Dave Reitzes' Skeptic Essay

On 9/10/13, David Reitzes wrote: I'm very pleased to announce the publication of a new article in one of my favorite magazines:

http://www.pocketmags.com/viewmagazine.aspx?titleid=992&title=Skeptic

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/app/

JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50
How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters

by David Reitzes
Cover illustration by Pat Linse and Ed Pastor

[BK Notes: I will post a link to reading the article on line as soon as I can.]

Kelly Reads and Responds to Reitzes' Skeptic Essay

Congratulations David, getting it published is an achievement in itself, and quoting the publisher Michael Shermer, - "...the point is to use critical thinking to properly access the evidence,.." must have helped.

While David Lifton has also read it and considers it superficial hogwash and balloney, I think it is a good start for beginners - as an overall synopsis, though as Lifton points out, it only deals with
decades old issues, most of which have been satisfied years ago. DSL, like most real researchers, is too busy to stop doing serious work on the subject to respond in full, but I'll give it a go.

David, knowing you since before you changed your stripes I thought it would be all old hat but you even surprised me with the RFK quote:

"You know that fella Harvey Lee Oswald, whatever his name is, set something loose in this country,"

and in writing it I'm sure you had to twitch when John Armstrong pinched you.

Well you can't argue with that, Ozzie the Rabbit certainly did set something loose in this country, and I follow you without interuption up until you make the statement - "...careful and sober analysis of the evidence affirms the (Warren) Commission's conclusions and vanquishes the arguments of the skeptics."

Wooohhh, there David, you didn't footnote that item, where did you get that?

"Careful and sober,...affirms and vanquishes..." are strong words and clearly untrue in the context you put them.

You quote Shermer and threaten to properly assess the evidence, but then go into a litanny of descriptions of conspiracy theories and those who espouse them - taking first aim at Jeff Morley, currently the most popular whipping boy simply because he is one of the most
objective and respected, and Vince Salandria, the original Skeptic. Rather than just take your word for it, people should check out the web presence of both Morley and Salandria, and pay close attention to what they say because both of whom provide key insights into important aspects of the assassination.

Though you don't mention it, Morley is one of the best at doing what you ask - "distinguishing verifiable evidence from idle speculation," (and he does so routinely at JFKFacts.com). How do you managed to mention Morley without saying a peep about his FOIA suit against the CIA? - and its here in the article that you should have called for the release of all the assassination records that remain sealed.

And Dave, your use of Hugh Aynesworth as a source should have come with a qualifier, as he is not only a living witness to the scenes of many crimes - he is also a witting CIA asset who is known to have, in conjunction with another CIA asset (Joe Goulden), promoted disinformation. You quote Aynesworth as saying that witnesses "made up things" from the get go, but fail to note that he was one of the reporters that passed on Oswald's fake FBI number, a number that he had made up.

Because some witness testimony has been shown to be wrong, and Aynesworth interviewed witnesses on the Grassy Knoll who made things up, you dismiss all witness testimony, and then extend that to all the Parkland witnesses because they saw entrance wounds to the front and exit wound in the back. Secret Service agent Clint Hill also saw a gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, while he was still in the car and when he was in the casket. Dissmissing all witness reports because some have been shown to be wrong is some extension in logic.

At that point you should have questioned why they don't just dig up the body today and give JFK the proper forensic autopsy he should have.

And Dave, it just isn't true that "...the critical point has always been whether there was a second gunman."

No it isn't, the case for conspiracy does not rest with multiple gunman, as one good one would do - a real good professional assassin - but those who claim Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK all by his lonesome - a major accomplishment -  but those who claim he did so illogically portray him as a deranged loser. How come he's the loner and looser and not the world's greatest assassin that he is if he did and did it alone?

Rather than the sober analysis of the evidence we get a broad outline of a half dozen now defunct conspiracy theories - count the gunman in Moorman, Tramps Like Us, Umbrella Man and Mysterious Deaths.

One day at Dealey Plaza a complete stranger showed me a newspaper photo of the original Moorman photo and what struck me was the clearly observable brain, flesh and blood matter that could be seen sprayed like in a Quintin Tarentino movie, which could be used for blood splatter anaylsis if a clear copy of the orignal still shows it.

And Dave, the Umbrella Man's excuse doesn't mean it wasn't true - bringing up appeasement and World War II and the sins of the Old Man - cuts to the heart of the murder - especially if the murder stemed from Washington and not Dallas. If the Umbrella Man brought up the word "appeasement" and "Munich" in regards to the JFK assassination, who brought those words up in the White House? LeMay.

As for the Mysterious Deaths, why not just eleminate all but those who were murdered - Rosselli, Giancana, Meyers, et al., and have those cold case homicides solved, all of which should provide new pieces to the JFK puzzle?

I could hardly get past your survey of the Usual Suspects, but not surprised that you buy into the idea that the KGB being behind the idea that the CIA killed Kennedy, and was sadden to see that you
totally discredit yourself with the inclination that Conspiracy Theorists don't practice safe sex or get vaccines.

You went too far over the edge there pal, and maybe should have taken it even further, like Paul Krasner did in The Realist - and create a scene that is even more disgusting than the murder itself.

And rather than being taken as serious journalism, which I didn't think you were aspiring towards  anyway, your article is deposited in the same file as the Dallas Diva Streaker and hey, did you see the
European commercial where the gun of a Dallas Cop goes off while he isdoing tricks with it - and accidently kills JFK?

Oh, well, if there's anyone out there who would like to do a careful and sober analysis of the evidence, let me know, because I'd like to do that.

Bill Kelly
JFKCountercoup.blogspot.com