How to Read the JFK Assassination Files | Hacker News Reader

How to Read the JFK Assassination Files

politico.com

169 pointswslh133 comments

One of the best Radiolab episodes I've heard was Mau Mau[1], which chronicled the uncovering of thousands of documents pertaining to the British Empire in Kenya. The extent to which history must be rewritten is stunning, only to be surpassed by the brutality of the English.

Not that releasing the JFK assassination files would rewrite an extensive period of history, but the precedent remains: the grim truth of history often lies forever buried in the archives of state.

[1] http://www.radiolab.org/story/mau-mau/

off-topic opportunity: should history be taught in school ? it's a weird blend of nationalist myth, folklore, ignorant (or not) lies and revisionnism.

ps: people I didn't mean to stay ignorant, but hinting at rethinking what we're teaching. History is extremely subtle and trimmed far too much for kids (hence the bad blend I described above).

Absolutely. It should be taught because knowing history informs our present and future decisions. At the same time, we should educate young people on the realities of one-sided history and the constantly evolving landscape of history. Teach kids to seek more multiple sources and interpretations.

That's the kind of idea I was trying to raise in comments. Criticizing the state of education doesn't mean wishing for no education.

Just a thought: growing up I had moved around the country a bit, and perhaps this led me to be introduced to wildly different ideas about history. For example, I was taught both the States Rights and the Slavery motives of the civil war, in both primary school and in Uni! Another: My history texts taught me to be once quite strongly of the belief that the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary, and even saved lives, until a nice old prof in uni showed me that Eisenhower and many military leaders either strongly condemned it, pointing that the Japanese were already negotiating surrender, or said it be at least not dropped on urban population centres, as there was already a complete naval blockade and they had no ability to continue the war.

> My history texts taught me to be once quite strongly of the belief that the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary, and even saved lives

So that's where that attitude / excuse comes from whenever I talk to americans about the bombings of Japan?! Is that literally taught in history classes? It always seemed to me like a statement made by an indoctrinated mind. It was nuclear bombs used on civilians in two densely populated cities. How can people spin that into something good?

The typical narrative is that millions of American and Japanese lives would have been lost fighting for the home islands. The Japanese were pretty intent on dying for the cause if their leadership chose to do so.

The bit left out in most history books is the fact that the atomic bomb was used not to destroy Japanese cities but instead to demonstrate to the Soviets, who by an earlier treaty, had declared war on Japan and were invading from the North, that the US could oppose them in both Japan and Europe.

The US didn't really need to use atomic weapons for any tactical reason. Fire bombing had already proven that a city could be wiped out with traditional ordinance.

This is true. What's more is that Hirohito, when asked about terms of surrender, said that he would

That said, "there was no reason to use that awful thing" as Eisenhower said. Truman was "itching to use the bomb" to deter the Soviets in Europe and Asia.

There wasn't any reason for a land invasion and military leaders in the US echoed this, and they were already defeated and going through conditions of surrender. Hirohito was a really bad guy, and stubbornly refused any terms that would have him step down. Miscommunication then led to the bomb drop, which few know. If you want to know more about this Google the 'Mokusatsu incident.'

Then in a massive miscarriage lf justice, Hirohito remained royalty and Tojo was martyred as "the bad guy."

It may be biased, but the alternative, having no formal history lessons, is far worse. At the very least it provides a shared cultural identity, and presents lessons learned from the past.

Hopefully moving forward we won't have to worry so much about the revisionism. With everything being documented the internet, we most likely will just have to content with sifting through it all to find the truth.

>> It may be biased, but the alternative, having no formal history lessons, is far worse.

110%. In America, I would say we ought to be teaching history as fast as possible: We are a Republic of immigrants, fighting for the preservation of an idea - The Constitution of the United States of America. By the way, that constitution happens to make us all equal by default. That's a pretty important lesson for us here to remember in these divisive political times.

> the alternative, having no formal history lessons, is far worse

It depends. If the history lessons are strongly indoctrinating, then it's better not to have them. How many of the very good principles of Communism are being dismissed because people have been taught that communism == the Russian implementation of it?

I strongly disagree: It is not nearly true that all knowledge, including all history, is ideological and false.

All knowledge is biased to some degree, just like all people are dishonest to some degree - but to say you cannot trust anyone at all or that everyone is equally trustworthy would plainly be a misapprehension of reality.

A good education teaches people to treat knowledge skeptically and develop judgment about it, but to dismiss it all is as ignorant as believing it all. As someone once said about IT security, 'there is no wisdom in trusting no one'.

I'll add the controversial (on HN) statement that such skill is what a liberal arts education teaches, and I believe it is the most valuable skill to learn.

Maybe we should have our worst historical enemies write our history textbooks for us.

That's a very adversarial view of the world.

Maybe we could:

- teach our more kids and adults to be healthier - teach them to be more than physically fit (as in master of slow and/or fast sport) - teach them to be wise about society, groups and empathy - teach them to be stronger emotionally

It's probably possible to have a culture that is strong yet friendly to foreigners, traits that reinforce themselves because you don't fear.

It's lucky the American Revolution happened in 1776 before the British had all that industrial might to suppress rebellions that they used in the Boer war and their other brutal colonial repressions.

There are plenty of far more brutal methods of suppression used long before the Industrial Revolution, unfortunately.

It gave the Americans the chance to use it on the native Americans. The first concentration camps were American, not British.

The Romans beat the Americans to the punch by millennia.

Not so lucky for Black slaves in America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

Instead they would need to wait until 1865, 33-23 years later..

On a similar note, most Iranians blame the British, who were occupying the country at the time, for the Persian famine of 1917–1919. It is by some accounts estimated that up to half the population died in the famine, while the British were using the agricultural output for their war efforts and enacting policies that made the situation worse. Its portrayal in Iran is like a more aggravated version of the Irish famine.

However, outside of Iran few believe this accounts, precisely because there are few written documents available about what went on during the famine and what role, if any, the British government had in it. If the documents were released, we would have a definite answer after a century, but I don't think they will be declassified and released anytime soon.

something like that would really mess with the current narrative the west uses to explain Iran

This isn't a stretch to believe. I'm British too.

We did something similar with India. We also allowed the Irish famine to happen too.

History does say we were not a very kind empire - causing famine was not beyond us.

I was under the impression that British schools still teach that colonies actually benefited from British occupation. Looks like you went out of the way to learn the reality. Kudos!

It’s just not mentioned anymore... at least in state schools. We will look back at the American empire just as fondly I’m sure.

At some point, maybe ten years ago, I realized that with the internet today it's sometimes incredibly easy to see and expose national biases...

One of the tricks I came up with back then: Look up any Wikipedia article on US involvement in Latin America. Change the language from English to Spanish. Same topic. Sometimes vastly different reality.

That is indeed one major, unsung positive of Wikipedia's multi-lingual system.

I do it regularly (across a couple of languages other than English) when reading about current events, cultural artifacts, political entities, and most of all history.

This makes multilingualism seems incredibly important (which I think it is)

It depends from case to case, you can't generalise. Ask people in Hong Kong if they prefer to be part of China instead of a British colony for example.

A fairer comparison would be between autonomy vs British colony.

The fariest comparison is all 3: ruled by China, British colony, autonomy. Clearly they'd prefer to not be in China.

Well, that's not really a comparison at all. "Would you like to be a colony of evil empire A or evil empire B?"

Depends on when you asked them.

And who you ask -- eg. the homeless living in unimaginable slums might give a different answer.

That said, most of the colonies fought hard for getting rid of the British.

The world is not black and white. The british built infrastructure that is still being used today. Like their railway system. They also educated the populace.

Railways to take away raw materials.

Educated? India's literacy rate in 1947 was 12%

Look at british literacy rate when they became a big empire. https://www1.umassd.edu/ir/resources/laboreducation/literacy...

Even though it might be because of industrialization and not colonization, India could have industrialized faster without being a colonial subject.

Swings and roundabouts really, not everything they did was bad and not everything was good.

That's a poor excuse all the colonizators and invaders always use - "We buit something there! We brought good and civilization to the wild bloodthirsty pagans! White man's burden anyone?"

Not really. Locals would build it as well, just maybe later. Technology spreads disregarding the governments or countries.

I said the world is not black and white. I did not say colonization was good or better than if it did not happen. The end situation was not universally bad. Some benefits remained. Anyone saying the countries would be in a better state now without colonization is speaking entirely out of their ass. Just like anyone saying the countries are better off as a result of it.

No intent to belittle any nation’s effort, but technology doesn’t spread evenly.

Technological advances secured West’s domination over much of the world for centuries, despite having smaller population. Competitors were brought to submission using superior technology — China (Opium wars), Native Americans, Japan (WW II) and nearly every case I can think of.

So, sooner is massively better than later.

Considering that India is still industrializing, I'd argue 1 century later is massively better than 4 century later.

A lot of British people (over 60% when polled I believe) are convinced that our Empire was a positive thing overall for the world. They tend to gloss over the uncomfortable parts.

I find it the most disgusting aspect of my country and its people. Nationalism at its worst.

It is amazing how uneducated a supposedly educated population can actually be. I know a lot of people here who would only have a vague idea that we even used to have an empire, most likely based on some period drama they watched on television.

As horrible as they were, the British Empire probably was a positive influence on the world. Without them I doubt we would be able to have a conversation 1000s of miles away right now.

The same argument can be made for the Roman Empire. Empires of the past are looked down on because they are a unified machine of violence, a center of evil we can point to and hate.

Creating civilization is brutal, but the alternative is much scarier. A world of tribes and decentralized violence & oppression toward no end. Just as much pain, but not recorded, all in vain.

Is civilization even good? Civilization seems to be on track to destroy everything and everyone: http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-insect-population-fly...

Please don't post unsubstantive comments or (especially) take threads in generic directions. Signal/noise gets steadily worse when you do that because people have fewer substantive things to say and get louder about them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

This sounds very much like the 'white man's burden' of having a moral obligation to 'civilise savages'.

Isn't it? Should we have allowed the Indians to call on such savage practice as suttee? One of the greater horrors of post colonial sub continent africa is how little education reached the populace and the savage beliefs that perpetuate atrocities even now. Imagine if we had been able to teach them that they didn't need to kill and mutilate albinos for example?

The West was still full of savage practices when suttee was outlawed, and the millions killed by colonialism outweigh the lives saved by this "education."

In these countries, as the population trends towards the billions, we will see the ongoing benefits of education.

If you're talking that kind of time frame, education did not require colonialism.

Are you glossing over the uncomfortable parts of the empire that had nothing to do with the British? The world wasn't great before the Empire came (a lot of it was under some other empire anyway) - The Brits did record a lot of their atrocities though, meaning there is an informational bias.

They certainly didn't where I went to school, in the 80s. It really wouldn't surprise me if this was the case in some schools now though.

We've basically semi-privatised a lot of our schools under the academy system - they are run like businesses and have a lot more freedom over the curriculum leading to all sorts of horror stories.

Horror story linky?

When I studied history, quite a few British schools didn’t teach history as a timeline it was more like a series of case studies, which were designed to help you understand primacy of sources and how to analyse information. I studied History of Medicine, the Blitz in my local area, Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland, the Plains Indians in the US. So, for me, colonialism would have only come up as part of the discussion of the context for Bloody Sunday.

That wasn't my experience, though we didn't cover the empire specifically. In fact, each term or so was based on a theme that covered a period e.g Tudors, Victorians, ancient Egypt, ancient Rome.

I also went to a Catholic faith school so I think there was already good reason to be honest with history. England was not very kind to Catholics either - apparently a BBC show demonstrates this quite well.

My learnings about the empire have been through personal curiosity. At first, the whole "largest empire in history" was a curiosity. The more I learned, however, the more disgusted I became.

It wasn't just you. The other European colonization efforts likewise destroyed the lives of millions of people. I always get a chuckle when I see Europeans deriding the American Empire. Pot calling the kettle black much?

" I always get a chuckle when I see Europeans deriding the American Empire. Pot calling the kettle black much?"

You can't put all European countries in a single pot here, only a small part of them were leading empires. Most of other countries/nations were incorporated in empires against their will and suffered greatly too.

Hm ... Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Dutch, Austria, Russia ... just come to my mind, when I think of european empires.

So what "most other nations" are left, except for some easterns states?

There are 50 sovereign countries in Europe[0], you named 9, so that just illustrates my point. And that doesn't even include nations that have no independence, often taken away during reigning of neighboring empire.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

Those I named, had by far the majority of the european people in them. And what is your point linking to current european states, when were speaking of historic europe?

And that not all the people them were happy patriots, sure - thats common in empires. (and I don't like empires btw.) But the ordinary person was pretty much pro empire at that time. And that meant also conquering and ruling other nations and people.

You left out the Duchy of Kurland and Semigallia, now part of Latvia, who had a colony in Africa. Everyone can play.

Yeah, England, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands and France were the main colonial powers, which is why it seems a bit unfair to blame the British, which includes Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland, who were just as poorly treated by the English.

And the next world power is China, let's see how they will do

They are buying lots of land in Europe that is for sure.

Don't forget their current investments in Africa

Which big empire was not like this?

Except the overwhelming majority of Europeans alive today, including those in power, have come of age at a time when their country's colonial efforts were already a thing of the past, so it's hardly fair to throw them in with their parents' or grandparents' generation.

The European colonization build countries from nothing, forming an upper class which led the decolonization effort and formed the leading class of the new countries. So there might have lives destroyed, but there were also lives created.

> I always get a chuckle when I see Europeans deriding the American Empire. Pot calling the kettle black much?

Firstly, Europe is not a country, it is a continent of countries and many did not partake in colonialism. Referring to Europe as one homogenous group is one reason Americans are derided, because it is ignorant.

Secondly, the US has an unhealthy superiority complex and considers itself exceptional among all other nations, despite being pretty much the same as any other Empire that has existed in the past.

The fact that (to an outside observer) they consider themselves immune to the weakness that destroyed previous superpowers is another reason they are derided, because those weaknesses are pretty apparent to anyone who isn't a flag-waving jingoist fanatic.

Thirdly, those countries that did engage on colonialism no longer do and the people living there today have basically nothing to do with it. They deride Americans because they are in fact engaging in colonial-type practices today, despite the lessons of the past.

>Thirdly, those countries that did engage on colonialism no >longer do and the people living there today have basically >nothing to do with it.

Right having, companys to do it for you, with support of bribed locals- moral advances- they are basically more abstraction layers to the horrors.

> Secondly, the US has an unhealthy superiority complex and considers itself exceptional among all other nations

It is an exception (I speak as a European). It was the last of the great powers, and the first to figure out that a loan is a better weapon than a gun. The American empire is qualitatively different from all European empires.

> They deride Americans because they are in fact engaging in colonial-type practices today, despite the lessons of the past.

Don't kid yourself that Europeans just happened to learn how immoral empire is at the exact moment their empires fell apart. It's more like the Americans figured out (lucked into?) a better form of empire, and nobody could compete with their first-mover advantage.

We'll see if China can outcompete America at its own game, I guess.

>Firstly, Europe is not a country, it is a continent of countries and many did not partake in colonialism. Referring to Europe as one homogenous group is one reason Americans are derided, because it is ignorant.

Aren't you being just as ignorant when you talk about Americans as one homogeneous group? Just because it is one country doesn't mean each state isn't as distinct as every country in the EU. Alabama and Oregon are as different as France and Slovakia.

>Secondly, the US has an unhealthy superiority complex and considers itself exceptional among all other nations, despite being pretty much the same as any other Empire that has existed in the past.

There are places in the US where a lot of people feel this way, but in my experience the majority don't feel this way. At least where I live most people have traveled extensively outside the US and don't feel superior. Again your are ignorantly lumping all Americans together and imply that we all feel the same way when really it's just a vocal minority in certain states.

>Thirdly, those countries that did engage on colonialism no longer do and the people living there today have basically nothing to do with it.

That doesn't mean anything. White Americans today have basically nothing to do with black slavery, yet we still have to face the consequences of what white americans did in the past. In fact I've research my family history down every line back to when they came to the new world, and I know for a fact that none of my ancestors were involved in slavery. But as a white american I don't get a free pass on slavery just because I can prove I and mine had nothing to do with it.

Likewise, as a European, you don't get a free pass on colonialism just because it wasn't you specifically that participated in it. People today are still suffering as a result of your past colonialist actions and policies.

I would say the British did more than just allow the famine to happen. Exporting grain from Ireland during the famine caused the deaths of thousands. http://ighm.org/exports-in-famine-times/

I couldn't remember the specifics but I was going to say something a bit more charged i.e directly made it worse. I wasn't sure if it was a similar deal to the Indian famine but clearly was.

The point is, you (your nation state) are still doing it.

I've been on a WWI kick lately, and I can absolutely believe that. I'd love to see a good written account.

WWI was a weird point in history when we could build immovable objects, but not yet create unstoppable forces. So the great powers built two massive immovable objects, and simply ground them against each other, day after day, because they didn't really know what else to do. Lubricating those grinding surfaces with men and materiel became an existential requirement for those powers, and the British drained the colonies, and themselves, of wealth in order to survive. Incidentally, lots of that wealth ended up in the US, which had a nice line in war profiteering going on for a lot of WWI.

I feel for everyone who died because of that stupid bloody war, but I'm not sure I can blame the British: once they'd got themselves into that situation they didn't have much choice. I don't even blame the Americans for profiting - all the other great powers were busy tearing each other apart because of their 19th century mindsets, it would be kinda stupid for the Americans, with their thoroughly 20th century mindset, not to just sit back and watch.

>However, outside of Iran few believe this accounts

Few? This is the most mainstream narrative in the parts of Europe I know of.

This is a very subtle and well-crafted comment. I'll probably get downvotes for saying this but there is a lot written between the lines here.

Top rated comment with nothing to do with the topic.

Thanks dang

Hypothetically, if a group of people was willing to go to all the trouble of breaking laws to assassinate a President, what's forcing them to be honorable in producing and releasing information implicating themselves?

It seems any excitement is contingent on believing not just in the conspiracy, but also in extreme incompetence, no?

> It seems any excitement is contingent on believing no just in the conspiracy, but also in extreme incompetence, no?

This kind of belief is more common than you might expect. There's arguably a whole genre of "faceless enemy" in various worldviews that is blatantly corrupt/incompetent/inferior while also being overwhelmingly disciplined and powerful.

Well, put it this way... when an outcome is the product of a collective of individuals, some members of the group may be more competant than others, and different tasks might be carried out with varying degrees of success. Taking it a step further, a group comprised of multiple teams might have one very disciplined team for highly demanding critical tasks, surgical strikes, site reliability, and several weak teams for grunt work, digging ditches, scraping logs, whatever.

In such scenarios, you might see gaps open up in areas viewed as optional drudgery, or dull thankless conveniences.

Consider the Lufthansa heist depicted in the movie Goodfellas. It involved some highly motivated gangsters, who enlisted some sloppy flunkies for assistance. Guys like the getaway driver screwed up and got whacked for failing to dump the getaway car without incident, inviting paranoia that they might arouse suspicion. Then, as paranoia magnified over time, the displined core erased every untrustworthy witness.

The principal stakeholders in an operation will often possess power and skill, but their accomplices might not.

They might all be dead by now.

> Hypothetically, if a group of people was willing to go to all the trouble of breaking laws to assassinate a President, what's forcing them to be honorable in producing and releasing information implicating themselves?

This "hypothetically" begs the question and assumes that some three-letter acronym plotted to kill JFK.

> but also in extreme incompetence, no?

You contradict yourself. If the supposed plotters were so incompetent, how could they have pulled this off and kept the supposed cover-up alive for so long?

Theories don't all implicate the US government. There are notions of Russian/Cuban involvement, for example.

Wasn't that the theory put forward by the US government? That Oswald was a communist agent?

No, the theory put forward by the U.S. government was that he was a lone actor (with Communist sympathies).

Had we believed that an agent of a foreign state had assassinated our head of state, we'd have been obliged to go to war.

Based on other comments in HN it appears that a large amount of key documents have been "lost". I've never checked the source, but many threads about the files mention that.

It's not the same people?

If there was a conspiracy it would have been a small clique (most of whom would now be dead) not the whole government or even official channels thereof. In other words it would have been a crime.

These files were slated to be released as ordered by Congress after the JFK film.

BTW TIL Trump is trying to claim credit for what is a scheduled release.

I would be surprised if the releases containing anything especially new, but the government most certainly maintains incriminating information on themselves. For instance we now know that the FBI discovered compromising information on MLK and tried to black mail him into suicide. [1] They also discovered his infidelity through surveillance and contacted his wife again trying to damage his character. This was all well documented and maintained for decades after it had happened. If you want death and murder, there's things like US involvement in Operation Condor [2] which was long speculated but finally fully verified by documents declassified under Clinton. And there are countless other examples.

Releases staggered by decades come with great plausible deniability. Is the FBI today responsible for what the FBI of the past did to MLK? If anything relevant was revealed, I'd expect the modern versions of the involved agencies to be the first condemn those actions. Whether that's genuine or not is practically impossible to know. But it's almost certainly sufficient to ensure they'll never face any meaningful consequences for their actions.

[1] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor#U.S._involvem...

If King's affairs are real then why are they not more widely known? I haven't seen any conclusive evidence other than Hoover's letter.

I'd imagine mostly because it's not really relevant, and the media at the time wasn't the tabloid circus that it is today.

Among King's lovers was Georgia Davis Powers, first black senator of Kentucky, who wrote about their affair. According to her for instance she slept with him the night before he was assassinated at the Lorraine Motel. She was climbing into the ambulance to go with him until another individual reminded her of how inappropriate it would be. These are some pretty specific claims coming from a reputable source with 0 motivation to lie, that could be easily falsified.

The letter also mentions another lover by name and implies there was an attached audio recording of King with the classy phrasing, "Lend your sexually psychotic ear to the enclosure..." That audiotape is set to be publicly released in 2027. And then there is the bio of Ralph Abernathy, King's successor at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the man King described as "the best friend I have in the world." Within his bio he discussed King's (and his own) regular infidelities.

Because we like to imagine that our heroes are perfect. Martin Luther King, Jr. was an heroic defender of civil rights for blacks; he also cheated on his wife & plagiarised. His misdeeds don't make his deeds any less great, but … we don't like to think about them.

Didn't know about MLK blackmail. Reminds me of what happened to Hemingway. [1] Sometimes when you have paranoia it doesn't mean that you're crazy.

[1] - https://stevehuff.net/2015/07/02/ernest-hemingways-justified...

Yeah, like if burglars taped a door open and a security guard found it and instead of reporting it he untaped it and then they came back and taped it again.

Its not like in books.

Usually I'm opposed to "read these documents the way we tell you to" articles a la CNN but this was a case of judging a book by its cover on my part, with little mention of Trump. Kudos Politico.

2,800 of the 3,100 documents have been released. April 26, 2018 is apparently the new date for the remainder of the documents to be reviewed by the President and potentially released.

Good use of his time clearly...

Maybe he's trying to avoid the same fate as JFK.

Haven't they had several decades to review it?...

He wanted a chance to Tweet about it first ?

I wonder how many of the documents Trump read?

Something about this puts me in conspiracy-theory mode: Like: what did the deep state offer Trump in order to keep parts of the investigation still secret?

I stumbled recently on this improved video of the assassination - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc

I saw a documentary which analyzed footage found around 2000 iirc (discovered old footage) of the murder. The conclusion was that due to the wound exit, the shooter could never have been Oswald. It convinced me.

Who does the American public currently believe to be the shooter? Is there consensus for some theory?

> Who does the American public currently believe to be the shooter?

What does this have to do with anything? Reality isn't a democracy.

It's absolutely possible the shot came from Oswald. Tastelessness aside, try playing JFK Reloaded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded). Claiming the ballistics don't make sense is as debunked as claiming jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

They melted. There's no doubt about that. I should note that NIST disagrees with you if you mean they melted before the three buildings were destroyed... or after. http://archive.is/5dz5G more: http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Prete...

Turns out jet fuel can catalyze fires that burn hotter than jet fuel.

It's interesting. Oxygen poor fires that melt steel and last for months. http://archive.is/VrfXW

> claiming jet fuel can't melt steel beams

Just note: Jet Fuel probably can't melt steel beams, because steel has a significantly higher melting point than the temperature of jet fuel.

Of course, Steel Beams are about as strong as a wet-noodle at Jet-fuel temperatures: https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA?t=1m55s

Which of course, would cause the towers to collapse.

But seriously, Jet Fuel doesn't "melt" steel beams. It just weakens them tot he point where they break easily. You can't make ANY mistakes when talking to a conspiracy theorist. They are right about the melting point of steel, but that doesn't help their argument at all.

Also there were documented hotspots that were in excess of steel melting temperature. This was due to regular office debris being burnt quickly, thanks to the jet fuel that had catalyzed it when it sprayed out into the center and floors above and below the crash site. I read about this in the excellent 9/11 debunk series by Popular Mechanics.

PM is correct about the hotspots existing. Here are the AVIRIS files: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/AVIRIS_Flightlines

We tried the (UL approved) office debris theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw (yt may axe that chan)

Conspiracy theorists will come up with anything to prove themselves correct.

For example:

> Also there were documented hotspots that were in excess of steel melting temperature.

This will be evidence for the Thermite that the "Big Bad Government" planted in the towers to make it an inside job.

--------

When talking to a conspiracy theorist, do NOT challenge them to a facts battle. You take their facts that they tell you, and you debunk what they're saying individually. The vast majority of 9/11 Truthers believe in "Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams", so you must FOCUS on this argument.

A conspiracy theorist will always, always, ALWAYS "out fact" you. Because their community is making up bull----, they have way more "facts" than you ever will have. You can't win by "breadth" of argument, you can only win with "depth" of argument.

NEVER broaden an argument against a conspiracy theorist. That's how they win.

I get it now, I will practice that more. But won't you be breadthening the argument by saying the steel was weakened and not melted and then they will ask about how beads of steel were reportedly seen or recorded?

> But won't you be breadthening the argument by saying the steel was weakened and not melted and then they will ask about how beads of steel were reportedly seen or recorded?

But I didn't say that "The steel didn't melt". All that I said was "Jet Fuel probably can't melt steel beams".

This has two effects:

1. It makes the Conspiracy Theorist more willing to listen to you because you agree to their premise. You have to learn to "pick your battles" so to speak, and "giving your opponent a bone" so that they continue the discussion is rather important.

2. If higher temperatures WERE documented, that doesn't disprove the premise: that the Towers _could_ have collapsed under lower temperatures.

"Get over it. Find a job".

That was one of the best videos I've ever watched. Thanks for reminding me about it.

Indeed, Uri Geller manages to make spoons break by applying some heat to them, no melting needed.

Steel and jet fuel weren't the only combustibles. I think they burn hot enough to ignite the airplane's aluminum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Reality isn't a democracy.

Most people are actually quite intelligent and generally rational. If a large number of people finding something unconvincing is very often an indication that it warrants further investigation. Sometimes it turns out that all those people are wrong, but also, sometimes it doesn't.

Look at the percentage of americans that reject the theory of evolution or climate change, and then give me this argument again.

You probably would be interested in the results of United States House Select Committee on Assassinations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_C...

> I saw a documentary which analyzed footage found around 2000 iirc (discovered old footage) of the murder. The conclusion was that due to the wound exit, the shooter could never have been Oswald. It convinced me.

According to Wikipedia, what you may be thinking of is a 2007 discovery of an previously unknown film of that day taken over a minute before the shooting.

That exactly three shots were fired is fairly well-established by the available evidence. That a single shot went through Kennedy's back and throat into Connally is incredibly well-established. This ends up meaning that theories with a second shooter create even larger holes than they're trying to close with the second shooter, sort of like 9/11 controlled demolition theories.

> Who does the American public currently believe to be the shooter? Is there consensus for some theory?

I believe the majority of Americans believe Oswald to be the sole shooter. While a majority do believe in some conspiracy theory, I think the bulk of the conspiracy theory tends to be that Oswald was the shooter for some nebulous conspiratorial group.

I don't know the film you're referring to, but 100% of the available physical evidence points to Oswald.

<never have been Oswald. It convinced me.

If you ever go to Dallas visit the Sixth Floor (jfk.org). A 30min - 2 hour visit. Stand near where oswald stood. Talk to employee/volunteers about jfk the movie and other theories.

It's moving and if you were alive in '63 a place you recognize

Yeah, i'm not from america but i'd favor a theory similar to 9/11, it could have been stopped but incompetency and paperwork allowed this to happen, hence the non-disclosure. Incompetency explain this as well as conspiracy, and respect Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

Right now the consensus is that it is Ted Cruz's dad.

When I was young and loved the movie JFK I thought it was a huge conspiracy. Then I went to Daley plaza, its so much smaller than it seems on tv, that window is really close. I think any reasonably trained shooter could have got him.

A movie that set up Jim Garrison as one of its heroes was going to have problems.

> The single bullet theory, while almost certainly true, was ridiculed in the film, as was Specter, by name.

What about the Zapruder film?

What about it? Genuine question, I don’t know what you mean.

It's basically the best footage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY (as expected, its gory)

Frame 225 has JFK's throat wound, with the headshot at 313.

You've most likely seen this footage many times over the years.

Other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15564292

Hijacking this thread to repeat my comments from another thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15565134

Such a solid article. Refreshing to read this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com