays taken of the President's body, indications that the diagrams and photos of the President's brain in the National Archives are not the President's, testimony by those who took and processed the autopsy photos that the photos were altered, created, or destroyed, indications that the Zapruder film had been tampered with, allegations that the Warren Commission's version of events conflicts with news reports from the scene of the murder, an alleged change to the motorcade route that facilitated the assassination, an alleged lax Secret Service and local law enforcement security, and statements by people who claim that they had knowledge of, or participated in, a conspiracy to kill the President.

Witnesses whose statements pointed to a conspiracy were either ignored or intimidated by the Warren Commission. Jean Hill one of the witnesses on that day was harassed by the assistant counsel for the Warren Commission, they attempted to humiliate, discredit, and intimidate Hill into changing her story. Hill also told the press that she was abused by Secret Service agents, harassed by the FBI, and was the recipient of death threats. Warren Commission interviewers repeatedly cut short or stifled any comments casting doubt on the conclusion that Oswald acted alone.

Texas School Book Depository employee Joe Molina was "intimidated by authorities and lost his job soon after the assassination" and that witness Ed Hoffman was warned by an FBI agent that he "might get killed" if he revealed what he had observed in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination. Mysterious deaths of witnesses to the JFK Assassination include the deaths of 50 people linked to the assassination. Death of journalist Dorothy Kilgallen, she was granted a private interview with Jack Ruby, Mafia figures Sam Giancana, John Roselli, Carlos Prio, Jimmy Hoffa, Charles Nicoletti, Leo Moceri, Richard Cain, Salvatore Granello and Dave Yaras were likely murdered to prevent them from revealing their knowledge. Where is Hoffa now?? Only the CIA knows. This cover up is huge and it involved many people. Assassinating the president is a huge task.

The Warren Commission ignored the testimony of seven witnesses who saw gun smoke in the area of the stockade fence on the grassy knoll, as well as an eighth witness who smelled gunpowder at the time of the assassination, also the Commission failed to ask for the testimony of witnesses on the triple overpass whose statements pointed to a shooter on the grassy knoll. The autopsy records are not scheduled to be released until 2029. Who has that kind of authority to withhold evidence in a murder investigation, to circumvent search warrants? Who can hide the evidence and say it's not available until 2029, the CIA, the people involved and why 2029, to make sure all parties involved are deceased by then. Anyone not believing this is just blind or oblivious to the fact that a president was murdered.

In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded there were four shots, one coming from the direction of the grassy knoll, In 1967, Josiah Thompson concluded that four shots were fired in Dealey Plaza, with one wounding Connally and three hitting Kennedy. The grassy knoll was identified by the majority of witnesses as the area from where shots were fired. There were 121 witnesses to the assassination listed in the Warren Report, of whom 51 indicated that the shots that killed Kennedy came from the area of the grassy knoll. Jesse Price was the building engineer for the Terminal Annex Building, located across from the Texas School Book Depository on the opposite side of Dealey Plaza, he viewed the presidential motorcade from the Terminal Annex Building's roof, Price said that he believed the shots came from just behind the picket fence where it joins the underpass. FBI photographs of the presidential limousine show a bullet hole in its windshield above the rear-view mirror, and a crack in the windshield itself, the FBI responded that the bullet hole occurred prior to Dallas, (so why not have it fixed before???)

In 1993, George Whitaker, a manager at the Ford Motor Company's Rouge Plant in Detroit, told attorney and criminal justice professor Doug Weldon that after reporting to work on November 25, 1963, he discovered the presidential limousine in the Rouge Plant's B building with the windshield removed. Whitaker said that the limousine's removed windshield had a through-and-through bullet hole from the front. He said that he was directed by one of Ford's vice presidents to use the windshield as a template to fabricate a new windshield for installation in the limousine. Whitaker also said he was told to destroy the old windshield.

When the fatal shot occurred, the President's head and upper torso moved backward, indicating to many observers a shot from the right front, the film shows that his head was hit by two near-simultaneous bullets: one from the rear and the other from the right front. Sound acoustic sources of the recording of the assassination was from an open microphone on the motorcycle of H.B. McLain escorting the motorcade and the scientific acoustical evidence established a high probability that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy. A bone fragment found in Dealey Plaza the day after the assassination showed that the fragment is actually a piece of occipital bone ejected from an exit wound in the back of Kennedy's head. This finding is evidence of a cover-up as it proves that the skull radiographs obtained during the autopsy, which do not show significant bone loss in the occipital area, are not authentic.

Oswald was an active agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, often pointing to the fact that he attempted to defect to Russia but was nonetheless able to return without difficulty even receiving a repatriation loan from the State Department. Oswald was involved in an intelligence assignment in Russia. Oswald's mother, Marguerite, often insisted that her son was recruited by an agency of the U.S. Government and sent to Russia.

The so-called umbrella man was one of the closest bystanders to the president when he was first struck by a bullet, after footage of the assassination showed him holding an open umbrella as the Kennedy motorcade passed, despite the fact that it was not raining at the time, the umbrella could have been used to provide visual signals to hidden gunmen.

All this evidence and cover up of evidence and dismissal of witness testimonies in the Warren Commission point to the fact the Warren Commission is flawed and cherry picked for evidence which would quickly satisfy the general public. But the deep cover up is there.

Others might buy into the whole Oswald theory but I know that the CIA is responsible and the people who orchestrated this assassination are already dead anyways.

Let my opponent disprove this evidence, (unless my opponent works for the CIA)
levi_smiles

Con

Thanks, Fanboy.

Readers will note that Pro failed to engage even one of my counter arguments, preferring instead to continue the same mix of supposition and evidence-free declaration as the last round.
For example, I asked why Parkland Coroner Earl Rose would overlook differences between the autopsy and hospital reports; Pro just repeats that there were inconsistencies.

Surprisingly few of Pro"s statements specifically address the topic of this debate- the culpability of the CIA. Rather, Pro tosses out a tiresome hodgepodge of popular details from conspiracy lore which may cast doubt on previous investigations" findings by varying degrees but hardly serve to establish a CIA connection.

When Pro questions FBI or Secret Service conduct during the investigation he does nothing to forward his case since he has made no causal link between CIA motive and investigative dynamics. Interagency rivalries being well established, why would the Secret Service and the FBI go along with the CIA"s grand plot? Hoover had far more dirt on JFK than LBJ, so he"d be well motivated to maintain that leverage. Even if the CIA did want a coup, why would the Secret Service willingly denigrate their own reputation? Pro casually makes the FBI, the Secret Service, Congress, even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court voluntary conspirators in a CIA plot without bothering to explain how hundreds or thousands of civil servants were suborned by the agency"s treason. Most of the implicated players outrank the CIA in the hierarchy of Washington: so why would the ruling class surrender their authority to mere spies?

Pro states with confidence that the last remnant of HSCA records about to be released will indict the CIA without explaining how he knows the content of those sealed records. Pro is offering conjecture without proof: we could claim the that HSCA records will expose Mary Tyler Moore as the real assassin backed by the same amount of proof as Pro.

We should also refrain from citing popular polling as evidence. 77% of Americans believe in angels, after all, which in no way serves as evidence of angels. [1]. Only 7% of citizens polled believe the CIA is to blame: why shouldn't that prove the CIA"s innocence in equal measure? [2]

Because Pro fails to separate general suspicions from CIA-specific details, most of his argument ends up supporting alternative theories to an equal degree: why would errors and inconsistencies between various investigations necessarily damn the CIA? Wouldn't the FBI or LBJ be in a better position to obscure evidence?

Besides, there"s little surprise in the notion that multiple elaborate investigations found small inconsistencies over the decades- memories change, motives become infused with sensation, facts become confused with speculation. Each new investigation is driven to emphasize small changes or risk accusations of redundant time wasting.

We can toss out any claims that don't directly lead to the CIA: bullets & guns, photos & witnesses- since evidence of CIA interference is not claimed in those details, Pro"s case is not advanced.

In fact, the only CIA specific argument Pro makes is that only the CIA had the power to seal records. Last round, I pointed that these records were sealed & later unsealed by Congress. I included the relevant Acts. Pro did not respond this round but adjusted his claim: only the autopsy records remain sealed as only the CIA has the power to do. Unfortunately for Pro"s lone argument, the CIA has no authority to seal Congressional records & Congress is hardly likely to cede such power. The truth is that autopsy report was made public in 1966 and can be viewed here on the National Archives website. [3]

The CIA did not conduct witness interviews in the assassination"s aftermath. Neither Hill, Molina, or Hoffman claims to have been contacted by the CIA so even if FBI detectives did engage in intimidation, how is the CIA implicated? Hill claims she saw Jack Ruby running away from the assassination. No other witness confirms a man of any description conforming to Hill"s testimony. Jean Hill"s testimony can read here [4] including her complaints regarding agent Featherstone. Future Senator Arlen Specter"s interview does not strike me as particularly suppressive. Molina"s testimony is only that he heard 3 shots, he couldn't tell from where. Although he was fired a month after the assassination, his testimony does not seem worth suppressing. Hoffman"s story has changed significantly over the years: his report of a man with a gun was not included in his FBI interview and did not surface until news reports ten years later. The FBI threats were first claimed in the 90"s. At the original interview, Hoffman"s father & brother warned the FBI that he was prone to making up stories. [5]

Likewise, lists of dead mobsters and reports of smoke over the grassy knoll bring us nowhere near the CIA: why are they included here?

Let's conclude by reviewing Scientific American"s conspiracy theory detector:

1.
Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of "connecting the dots" between events that need not be causally connected.

Check. The Babushka lady"s missing camera = CIA. Molina lost his job = CIA, etc.

2.
The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off.

Check. The CIA killed Jack Ruby with lung cancer, etc.

3.
The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

Check. The CIA got Oswald his job in advance & somehow manipulated the presidential motorcade route to that site, etc.

4.
The conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets.

Big check. The Secret Service, the FBI, Congress, the Supreme Court, Jackie Kennedy, Dallas Police, Parkland Hospital, soldiers at Walter Reed & Andrews AFB all are implicated by Pro & have kept the CIA"s secret for 50 years.

5.
The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system.

Check. The CIA wanted a big war in Viet Nam so that corporations could get rich. Huge numbers of people were willing to kill their president to make somebody else a billionaire.

6.
The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.

Check. Gun shots echo in a small city plaza = multiple shooters.

7.
The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.

Check. Smoke sighted above the train yards = gun smoke, not trains.

8.
The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

Check. Only the CIA could seal Congressional records, for example.

9.
The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.

Super dooper check. Pro said it himself at the end of round 2.

10.
The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

Check and mate.

My thanks to FanboyMctroll for this opportunity to brush up on JFK assassination facts & mythology.
If readers believe as I do that Pro has failed to make a convincing case for CIA complicity in the Kennedy Assasination, please vote CON.

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com...
[2] http://www.gallup.com...
[3] https://www.archives.gov...
[4] http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
[5] http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ragnar 11 months ago
Ragnar
PLAGIARISM

Kind of obvious from the non-sourced quotations, but...
Some sentences were taken straight from Wikipedia, others were copied from a conspiracy theory book, and who knows where the rest was assembled from...

https://books.google.com...'s%20account%20and%20the%20autopsy%20findings%2C%20inconsistencies%20between%20the%20autopsy%20findings%20and%20what%20was%20reported%20by%20witnesses%20at%20the%20scene%20of%20the%20murder%2C%22&f=false
Posted by Ragnar 11 months ago
Ragnar
It wasn't murder, it was a very cleverly executed suicide. :)
Posted by levi_smiles 11 months ago
levi_smiles
Thanks, Ockham. Please note that I deliberately refrained from debating points beyond CIA culpability since those were the parameters of the debate. As stated in Round 1, my job was not disprove conspiracy but to show that Pro could not prove CIA complicity. If you think Ruskies or the Mob might have done it, even you think the CIA might be involved but haven't been proved to be involved then I've done my job.
Posted by Ockham 11 months ago
Ockham
This was a really good debate, I was bouncing back and forth between the two sides in every round. In my view, Con's strongest round was round 2, and Pro's strongest round was round 3. Con's round 3 was somewhat weak because he did not engage with the facts much beyond pointing out that they don't strictly entail that the CIA was involved.

Overall, I would probably give Con the arguments points, but it is close enough that I can't say for sure I wouldn't vote Pro if Pro had spoken last. I would also give Con the sources points since that is basically mandatory when Pro did not provide sources.
Posted by JamesCroft 1 year ago
JamesCroft
I know a ton of people who think the JFK assassination was by the CIA but I don't know anyone that believes JFK didn't get shot. I am looking forward to seeing how this goes down.
Posted by Phenenas 1 year ago
Phenenas
I would accept this very serious debate, Fanboy Mctroll, but I just don't know if I can compete with someone of postdoctoral credentials.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 11 months ago
Ragnar
FanboyMctrolllevi_smilesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case hinges on how he'll provide his evidence three months from now... Good luck with that, but in the mean time that does not support the claim that the CIA murdering JFK is even more likely than not, let alone that it's not a conspiracy theory (which by nature, any claim of a conspiracy is). Con focused on proving how bogus the theory is, and supported it with quality sources such as Scientific America, government sources (which pro states the government will reveal himself to be a prophet, so .gov gets extra credibility), and even a video to disprove some of pro's allegations. ... Finally pro decided his own points are so awful, that they must be plagiarized to further discredit himself, costing conduct (link in comment section).