A Question For Those Who Think Oswald Acted Alone

[WillyT]

I came home for lunch on November 22, 1963 (I was in the 3rd Grade) to find my mom sprawled on the couch sobbing uncontrollably. The TV was on and it had been just announced the Kennedy had been shot and killed. So I've been paying attention to this story in one former another, with all it's twists and turns, almost my entire life.

Our family kept the original newspapers that day, as well as the copies of Life and National Geographic magazines that dealt with the assassination. I watched the movie 'Executive Action' that tried to follow Mark Lane's first book (Rush To Judgment) on the murder. And when Oliver Stone's 'JFK' came out, although thoroughly enjoying that cinematic experience, I went right out to buy the two books it was based on to see what their evidence was. After reading those I bought several more.

Yet... easily over 90% of the people I've run into in my life who say that they know for sure that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy, when asked, have not read ANY scholarship on the assassination. Not a book, not an essay, not an article.

And I just wonder how that is possible for otherwise seemingly inquisitive people.

Could you let me in on your secret?

:shrug:

[El Supremo]

1. Because Oswald was such a freak nobody would want to work with him.

And I was in Dallas in the 7th grade that day. I have studied many reports.

Oliver Stone's JFK is one of the worst of them. Based on Garrison's attempt at fame.

[WillyT]

5. Garrison's Book Was One

What was the other?

:shrug:

[lame54]

131. Crossfire by Jim Marrs...

[mcablue]

19. You seem to have spent a lot of time with Oswald

Hehe.

[stray cat]

2. People are still well informed even if they haven't read Sarah Palin's or Beck's book

[applegrove]

3. Oswald was there. All it took was 3 or 4 shots. Nuff for me.

[mcablue]

21. Oswald did it because "he was there" and 3 or 4 shots were fired. Now THAT's a winning tactic!!

I'm going to become a prosecutor and accuse people of doing something because they "where there."

[avaistheone1]

31. The parrafin test the Dallas police gave Oswald proved he did not fire a rifle.

[FatDave]

78. No it didn't.

It proved he had no gunpowder residue on his hands. To say it proves he didn't fire a rifle is to jump to a conclusion.

It also doesn't mean that the only other possible explanation is that there was another shooter and a convoluted conspiracy. Maybe he ditched a pair of gloves and they never turned up. Why immediately leap to the fantastic and sensational when the mundane and plausible will do?

[rhett o rick]

103. And to consider more would just be too exhausting, right? Rationalization is the key to happyness.

[el_bryanto]

4. I can't speak for anybody else

But I don't know for sure what happened in Dallas 7 years before I was born. The bulk of the evidence however leads me to believe that the most likely scenario is that Oswald acted alone.

Bryant

[exboyfil]

6. I read Posner's Case Closed about 16 years

Before then I thought conspiracy. After that no conspiracy. Recently I have been reassessing (especially the two head shot theory). I also thought the body language of the detectives transporting Oswald gave away that they were expecting the Ruby killing.

[avaistheone1]

38. The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded the JFK likely was assassinated

as a result of a conspiracy.

I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/


Posner was wrong. After reading several other scholarly and well researched books on the Kennedy assassination I do not think Posner did a good job with his book at all.

[RufusTFirefly]

74. That's what author Larry Beinhart calls a "fog fact"

"Fog Facts are not secrets. They are facts that can have been published or that can be readily found, yet no one seems to be aware of them. Sometimes they’re buried by spin. Sometimes they’re just unnoticed. Sometimes they’re historical and we tend not to think about history."

Fog Facts

[NWHarkness]

7. Bugliosi's book convinced me

I read it with an open mind. I leaned toward the notion that there was a conspiracy, but Bugliosi methodically built a convincing case that Oswald acted alone.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. He did a good job making a compelling case

The conspiracy believers, who include a number of people I respect highly, have a lot of inference and potentials, but nothing concrete.

There are also a number of interesting theories about Kennedy's health that have reputable names behind it as well.

[ngant17]

16. Bugliosi's 5lb., 1000-pg. book has been widely discredited

because of its numerous inaccuracies and distortions of basic facts.
For example, neutron activation and parrafin tests on Oswald proved he never fired a gun that day yet this was considered by Bugiosi to be evidence.

Bugliosi in his book made 86 references to Robert Groden and 85 are inaccurate, according to Groden himself.

Mark Lane has promised a defamation suit if Bugliosi continues to misquote and slander him.

Bugliosi called Mrs. Acquila Clemons a "kook" even though she was an eyewitness to the Tippit murder and she stated to Dallas police that Oswald was not the shooter. The Warren Commission never uses her statements for the record.

There are many other distortions from other experts that Bugliosi uses in his book.

Oswald had ties to the anti-Castro movement while being an ardent communist?

Bugliosi says Clay Shaw was a Liberal, but he was a trusted asset of the CIA and had ties to Permindex. Clay Shaw's entire file will never be totally declassified.

LHO was a patsy, he said it and so did his good friend George de Mohrenschildt, who wrote an unpublished manuscript that essentially exhonerated him as the assassin.

[glitch]

25. Bugliosi's book scared the hell out of me re the bias professional prosecutors

must make to develop their cases.

Of course it is very important to fully develop just your own side as a prosecutor. But crikey! Simply listening to him speak about his book spotlighted his narrow focus to the point of logical fallacy. He reminded me of prosecutors who insist on believing their targets are guilty despite exonerating dna evidence. :scared:

Although I did appreciate the case he developed against the USSC re Bush v. Gore. But that was a much simpler case to argue.

[HamdenRice]

111. Exactly!!! Never rely on a book or argument by a litigator of any kind.

I worked in a law firm for several years and litigators are scary. We commercial types made sure they all stayed on the 11th floor. Every Monday, someone would take a crate of frozen raw zoo animal carcasses down to the 11th floor, open the door quicky and throw the meat in, and then bang the door shut and come back up to the civilized 12th floor. Other than that, we didn't really interact with them.

Just kidding.

But really litigators (including prosecutors) spend their whole professional lives learning how to make completely one sided arguments. There's no "on one side, and on the other side" with them, even in casual conversation. No book by a litigator should be trusted.

[johnnie]

62. Bugliosi also made a convincing case about Helter Skelter

But it wasn't the truth.

[glitch]

117. Good point. nt

[the other one]

8. You are wasting your time.

Surely you know that by now.

A better question for me, is why has the Obama administration welcomed Arlen Specter with open arms.

[WillyT]

11. Look... I'm Curious... I Can Respect People Who've...

read different books and come to different conclusions, or even the same books as I have and come to different conclusions.

But as you will see, and I'm sure you already know this, there are those that accept what they are told, the "official story", no questions asked.

Blows my mind...

[glitch]

89. So, what do you think about this thread you started?

For me no surprises, how about you?

[WillyT]

97. Not Surprised...

Fairly typical.

Some well read people who disagree with each other in their conclusions, and a whole lotta folk who have opinions that aren't based on much more than emotional drivel.

Ah well...

:shrug:

[glitch]

102. I still think the emotional drivel is the most interesting even if it is predictable.

It's a very strong desire to believe in some kind of simple order in an increasingly chaotic world IMO. A form of comforting reductionism.

Still, good thread; a few good links, not too many ad hominems. :)

[EFerrari]

9. I was a year behind you in school and ditto, my poor mom.

Most people I talk to (although I haven't asked in years) don't believe the Oswald story. I haven't believed it since the sixth grade. :shrug:

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. I've read several books on the assassination.

The preponderance of the evidence indicates that: a single bullet did in fact strike Kennedy and Connally, and that the bullet in question was fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and was from the same manufacturing lot of ammunition as that possessed by Oswald and loaded in the rifle. (Neutron activation analysis of recovered fragments and the decidedly NOT-pristine bullet recovered from Connally's stretcher at Parkland hospital along with comparison to Western Cartridge Co. 6.5mm Mannlicher ammunition bears this out; as does the reconstructed trajectory.) On the other side of the argument, there has been no compelling evidence to suggest it was anyone OTHER than Oswald, and in the past 46 years no other credible alternative has been put forward which fits with the evidence and known facts.

[merh]

18. Conally didn't believe that Oswald acted alone.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. What does what Connally believed have to do with what the physical evidence indicates?

Answer: nothing.

[merh]

26. The physical evidence does not support the lone gunman theory.

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. Yes, it does.

Neutron activation analysis of recovered fragments shows that the bullets that struck Kennedy and Connally were fired from Oswald's rifle. And reconstruction of the trajectory shows that the sixth floor of the school book depository is the most likely location. The evidence doesn't really support anything else.

[EFerrari]

39. House Select Committee didn't agree with you:

Conclusions regarding the JFK assassination

The HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:

1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
2. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations#Conclusions_regarding_the_JFK_assassination

[Spider Jerusalem]

46. The House Select Committee conclusion was based on questionable acoustic evidence.

Specifically a Dictabelt recording of an open-microphone transmission from a police motorcycle. Which was reviewed by the National Academy of Science in 1982 and found not to have any evidence of recorded gunfire at all.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm

[EFerrari]

56. Well, no, that's not what their report says. And even if it was,

that doesn't overturn the Congressional finding.

[Spider Jerusalem]

60. Actually it is what the report says.

The questionable acoustic evidence is the ENTIRE BASIS of the HSCA finding of possible conspiracy.

[avaistheone1]

66. McAdams information is outdated and he has too many factual holes.

From time to time visitors to my JFK web page ask me about John McAdams’ Kennedy Assassination Home Page. In this article I will respond to some of the claims that are presented on McAdams’ site. It is my contention that most of McAdams’ claims are wrong and that in some cases McAdams presents information that is badly outdated.

John McAdams is a university professor who believes strongly that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot President Kennedy. McAdams doesn’t believe a conspiracy of any kind was involved. McAdams believes the Warren Commission (WC) was correct in all its essential conclusions.

In McAdams’ opinion, anyone who defends the conspiracy position is a “conspiracy buff.” McAdams frequently refers to those who reject the lone-gunman theory as “buffs.” McAdams even applies this label to experts who speak about aspects of the assassination that involve their field of expertise. For example, when McAdams learned that a professor of neuroscience at a Canadian university rejected the lone-gunman view that Kennedy’s backward head snap was the result of a neuromuscular reaction, he opined that the professor was either a “buff” or had been spoon fed erroneous information by a critic of the lone-gunman theory.

McAdams’ attitude toward virtually anyone who disagrees with him about the assassination is somewhat surprising, given the fact that for the last three decades surveys have consistently shown that anywhere from 65-90 percent of the American people believe Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy (with about 5 percent undecided).

http://hidhist.wordpress.com/assassination/jfk/some-comments-on-john-mcadams-kennedy-assassination-home-page/


McAdams doesn't even acknowledge the obvious links with Jack Ruby and the mob. Sorry McAdams in not a reliable source.

[Spider Jerusalem]

70. And some random nutter whose site has links including 'New World Order'...

And also apparently a Holocaust 'revisionist' (read: denier), IS a credible source? HA! Sorry, but, no.

[avaistheone1]

79. McAdams is a disinformation agent. He is not highly regarded as an assasination scholar.

The Plot to Silence Truth

Since at least 1998, if you googled Kennedy Assassination you would invariably be gobbled up by one of John McAdams's multiple sites about the Kennedy Assassination. If the purpose of this obsession were to educate, it would be a proper use of Internet resources, but given the fact that it appears to be a blatant attempt to cover up the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the intent appears to be criminal in nature.

According to educator, John Simkin, "If you do any research of major figures in the JFK assassination via web search engines you will soon find yourself on John McAdams’ website. He is clearly the main disinformation source on the net. He adopts an academic tone and if one was not aware of the facts of the person or event he is writing about, one would think he has logically looked at the evidence available. He is therefore doing a successful job in misleading students about the JFK assassination. In fact, it could be argued that his impact has been as great as other disinformation agents such as David Atlee Phillips, G. Robert Blakey, Dick Billings, Jack Anderson, Gary Mack and Gerald Posner."

Ignore disinformation agents and study reliable sources like the following FBI-document of 1947, which recommends that "one Jack Rubenstein of Chicago" should not be called to testify for the Committee on Unamerican Activities, for he is working for Congressman Richard M. Nixon. According to the Warren Commission, Ruby had no connections with Oswald, Organized Crime or the Government.

http://surftofind.com/plot
http://crimemagazine.com/ongoing_cover.htm

[Spider Jerusalem]

81. I'm sorry, but you linked to a Holocaust denial site. So your sources? Not credible.

[EOTE]

119. Please show me where any of the links show anything approaching Holocaust denial.

I looked, and I wasn't able to find anything. I found a link on the Holocaust which claimed to debunk a Holocaust denial movie, but that's the opposite Holocaust denial. There was also a bit of discrediting a youtube series that contained conspiratorial information regarding the Holocaust. Seems like like poisoning the well to me than having a legitimate beef with the site.

[avaistheone1]

76. Science and Justice took the NRC study apart and found it was seriously flawed.

Check it out.

http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/Thomas.pdf


btw The Select House Committee on Assassinations conclusion still stands JFK likely died as the result of a conspiracy

[avaistheone1]

43. The House Select Committee on Assassinations ruled conspiracy.

Likely there was more than one shooter. That is the official record of the the U.S. government after reviewing all the available evidence. Likely CONSPIRACY and more than on shooter in the JFK assassinating.

I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. See reply above.

[merh]

54. The medical witnesses who observed and treated Kennedy

dispute the evidence as it exists today.

There are just as many experts that have found that the fatal shot did not come from the rear as those that say it did. They have reached that conclusion in the same manner that, viewing the same video and evidence.

Connally, being an eye witness disputes the conclusions reached, that is evidence. Fifty-eight eye witnesses on that day gave statements that there was gun fire from the grassy knoll. That disputes the facts as you have accepted them.

I could go on, but for folks like you, it isn't worth it. You accept what you are told and that is cool. Some folks have to believe the government to feel secure.

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. Emergency medical personnel dealing with massive head trauma...

in a rushed and disordered situation are highly unlikely to remember things with perfect recall. Especially after more than forty years. And eyewitness testimony is frequently unreliable and often influenced by later perceptions. The physical evidence of bullet fragments matched to Oswald's rifle, of Oswald's presence in the Texas School book Depository, of a reconstructed trajectory that shows the shots most likely originated from the sixth floor of the TSBD, and then after, circumstantial but damning, Oswald's murder of policeman JD Tippit, all make it pretty hard to believe that it was someone OTHER than Oswald. And Oswald was a mentally unstable loner with a violent temper who had a history of highly questionable behaviour (including having planned to assassinate Gen. Edwin Walker). The evidence indicating that Oswald was the assassin, and the very low likelihood that someone like Oswald would be employed by any serious conspiracy, make any conspiracy extremely unlikely. And the lack of any solid evidence supporting the conspiracist view, in almost 50 years, doesn't tend to make the conspiracy argument believable, either. (People talk, and keeping something that big a secret for that long? Not likely.)

[merh]

99. It wasn't years later that the doctors and medical personnel

recalled the wounds differently than how they were depicted in the autopsy.

Tell me, how do you explain that the paraffin test proved that Oswald had not fired a rifle?

And there are trajectory tests that have been performed by experts that show the shot to the head came from the front. As I said, the facts you rely on have been debunked by experts just as you claim they have been established by experts.

Connally didn't believe the lone gun theory. He was there, his opinion has more value than the experts you claim have proven him wrong.

[JoeyT]

110. Actually

A bullet striking the front of the head would throw the head forward. One striking the back of the head throws it backwards. I realize it doesn't seem like that's how it should work, but that is how it works. A rifle round doesn't transfer a lot of the energy to the skull when it hits, but it does create a "jet effect" at the exit wound. I'm sure you can imagine what I'm talking about, cause I'm trying not to be too graphic.

What Oswald was firing was a manual bolt action rifle. As far as I know, those don't actually leave residue on your hands because the spent shell isn't actually ejected when the round is fired while the gas still has pressure behind it. You manually pull the bolt up/back/forward/down to reload the next round.

[bertman]

80. Spider Jerusalem, if you have "read several books on the assassination" and insist that:

"The preponderance of the evidence indicates that: a single bullet did in fact strike Kennedy and Connally, and that the bullet in question was fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and was from the same manufacturing lot of ammunition as that possessed by Oswald and loaded in the rifle. (Neutron activation analysis of recovered fragments and the decidedly NOT-pristine bullet recovered from Connally's stretcher at Parkland hospital along with comparison to Western Cartridge Co. 6.5mm Mannlicher ammunition bears this out; as does the reconstructed trajectory.) On the other side of the argument, there has been no compelling evidence to suggest it was anyone OTHER than Oswald, and in the past 46 years no other credible alternative has been put forward which fits with the evidence and known facts", then I suggest you start reading some books that indicate otherwise.

Here are a few for you to check out:

"Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of JFK" by David Lifton
"Crossfire" by Jim Marrs
"Legacy of Secrecy" by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann
"JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" by James Douglass
"Plausible Denial" by Mark Lane
"Mafia Kingfish: Carlos Marcello and the Assassination of JFK" by John Davis

There are many others. Enjoy your reading. I think you will find that there is MUCH compelling evidence that there were others and other shooters involved in the assassination.

Edit to add: your statement about emergency room physicians not remembering what they saw is just about the most bizarre excuse I have heard for the rear-shot theory. We are talking about experienced emergency room doctors who had previously treated gunshot wounds who are examining the President of the United States, and you think they all had collective mis-diagnosis syndrome. Absolutely fucking unbelievable conclusion.

[Spider Jerusalem]

83. Actually, I've read most of those.

The evidence still says it was Oswald.

[bertman]

87. Only if you believe that the FBI, CIA and Warren Commission would not suppress or alter

evidence that lead to the opposite conclusion.

It's a matter of record that there are STILL files that the CIA and FBI refused to release for the HSCA investigation and which have not been released to this day. Who are they protecting? What national security interest is going to be jeopardized at this time--46 years later?

[rhett o rick]

104. So all the books you read all confirm your belief? How convenient. nt

[glitch]

13. An important question, I think where someone stands on the JFK assassination tells you a lot about

them. Most often you don't get any useful information on the truth of the actual matter, but you do get a glimpse of the truth of how an individual perceives reality.

This issue, like 9/11, exemplifies the idea that people believe what they are most comfortable believing. What is astonishing to me is that so many people aren't comfortable considering the possibility of conspiracy.

James Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9781570757556-0

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. I think it says more that so many people are convinced it was a conspiracy.

Principally that people don't want to believe that a loser with a cheap rifle could kill the President of the US. And so they refuse to believe it despite all the actual physical evidence indicating that that's just what happened.

[glitch]

34. Which books did you read, btw? You said you've read several, so you must've had an interest. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

36. Garrison's, along with various others...

several pro-conspiracy and anti. And the evidence convinces me that there's no way it could have been anyone BUT Oswald.

[glitch]

44. I realize you consider the subject settled but you might give James Douglass a read. nt

[avaistheone1]

48. House Select Committee on Assassinations ruled conspiracy in the JFK assassination.

I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/


The House Select Committee on Assassinations said President Kennedy did not die as the result of some loser with a cheap rifle. Get informed and read the official findings in the National Archives.

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. The evidence indicates they were wrong

and it's not necessary to spam this in reply to every one of my responses on this thread; once is sufficient.

[avaistheone1]

59. Then why do you keep putting the same false evidence out there?

It isn't going to make it any truer.

[Vattel]

68. What false evidence?

[rhett o rick]

105. How about those of us that are skeptical? Not wanting to believe the pat answer pushed on us by our

government.

[Loudmxr]

14. I voted for JFK-in kindergarten and he won!

I too was in third grade that day. The news filtered back to where I was sitting in the class room and I refused to believe it was the president. Then they announced it over the PA.

Over the years I have followd the case too. 1967 I stayed home all summer to watch the Tempo shows with Stan Borman on Channel 9. He had Mark Lane on and interviewed many people who wound up dead.

Lots of unanswered questions. But, as in the show CSI, the evidence doesn't lie. How can the body of John Connely have more lead in it than the "magic bullet" is missing?

I have been tearing up all day. BTW my cousin caught Paul Schrade in the kitchen of the Ambassador.

They are days that changed the world. I can only hope my days can change the future too.

[BlueJazz]

15. I keep wondering why Oswald was shot and killed. From what I've read, Jack Ruby..

...couldn't have cared whether JFK lived or died...so why did he shoot Oswald ?

To keep him quiet ???

[Sebastian Doyle]

116. Jack Ruby - friend of Dick Nixon and the Bush Crime Family since 1947

[paparush]

121. Read James Ellroy's "American Tabloid".

Yes, its fiction, but damn the story will make you wonder.

Then, if you aren't depressed enough after reading Tabloid, read the 2nd book "The Cold Six Thousand" and follow the trail of deceit and betrayal to the slayings of MLK and RFK.

[treestar]

125. That's the thing that probably causes the conspiracy theories

I think it is possible Oswald acted alone. JFK rode in an unprotected vehicle and that was probably unwise at that time. Doing that opened himself to assassination by a lone nut. But then you have someone come along and kill that person before he can be tried - making him forever the "alleged" assassin.

[aikoaiko]

22. For me, it just doesn't matter much to me anymore.

I wasn't born until 1968. JFK is a historical figure whose assassination has about as much resonance as Lincoln's assassination. I got interested in the issues after Stone's JFK but the alternative accounts seemed to only present a few loose ends and questions. One of the things that really got to me was when people said things like "it could NOT happen the way they said" only to find out it could have happened (i.e., the magic bullet). After a while I became disenchanted with the alternative accounts.

The truth matters, of course, but if a different story could be proven it won't really change much.

[avaistheone1]

53. The magic bullet theory has been disproven. It is not the official U.S. government account of the

JFK assassination. After reviewing the Warren Commission Report and all available evidence the House Select Committee on Assassinations came to the conclusion JFK did not die as the result of a magic bullet, but likely as the result of a conspiracy.

Bye, bye magic bullet.

I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/

[Kaleva]

55. House Select Committee on Assassinations stated that Oswald killed JFK

and ruled out the CIA, Secret Service, FBI, the Cubans, the Mafia, and the Soviets as being part of a probable conspiracy.

[avaistheone1]

63. House Select Committee on Assassinations ruled JFK likely died as a result

of a conspiracy.


They were unable to identify the other gunmen.

[Kaleva]

73. The Committee ruled that Oswald was the person who killed Kennedy..

They were definite about that. They also ruled that there was a probability there was a conspiracy. Note the difference. They were sure that it was Oswald who killed Kennedy but would only go so far as saying there was a high probability that there was a conspiracy. They were also quite definate that the Mafia, the Cubans, the Soviets, the CIA, the FBI and the Secret Service played no part in a conspiracy.

[avaistheone1]

90. Oops... Minnesota judge: CIA ‘probably misled’ panel he led on JFK assassination

That’s because the CIA didn’t tell Tunheim that its liaison to a panel that preceded his Assassination Records Review Board had been involved with anti-Castro Cubans in Miami who tangled with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963.


10/19/09

The New York Times reported Tunheim’s remarks in a front-page story Saturday on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by Minneapolis-born journalist Jefferson Morley, formerly an editor at the Washington Post and past national editorial director for the Center for Independent Media, the Minnesota Independent’s nonprofit parent.

After years of pressing the CIA to release its records, Morley got an appeals court earlier this year to force the agency to ‘fess up to George Joannides’ role as case officer in Miami at the time of Kennedy assassination. But the CIA still has nearly 300 documents about Joannides it won’t reveal, citing “grave” national security concerns.

Tunheim told the Times he may ask the CIA for redacted versions of the documents even if Morley is ultimately stymied by the Washington, D.C., federal court.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/47464/morley-tunheim-joannides-kennedy-oswald-cia



Gee, there might have been CIA, FBI and Mafia that participated in the assasinaton after all.

[Kaleva]

112. So the findings of the Committee are open to question?

You are taking bits and pieces out of the Committees report to support your own theory. Highlighting one part while dismissing the rest. Do you agree with the report that states that it was Oswald who fired the shot that killed Kennedy.?

[cliffordu]

23. Fuel for the fire:

Be sure to check out the photos of the shots available to Oswald, as well as the ones he actually took.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/cliffordu/11

[JamesA1102]

24. Oawald had no powder burns on his face or hands...

when he was arrested. That simple fact alone means he didn't shoot a gun that day.

[Spider Jerusalem]

29. No, it doesn't...

because a) the paraffin test is unreliable and b) bolt-action rifles are less likely to leave a shooter with powder marks because the bolt is locked closed when firing (unlike semiautomatic weapons, which have an ejection port for the spent cartridge).

[JamesA1102]

100. Except that...

Every other person who test fired that rifle had a powderburn on their cheek afterwards. Plus when the Dallas PD dusted it for fingerprints none from Oswald were on the rifle.

[Kaleva]

42. So the death of Officer Tippit was part of a set up?

[JamesA1102]

101. No

But an eyewitness to the shooting of the officer said that man who did it looked nothing like Oswald.

[Dude_CalmDown]

27. Who are all these inquisitive people you keep running into?

Where are there? How can I find them? Just about every person I meet is a complete fucking moron with no curiosity on anything whatsoever.

[DemBones DemBones]

28. I used to laugh at people who thought

the moon landing was fake and "pro wrestling" was real.

Now I'm only sure that pro wrestling is fake. I just hope that someday I get to find out the truth about all the weird shit that has happened during my lifetime.

[Kaleva]

32. books, essays, and articles are not proof

I've always wondered why those who have spent considerable effort in the past 40 years trying to prove that there was a conspiracy have not been able to do so.

[Individualist]

40. When it comes to your opinion vs. the House Select Committee on Assassinations,

I believe the House Select Committee.

I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-r... /

[glitch]

45. They did recommend further investigation, but the matter was dropped.

Surprise! Too many patronages at risk, most probably.

[Kaleva]

49. You must then agree with the the House Select Committee on Assassinations

on ruling out the mob, Castro, the Soviet Union, the CIA, the FBI and the Secret Service as being part of a probable conspiracy. Who would be left ? LBJ?

[glitch]

75. The far right wing, most specifically the same rabid anti-communists who opposed FDR

and supported Nixon and Bush (I&II). How could you possibly leave them out?

Could it be http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9781570757556-0">Unspeakable?

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Gman]

35. Years ago I did my own research in about 1976 or so

I went behind the grassy knoll, to the far corner which was closest to the railroad station. What I saw, and anyone can still see (it's a big parking lot now back there) was the perfect position for a sniper. It has a high vantage point, to shoot down at an approaching target. This position is front and to the right from JFK's approaching limousine. And as we all know, his head went back and to the left. If I were to have participated in the assassination, that's where I would have sat in waiting. And the perfect escape route was in place with the train yard as it was back then. Think the hobos, the one that looked like E Howard Hunt. That's where they were stopped and appear in a picture.

Oswald did not act alone. But yes, Oswald was a patsy. He was the perfect patsy.

[avaistheone1]

57. Interesting. I traveled to Dallas on a business trip about ten years after you did.

I went to the Book School Depository and of course to the grassy knoll. I agree the grassy knoll was the perfect spot for the snipers as well as for their get-away. (Little wonder Kennedy's motorcade route was changed at the last minute to go by the grassy knoll.)

It also went to the sixth floor window in the Texas school depository. It would have been much more difficult to get the shots off from that window, in my opinion.

[Gman]

134. I've always thought the School Book Depository building 6th floor window

was a terrible position. He was shooting at a target moving away at a moderate rate of speed. I think Oswald may have hit him the first time he shot (when JFK grabbed his throat) and then missed once, maybe twice. The back and to the left head movement shot had to have come from the front right, towards the grassy knoll. (There were at least 4 recorded shots from the motorcycle cop's microphone recording.)

[1]

37. books alone do not make truth. i can point you to hundreds of book about ufos...

books don't make them true either.

don't get me started about the movie "jfk." oliver stone makes up stories to make interesting movies. to sell tickets. to make money.

people write books to sell books.

this conspiracy theory exists because people have made careers out of it...

[glitch]

52. People make quite lucrative careers out of conspiracy denial as well.

You really can't go by that...

[Loudmxr]

71. I agree. Stone makes awful films. JFK was a POS.

But in 1967 I heard or saw most of those people listed at the end of JFK who met odd deaths interviewed on the Tempo shows in LA. That was a very sad part for me.

That is where the "money for fame" argument fails. They are dead. Some quite violently. Very few do that. Unless they are performance artists. :smoke:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. I don't believe in Bigfoot.

But then again, I've never read any books about Bigfoot.

[CK_John]

50. The solution is to solve the case of Officer Tibbets. Why was he so far out of his patrol zone? Was

his meeting with Oswald scheduled or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Loudmxr]

65. I agree. Maybe not the full solution. But its one of the odd occurrences that day.

The police reports conflict what the shooter looked like.

[dflprincess]

61. I finally saw "Executive Action" a couple years ago

it's a very chilling film. Sort of interesting the number of "Hollywood liberals" who took part in it and, if I recall correctly, worked on it for very little money.

You can get it through Netflix.

[WillyT]

67. When It Came Out In Theater, It Only Lasted A Few Days...

and then disappeared completely. At least in our area.

Generated a lot of heat and controversy.

I had to wait and rent it when in came out on VHS.

Great film though.

:hi:

[1]

93. uwe boll movies only last a few days in theaters too. bad movies have that fate...

lousy films disappearing is not controversial or conspiratorial.

lousy films disappear from theaters because they are lousy...

[RufusTFirefly]

64. Damn conspiracy authors are just in it for the money

Just like that greedy dishonest Al Gore fella with his cockamamie story about "global warming."

He's made big bucks offa that fear-mongering fairy tale.

Sheesh. Some people have no shame.







(:sarcasm:)

[FatDave]

86. That you would even make that comparison is ludicrous.

One is backed by decades of scientific evidence. The other is decades of hearsay and conjecture without a shred of evidence.

[Boxerfan]

69. This is all I ever needed to see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xEK16kLHsM

I was maybe 6 at the time-I remember watching live tv when it happened. My Dad cried-1st & last time I ever saw that.

It was pre-aranged. Why would they remove the key foothold Secret Service Guards otherwise....

Glad this video still exists.

I also remember that not one expert who tried could recreate the shots-in frequency or accuracy. I shoot in Field Target competitions so I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

[FatDave]

72. A couple videos I posted in another thread.

These deal with the "magic" bullet, which actually turns out to be not so magic at all. As Spider has stated over and over upthread, all evidence points to Oswald as the lone gunman. You're free to speculate on his motives or possible associations, but the magic bullet was, in fact, completely mundane.

Kennedy Assasination, Beyond Conspiracy
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7184933155238761777#

Unsolved History, JFK - Beyond the Magic Bullet
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8673666872571189886#

Now, as far as people who "say that they know for sure that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy". You'll never hear me say that I know for sure that Oswald acted alone. You'll never hear me say that I know for sure there is no God, although I do call myself an atheist. Anybody who tells you they're 100% certain of anything is immediately suspect in my book.

That being said, it seems that every serious investigation into it has come to the conclusion that Oswald was the sole gunman. That, combined with Occam's razor (which is likelier: a coup d'etat and a cover-up involving high-ranking members of congress, CIA, and FBI or one nutcase who was good with a rifle?) lead me to believe that the official story on this is correct.

[glitch]

82. Occam cite is fallacious since the two theories do not equally well describe the observed facts.

http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Occam%27s_Razor#Fallacious_Application

[FatDave]

84. Bullshit.

One explanation requires multiple shooters, botched coroners reports, and a concerted cover-up. The other requires one man and a rifle. My Occam cite stands.

[glitch]

88. No, it really doesn't. Sorry. Coups do exist quite frequently in history.

Although there is no doubt always a simpler story to believe.

Ockham's razor doesn't really apply to humanity's criminal endeavors (it's that whole means motive opportunity impetus that breaks it out of the "equally well described" simplicity).

[FatDave]

94. I'm sorry, I should have said "an undetected coup"

Do you suppose those happen a lot? A coup that nobody really knows happened? Well, except for a few crafty conspiracy theorists, they always know they happened.

And I'm still sticking with Occam on this. The simplest explanation is the likeliest. My explanation requires one nut with a gun. Yours requires a far-reaching conspiracy. My explanation is simpler, and therefore likelier. That coupled with the evidence I've seen pointing to Oswald, and the lack of evidence I've seen pointing away from him (lots of speculation, but no real evidence), leads me to believe that Oswald was the only shooter.

[glitch]

96. I think you put too much value on simplicity, human beings (and the structures they create)

are quite complex. IMO. And by structures I include associations and agendas.

FWIW I think the evidence pointing to Oswald is as speculative as the evidence pointing away, especially if you specifically consider him and his background. Not that I don't think he was involved, I just consider the possibility that he really was a "patsy".

Interesting term to self-identify, don't you think?

But that's ok, we don't have to agree, thank you for not getting all het up about it. :)

[tonysam]

77. All the facts point to Oswald being the sole killer

I am sorry if that bursts your bubble, but it's a fact, just like gravity is a fact, and the Holocaust is a fact.

If Ruby hadn't killed Oswald because of some misguided idea he wanted to save Jackie Kennedy the stress and pain of a trial, Oswald would have been tried, convicted, and likely executed in the most slamdunk murder case in the history of the United States.

People should be ashamed of themselves for swallowing the conspiracy swill.

[bertman]

85. You should be ashamed of yourself for being such a shill, tonysam. Ruby was a mob hood

who could give a shit about Jackie Kennedy. Educate yourself. There's a list of books in reply #80 that will enlighten you if you'll OPEN YOUR EYES.

[johnnie]

92. I have some great land in Florida

Wanna buy some?

[ngant17]

109. the rifle LHO supposedly orders by mail

it was picked up at the post office early morning when Oswald's time sheet shows him clocked in at his job.

Even experienced military snipers have not been able to make the kind of precision shots that supposedly came from LHO's rifle in the 4-6 second time frame.

There are so many discrepancies to the LN's "evidence" that LHO could have represented himself without any lawyer and would have proved his innocence in JFK and Tippit's murder.

[Zen Democrat]

91. If you have an opinion on this matter and you haven't read JFK and the Unspeakable -- you're behind.

This is a book that I believe is essential reading for every American. Especially those who don't understand how relevant 11-22-63 is to where we are right now in this world. Jim Douglass makes it clear why he died and why it matters.

And after reading that one, I suggest reading Russ Baker's Family of Secrets. That one, about the Bush family, just blows my mind.

Those books are the 1-2 punch.

[RufusTFirefly]

95. +1

I've read both. Recommend Douglass especially.

[glitch]

98. Strongly agreed. nt

[rhett o rick]

106. People believe that Oswald acted alone because it makes their life less complicated. They feel

better knowing that the government caught the lone criminal and now we can all rest easy. They dont like things complicated. The scary part is that they believe the Warren White Wash Commission.

[havocmom]

114. Yep. So much more comfy to just accept the official story and think things are fine

The far right has always counted human nature as an ally for their agendas. It generally serves them well, which is why our beloved nation is in such a mess today.

[rhett o rick]

122. I agree. The truth is so challenging. nt

[Echo In Light]

118. The various top-down state propagandists know how to work inherent properties of the public mind

... and part of human nature involves adamant refusal that one is capable of being duped, for in a competitive social climate, that can be seen as a sign of weakness - a substantial aspect of why the notion of criminal collusion and conspiracy (to fool the masses by using their media apparatus to sell a bogus cover story for what's actually happening) is so vehemently denied by some: it's the ego desperately seeking to come down on the 'winning' side as to not appear unseemly, or foolish, which, again, given the dominant ideologies of our social climate, are a few short steps away from unprofe$$ionalism, and/or weakness - - especially re men, as those qualities likewise play a substantial role in how men generally prefer to fancy themselves, and carry/present themselves in relation to women, mating, career, etc

[rhett o rick]

123. Very well put. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

107. Science.

[notesdev]

108. I believe the single bullet theory

Arlen Specter would never lie to us.

[cbdo2007]

113. "Back and to the left" - The Zapruder Film

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E66__vymfPA

Fast forward to the 2:25 mark where they show it in slow motion with frame numbers added.

His head clearly doesn't move back and to the left. The big chunk of head blasts forward as his body then falls back. The shot clearly came from the Book Depository or else you need to sue your eye doctor.

[Echo In Light]

115. Many who deny inside job re 9/11 are unable to say how many towers fell that day

... and plenty more

[paparush]

120. 400+ people in Dealey Plaza. 289 interviewed by the Warren Commission.

90 asked where they thought the shots came from? 58 answer the grassy knoll. All 58 accounts are dismissed after their recollections are judged factually inaccurate.

All 58 are dismissed?
What's that smell?

[Taverner]

124. I am convinced we will never know if Oswald acted alone or not

Too much disinformation, too many lies, too many half-truths, to many grandstanders vying for attention...

I do know, however, who DIDN'T do it - and this may come as a surprise but I honestly believe George HW Bush had nothing to do with it. Why, you may ask? Well despite the only link to Bush and the Kennedy assassination was that he was in Dallas at the same time (it was his home, after all) - consider how powerful the Kennedys were at that time, and how the Bush family was just building themselves. The Kennedys could have had the Bush's squashed in a heartbeat. Dulles might have known something, but George HW didn't.

[Johonny]

126. I know this might amaze people

but a lot of people don't have tons of time to waste studying pet conspiracy theories of the so called "enlightened elite". Sorry people haven't spent oodles of time figuring out if alien hamsters from the 4th dimension killed JFK. You know a lot of people haven't read books on the expanding Earth theory, remote viewing, or ancient astronauts. Is it because they wish to remain in ignorance their whole lives... or because life is short and reading about the impossible or the pointless isn't interesting to them.

I however am a loser and thus have read a lot about the JFK assassination. Oddly I never read the non-conspiracy books. There really isn't much evidence out there to convince me of large conspiracies or giant government plots. About the only thing that interests me is Oswalds life doesn't make sense. But possibly he was just really crazy and stupid. To me JFK conspiracy people are like Global warming deniers. Every piece of evidence for conspiracy needs to be supported no matter how obscure or in correct. No piece of evidence against conspiracy is convincing enough, and will be hand waved away as if trivial. I've seen your evidence... I'm not convinced. It doesn't make me stupid, ill informed, or lazy. Perhaps your evidence isn't as good as you think.

[Ishoutandscream2]

I graduated with Oswald's daughter, June

And she pretty much believed her dad did it alone. She was very bitter about her dad (obviously), but I think what made her really think this was how he had treated her mother. He was a very abusive, bitter, sick young man.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ishoutandscream2]

133. June and her mother and sister have some major differences

June was a very serious, studious individual. Some would have called her "cold" if you really didn't get to know her. Her little sister Rachel was more outgoing and tended (at least outwardly) to not let the whole "Oswald thing" get her down. June has said that Rachel had a more idealistic view of her dad as being set up. I think Marina had that idea, too.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[floridablue]

128. Gerald Ford could never have kept the secret.

He and many more. They would not have been able to resist telling someone.

[brooklynite]

129. I don't think Oswald acted alone...

...because I don't think about the issue at all. I don't begrudge historians or conspiracy theorists who want to concentrate on this story, but quite honestly, this was nearly 50 years ago, almost everyone involved (whichever explanation you buy into) is likely dead by now and there are enough "today" issues to keep me busy.