Labels

[Charles Drago]

We could call ourselves "Warren Commission critics" or "assassination researchers" and the other side "Warren Commission supporters," but in the heat of internet battle it's easier to have Team CTer vs. Team LNer. No, I don't like it, but if I were to list all the things homo sapiens do that I don't approve of, this would be a very long post.

I understand that shorthand is sometimes necessary, and that abstraction (using a group concept to capture common characteristics) in one sense actually underlies thought. But I think Jim gets it right when he notes the rhetorical strategy involved: "sorry, conspiracy theorists" immediately conveys the most important part of the message: disparagement of anyone who would think the opposite; or to borrow from speech act theory, the illocutionary is more significant than what the apparent subject of the sentence is.

Yes, there are many, many things worse. But little concessions can also add up.

But wait!

Why label ourselves at all?

By now, most are familiar with my version of a concise, encompassing expression of JFK assassination fact:

"Anyone with reasonable access to JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that President Kennedy was killed as the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime."

In other words: If a person who allegedly has given thoughtful consideration to the critical established evidentiary facts in their entirety continues to ask the "single gunman acting alone or conspiracy" question OR argues the former position, then there are four, and only four conclusions to be drawn:

1. He/she in fact does not enjoy reasonable access to the evidence.

2. He/she is suffering from physical and/or emotional maladies sufficient to impair cognitive function.

3. He/she is wittingly supporting efforts to obstruct justice and thus is an accessory-after-the-fact to homicide.

3. Some/all of the above.

THAT is how strong the evidence for conspiracy is in this closed case.

Next, understand that we will be pressed for facts. This is only fair.

Our first response: Don't expect two- or three-word explanations of one of history's most complex criminal cases.

So render your best detailed paraphrase of my original construction, but understand that your statement must reflect and be empowered by metaphysical certitude: infallible assent of the mind to a proposition; necessary truth demonstrated from self-evident truth; unwavering assent of the mind to what things necessarily are in their essences and natures; admitting of no exceptions.

We must be prepared to stipulate that certain important questions regarding the "who" and "why" of the assassination remain unanswered. But we must never forget that it is our responsibility to direct attention to the primary, long-answered question:

"Was JFK killed by one gunman acting alone, or by conspirators?"

Next we must indicate that through the application of numerous investigative techniques, including the reverse-engineering of the operational realities of the shooting and the process of elimination (who could or could not have done it as it was done), we have narrowed down our lists of suspects.

Then comes one of the most important elements of our presentation: acknowledgment that no investigative progress whatsoever can be made absent the utilization of a viable conspiracy model (no, not Jada).

I would humbly suggest that you consider the Evica-Drago model. But I won't hold it against you if you don't.

Of course, you'll have to come up with a better version ...

Through it all, we must make it clear that we are NOT debating what is a long-settled issue. Nor would we participate in, say, a heliocentric v. geocentric universe debate. In both instances, it is the application of the scientific method that brings us with metaphysical certitude to our conclusions.

So ... No more labels.

Just the facts.

Just the truth.