It's an interesting point you make--we do have large percentages of people who believe all sorts of unsupportable things. But why must the Kennedy assassination be lumped in with these things? People can and do make good arguments that Oswald was the lone shooter. But plenty of other people make good arguments that come to very different conclusions. I've seen nothing at all that would warrant Kennedy assassination "conspiracy theorists" being relegated to the "non-serious person" bin.

There are no good arguments for the conclusion that anyone but Oswald was the shooter. There are no good arguments for shots coming from anywhere other than the sixth floor of the TSBD. The reason there are no good arguments for that is because the actual physical evidence shows that: the bullets that struck Kennedy and Connally were fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons; that they were fired from the sixth floor of the TSBD, to the exclusion of any other possible location (the trajectory doesn't work for a shot from anywhere else). There's no evidence, further, that suggests that Oswald was any part of a larger conspiracy; he got the job at the TSBD a short time before, it was blind chance that Kennedy visited Dallas and the route of his motorcade went past the building where Oswald worked. (The motorcade route had only been finalised a few days before, in fact.)

To make the argument that there was a conspiracy, and that anyone OTHER than Lee Oswald was the gunman, you have to ignore all of the physical evidence. At which point you might as well start arguing that JFK was killed by the Earl of Oxford using a remotely-detonated explosive and that the Zapruder film was faked by Stanley Kubrick.

Having written Shakespeare's plays than there is for a Kennedy conspiracy.

of the people having SEEN the evidence presented by the Government, don't believe it? They don't KNOW what happened, they simply don't believe the 'prosecution'. It happens all the time, why exactly do a few people get themselves all in a tizzy because the Government presented a weak case that a vast majority don't believe?

I mostly just wanted to talk about the Earl of Oxford.

I think far more interesting than the JFK assassination theories, which are fifty years old, will never be solved, and are mostly irrelevant, is this question: what has our government done that we are so willing, as a society, to follow these conspiracy theories? I think the meta question of the theories themselves is important.

making "good" counter arguments. Every one I have seen has been rebutted pretty thoroughly.

One is real. And so was his murder. Understand the difference?

as evidence that its real or not real is a bad idea.

There may be evidence that the public has not been told everything about the assassination. But the fact that a lot of people believe that they haven't been told everything is not, in and of itself, such evidence.

Last edited Mon Oct 21, 2013, 05:51 PM - Edit history (1)

The government officially concluded in 1979 (what 80% of the public long suspected) there was a conspiracy involved in the assassination of JFK.

Technically, due to the 1979 conclusion, the 'official story' is that there WAS a conspiracy to murder JFK.

k&r

using it as 'evidence'. It is merely demonstrating that a large number of people have not been convinced that the 'evidence' presented to them as fact is not convincing.

There is no comparison between a belief in Santa Clause and doubts about the conclusions presented regarding an actual murder.

One is based on sheer fantasy.

The murder is based on evidence presented.

When a majority is presented with the same evidence and rejects it, that certainly has far more ramifications in terms of the credibility of the presenters, who happen to have been part of this Government, than whether or not people choose to believe in a fantasy.

To try to compare a real murder case and people's opinions of the evidence they've been presented with, with a complete fantasy just doesn't make whatever point it is people are trying to make.

One has real life consequences, in this case lack of faith in the government, the other has no real life consequences for this country.

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

What those issues have in common is that there is little to no hope of coming to an answer that would satisfy most people on this board. And in at least three cases might not change how one acts very much (Guns being the odd man out here). If I found out conclusively that 9/11 was an inside job or Kennedy was gunned down by the Mafia/Cubans/Teamsters/Elks I'd probably still support most of the issues I support now.

These issues also create deep divisions among DUers (as, to be fair, all issues do) - they are often framed with the intensity of moral issues. If a person believe the official report on 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination he might well be accused of having his head in the sand or of even being complicit with the crimes.

I think the policy is a wise one.

Bryant

Too many of us are way to trusting of the Powers That Be who control the media, the government, and the discussions America is allowed to have.

But there are many who can see past the BS and realize we are being lied to and deceived.

The ones here who work hard to keep a lid on discussions, make DU suck.

You don't own the truth. You may think you do, but that is illogical.

I'd have to say your minority opinion is, in this case, far from the truth.

they know what they are doing, and they dont dither about getting to it.

The numbers who believe do not make a theory correct, that is the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum.

Probably 90% of North Koreans believe that the USA wants to see them wiped out - is that idea not a conspiracy theory because of the numbers?

On the other hand more than 50% of US adults do not believe that anthropogenic global warming is real and would describe that idea as a silly conspiracy theory.

take 9/11 and the collapse of the towers for example. Many have no faith in the government's answer. Yet when asked what brought down the towers, one is told (and these answer come from the old DU 9/11 forum) controlled demolition, nano-thermite, holographic planes, mini-nuclear bombs, space based particle beams.

At some point all the evidence has to converge on a single solution - there can be only a single truth.

Another characteristic of CTs is that their adherents are "just asking questions about the official account." thereby relieving themselves of any responsibility to actually provide a plausible answer.

I don't believe the official stories of many things. It's not my job to prove anything, or to try to conjure up alternative 'stories'.

It's enough that those who have presented 'stories' have not been convincing enough to persuade a majority of the people that their 'stories' are true. That is THEIR problem. We the people, or 'jury' are not responsible for THEIR failure.

If the official story of JFK is true, then all that can be said about those telling it is, they have not done a credible job. No CTs necessary to reach that conclusion, which a majority of the people have apparently. It's not a big deal, it is what it is.

Neither Robert nor Jackie Kennedy believed the official 'story' either. They offered no alternative 'theory'. They just didn't believe it. Neither do I. Nor do I need to prove anything. The story just isn't credible, period.

I don't know why this is so upsetting to some people.

It's just a fact.

Last edited Mon Oct 21, 2013, 04:22 PM - Edit history (1)

otherwise nothing changes. If the goal of the JKF assassination movement is not to reveal the truth, then what exactly is it's goal? To provide a lifetime hobby for thousands and to let a handful of people make a good living selling books?

or politics, it's simply about what people view as believable and what they do not. It hasn't changed over time, and it's not likely to. Why? Obviously because their case was weak. It happens.

Clearly those who had the means to determine what happened have failed to convince a majority of the people that they are correct. That's it, period.

Why have they failed? Well that is where discussion comes in. And people WILL discuss these historical events regardless of how hard some small group for whatever reason, tries to stop them. In fact the more someone tries to stop ME from discussing something, the more suspicious I become of their motives.

If YOU don't want to talk about something, then don't. Certainly no one is forcing you to do so.

But don't think you can stop others from sharing their thoughts on topics that for some incomprehensible reason, seems to be of the utmost concern to a few people who appear to be obsessed with the subject. I don't understand it all, the sheer desperation to control the conversation.

I have zero evidence to offer but that is no reason why I should accept the official story which seems so incredible to me. It's just a logical conclusion from what I HAVE read. I don't care if YOU believe it, why do you care what I believe?

they provide endless fascinating conversations. I was just telling you how I draw the line between CTs and more reality based speculation.

was actually 50 years ago.

Thus your argument fails due to the basic premise being fallacious.

if 70% of Americans believed that the WTC towers collapsed because of "controlled detonations" that would be no less of a conspiracy theory. The only reason 70% of Americans believe that Kennedy was killed as a result of conspiracy? Their most vivid ideas of it come from Oliver Stone's absurd film. I'd bet money that most people who know enough to have an opinion think there was a conspiracy because of Stone's "JFK". The ones who have any more idea than that? Probably haven't read anything on the assassination other than literature advancing a conspiracist argument. Most people don't actually know enough about the subject to have an informed opinion; if they've got any idea of the evidence? It's mostly filtered through the lens of a pro-conspiracy viewpoint.

How many people do you think have read the Warren Commission Report, compared to the number of people who saw JFK? Or for that matter have read Posner's "Case Closed" or Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"? Most people don't know, because it's not mentioned in pro-conspiracy arguments, that: a majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza were in agreement that the shots came from behind the motorcade (the book depository, and NOT the grassy knoll); that witnesses saw a man with a rifle in the sixth-floor window (one of those witnesses picked Oswald out of a lineup); that a TSBD employee on break on the fifth floor heard the shots coming from directly above him, had dust in his hair knocked loose from the ceiling by the gunfire, and heard the action of the bolt cycling and a spent shell casing hitting the floor (the building was undergoing renovations, there were gaps and holes in the sixth floor that went through to the fifth-floor ceiling); that the majority of ear-witnesses in Dealey Plaza are agreed that there were three shots (not four, or five); that the "magic bullet" isn't magic at all and the bullshit swerving trajectory presented in JFK is based on a serious misrepresentation of where Kennedy and Connally were actually sat relative to one another...I can go on and on with this, but all of the credible evidence says that Oswald did it, and he acted alone.

77% of Americans also believe that angels are real. This "but people believe there's a conspiracy therefore there must be one" is a logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum".

When a bullet enters somene's head, which hole is larger, where the bullet goes in or where the bullet comes out?

but: there's an entry wound on the back of Kennedy's head. The skull on the other side of the wound is bevelled. This indicates that it is a wound of entry:



The intracranial pressure generated by the bullet passing through brain tissue caused a massive blowout of the right front side of Kennedy's head. The blood and tissue ejected from this went forward (indicating that the shot came from behind); in addition Kennedy's head snaps forward some inches (observable in a GIF here: http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot5.html). This is simple physics, the shot cannot have come from anywhere but behind.

Do you know what they call a conspiracy theory that has been proven to exist?

A conspiracy theory. (Thanks to Tim Minchin for the original version of that about "alternative medicine.&quot

The fallacy in this OP is called argument ad populum. Popularity is not evidence of truth. It is evidence of truthiness, though.

When after all, it was you and me.

(there must be hundreds of them, if not thousands) and lay them out on a scale. At one extreme, you'll find the lone gunman theory. At the other extreme, you'll find massive conspiracy theories involving scores of people. In between, you'll find conspiracies of all shapes and sizes involving anything from 2 people to hundreds of people.

There are theories which embrace almost all of the "official story" and there are theories which reject almost all of it. There are those who feel that the Zapruder film is the key to understanding the assassination and those who think it's a forgery. Go through every major piece of evidence and you'll find that same enormous difference of opinion.

When one lumps all of these people together into one group, it creates the impression that they're all in agreement as to the nature of a possible conspiracy and as to the validity of the government's conclusions. They're not.

Using the same logic, one could say that, because 75% of the voters don't self-define as liberal, 3/4ths of the country disagree with the tenets of liberalism. A closer examination simply would not support that conclusion.

to their beliefs, and get praised for doing so.

Whats the benefit?

yeah, that works for me.
theres some real scum working that side of the street.

...most people would think it was a conspiracy.
Given that only 29.5% of the people can locate the Pacific Ocean, and it takes up 32% of the globe(!!!!!!), I'll stick with LHO as the sole gunman, thank you very much.

But at what point does the opinion of the public begin to matter? I'll readily agree that there are some majority opinions that are ludicrous--not believing in evolution and a belief in angels were two items listed in this thread. So on the one hand, I see the point being made by several posters--people believe all sorts of crazy shit. But on the other hand, with the Kennedy assassination, I see that there are lots of very learned people who don't believe the official story. It makes me wonder, what percentage of college graduates don't believe the official story? What percentage of Democrats/Republicans/Baggers believe the official story? What percentage of elected officials believe the official story? What percentage of college professors do? And so on. I don't have access to these statistics, but if I did, I'd presumably find that even among highly educated people, they still smell a rat. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about that. In any case, when does the majority opinion start to count for something? Can majority opinion never be used without running afoul of this logical fallacy? It would seem to me that there's still a place for public opinion, even while I concede the public sometimes gets things very wrong.

are used as a substitute for informed discussion.
When they turn to polling results about a question nobody begins to know anything about,
its pretty obvious they dont want to talk about something using facts or context.
Weather, Sports, Weather, Sports, Factoids, and did you know?

The facts are what matter. The facts point to the absurdity, after all this time and all of the investigations that have been done, of thinking that there was any sort of conspiracy.
The public in general thinks conspiracy because it was such a horrible experience. That doesn't make them right.

GHWB/George Mohrenschildt/Jack Ruby a million coincidences
makes much more sense than trying to parse
"that Bay of Pigs thing"
we are so post accountability, its no wonder these things mean nothing to some,
and everything to some people of both "perspectives"
CIA! CIA! CIA!

When that opinion is in concordance with verifiable facts. We are talking about something for which there is evidence. This is not something that's a matter of opinion; this is something where expressing a particular viewpoint requires ignorance or rejection of evidence. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said: "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts." Fact exists independent of opinion; evidence is objective, not subjective. The evidence in the JFK assassination all points to Oswald, acting alone. The evidence in the WTC collapse all points to structural flaws and the result of jet-fuel fires after plane collisions. The evidence on climate change all points to human activity and release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels as the primary cause. There are plenty of people who will come up with their own theories and attempt to refute the evidence or claim that it doesn't matter because Kennedy was killed by the Mafia/anti-Castro Cuban exiles/LBJ/the military-industrial complex/J Edgar Hoover/the Klan/the CIA, that no, the WTC collapsed because of controlled detonation of explosives in the basement, that climate change is natural variation and any other explanation is a commie leftist tree-hugging liberal conspiracy to destroy the American way of life.

It doesn't matter what percentage of university graduates or partisans of any political party believe any of the above things; it only matters if those beliefs can be supported by the weight of the evidence, which none of them can. I blame this fuzzy-minded absurdist sort of "well yes but there are two sides to the argument and they're both valid" on the bullshit false equivalency and striving for meaningless "balance" that's practised by American television and print news media. It's like treating creationism and intelligent design as though they're as worthy of serious consideration and inclusion in school curricula as the Big Bang theory and evolution.

Let me stop right here and tell you that I'm not an expert on 11/22/63. I've read a fair bit; I've also seen fictionalized (Stone) accounts. I never bothered trying to memorize names or dates or weird things that happened in New Orleans. So if you want to have an Assassination Knowlege contest, I'd lose that contest. All of that is prelude to this question: do the "verifiable facts" all point to Oswald being the lone gunman? It's always been my understanding that this is not the case, that there have always been large chunks of unexplained stuff, and that while some facts point toward a lone gunman, others point toward a conspiracy. In other words, I'm left with the definite impression that the entire Kennedy assassination is still a muddled mess, with people believing this, that, and everything in-between.

Bonus questions: 1. what percentage of historians believe the official version. 2. would the opinions of historians weigh more than the other opinions I've listed, irrespective of the weight of evidence? That is to say, when one is deciding what to believe in regard to the assassination, we're not limited to evidence that would stand up in a court of law. For example, knowing that the Mafia kills people, in general terms, isn't submitted as evidence in a court of law. But if you're predisposed to believing that the mob hit Kennedy, then the fact that they commit murder is all of a sudden very germane to the situation at hand. If you're already aware that our government tells lies as a matter of course, that may have an impact on who you think did the deed, or had some hand in it. This is NOT TO SAY that knowing the government lies means they're guilty of killing Kennedy, or that the mob is, or whomever else. It means you have to factor those things in when making your hypotheses. There are still lots of unsolved murders out there, and in every case, there was a perpetrator. Not having evidence that Joe WharbleGarble committed a murder is not the same thing as Joe WharbleGarble not committing said murder. Sometimes people get away with stuff.

In the end, I don't know. I can see that you feel very strongly that you do know what happened on that day in November. And you might. But please consider that there are lots of intelligent, serious, and learned people who don't believe the official version of events.

Physical evidence: bullet fragments from headshot recovered from limo and bullet recovered from Connally's stretcher, and shell casings recovered from TSBD 6th floor, matched to Oswald's rifle, recovered from TSBD 6th floor, to the exclusion of all other weapons. Shell casings recovered from the scene of Patrolman JD Tippit's murder matched to Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Eyewitness evidence: multiple people saw a man with a rifle in the 6th floor window. One picked Oswald out of a lineup. Multiple people saw Oswald's shooting of Tippit or saw him running away from the scene immediately afterward. Several picked him out of a lineup.

So you have a man placed by multiple witnesses at the scene of the President's assassination. An assassination committed using the rifle he owned. At least one witness who identified him as being in that window with a rifle in hand. The killing of a police officer, with multiple witnesses and solid ballistic and shell casing evidence saying it was Oswald's pistol that did it. On the other side you have speculation and supposition; none of the physical evidence says that any other weapon was involved or that any shots came from anywhere other than the school book depository.

The conspiracy theories are about people refusing to believe that the most powerful man in the world could possibly have been killed by a loser with a cheap rifle. (And, more argumentum ad populam, honestly, in your questions; what percentage of historians believe that FDR wanted the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor so he could have a pretext for war? Does that percentage make it a credible assertion?)

if I was gonna deny the obvious, I would stay forever away from that magic non-mushroom.

...if you're looking for the truth. If you're looking for things to talk about, though, that's another thing entirely.

Smelling a rat doesn't mean a rat ate your cheese. Or this or that particular group of rats. Maybe it was just the rat in the sixth floor window with a sociopath-sized chip on one shoulder and a Mannlicher-Carbino against the other.

and be completely ignorant of another.

I think the best way to get an idea of where opinion aligns in this case would be to ask respondents questions about certain basic facts which only someone who had paid attention would know. That would establish whether or not a person is learned about the assassination, as opposed to being learned in some other field. Once you've established who actually has a decent working knowledge of the case, you can begin to ask for opinions.

Of course, the numbers might turn out precisely the same. However, I seriously doubt that 100% of the country pays close attention to the Kennedy assassination. It would be fascinating to see what those who have paid close attention think about it.

Sid

...to make those LEM lower stages and laser reflectors disappear?

so no I do not believe the official story. People today look at it through the veil of time and accept it. Too many unanswered questions. And they keep putting off the release of some information.

Unless you're accusing me of trying to mislead the members of DU with my OP, then you're using the word disinformation incorrectly. If you are, in fact, accusing me of disinformation, I'd like to know what you're talking about.

The HSCA based their conclusion on acoustic evidence that has since been shown to be false.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11355801

Not that it matters to those who keep repeating the HSCA's inconclusive and flat out wrong report.

Furthermore, the official government opinion after reexamination of the Warren Report, as well as testimony before the 1979 HSCA was it was a conspiracy and THAT HAS REMAINED UNCHANGED TO THIS DAY.

The Dictablet has been pretty conclusively shown to come from a source nowhere near the motorcade and the "impulse" taken for a fourth shot to have come too late to have been a shot.

http://www.thekennedyhalfcentury.com/pdf/Kennedy-Half-Century-Audio-Research.pdf

and has not been "debunked" by anyone.

Its amazing they wont release the records on such an open and shut case.
and you cant spell it out?

The book was released not even just a week ago.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/larry-sabatos-new-book-does-not.html

Try again.

http://www.thekennedyhalfcentury.com/pdf/Kennedy-Half-Century-Audio-Research.pdf

or too slick?

and get back to me.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/larry-sabatos-new-book-does-not.html

The "scientific acoustical evidence" is from a Dictabelt recording from a motorcycle radio transmitting with a stuck button. That officer has been determined to be Willie Price, and he was nowhere near Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. He was two miles away, heading toward the Trade Mart.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11355801

Since this is the only reason the HSCA concluded conspiracy, you can stop using this as your trump card.

Sabato bases this fulsome claim on some "new" analysis of the dictabelt recordings, originally analyzed by a team of MIT acoustic physicists, led by Dr. James E. Barger. (Acoustics analysts Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy, of Queens College, reviewed the Barger data and concluded that "with the probability of 95% or better, there was indeed a shot fired from the grassy knoll.) Based on his version of the analysis, Sabato claims the microphone on a motorcycle cop’s radio was stuck, so it was believed to capture a full recording from the motorcade. They detected four gunshots on the tape, and according to Sabato, the two "academics" (MIT acoustic physicists) "told the committee that they believed one came from the grassy knoll" — not the Texas School Book Depository.

Actually, it wasn't an issue of "belief" nor was it a matter of "estimation" as Sabato claims. The acoustic physicists (who had vastly more credentials than the subsequent Ramsey National Academy of Sciences group which featured NO acoustic specialists) in fact methodically matched specific gun impulses in the acoustic record to the evident impacts visible in the Zapruder film, In the course of doing this, they traced the final (4th impulse) to the head shot - and that it most plausibly originated from the grassy knoll, NOT the Texas Book Depository (but under political pressure, the HSCA, like the Warrenites, lacked the political courage to say so.). The conclusion of four separate shots then coincides with 4 impacts visible in the Z-film, and the reactions therein. The acoustic impulses were retested in a 2001 investigation ('Echo Correlation Analysis and the Acoustic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination Revisited' ) by D.B. Thomas and published in the Journal Science and Justice., Vol. 41, p. 21, 2001 The impulses are shown below, with the four highest amplitude peaks associated with rifle muzzle blasts (an association I will justify subsequently):



Thomas treated both the test evidence and actual data from the original date- aware of the same misgivings that Sabato now claims. Thomas' re- test evidence was obtained in August, 1978 when a test shot was fired in Dallas’ Dealey Plaza to provide a fiducial mark for the putative Grassy Knoll shot – such that it could be compared with the impulse record obtained on Nov. 22, 1963 and also how this mark lined up to events recorded on the Zapruder film. Thus, the test evidence (mainly in terms of echoes and echo delay times received via an echogram from a test shot (See Fig. 1) is essentially used to confirm the microphone recording & positions for the shots made on the actual date, by resort to microphones placed at the same (or approximately so) locations...SNIP

..SNIP
The bottom line is that Thomas' investigation soundly reconfirmed the original acoustic tests and that the kill shot came from the grassy knoll. Note, however, as I stated earlier, this diverged from the HSCA conclusion that the shot came from the rear (Texas School Book Depository). Many investigators (e.g. Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation) have complained bitterly about this tomfoolery, and that the HSCA didn't want to diverge too much from the WC. But in examining the actual autopsy photos it's clear the HSCA conclusion of a rear shot is absurd, no matter who said what on what panel (i.e. Clark Panel). A mere examination of the bogus Warren autopsy photo (below left) and the real one sets the record straight, and exposes the HSCA's own brand of cowardice: you simply cannot physically have the rear of a skull blown out by a rear shot! Rather the linear momentum of a bullet fired from the FRONT will blow out the rear of a skull!...SNIP


...SNIP
This despite Sabato's claim that: "The long-hoped-for Rosetta Stone of the Kennedy assassination is nothing of the sort. And the much-publicized conclusion of proven conspiracy … was deeply flawed and demonstrably wrong.”

Actually, the conclusion was not "deeply flawed" or "demonstrably wrong" - but rather those descriptions are more aptly relevant to the pretenders, incompetents and obfuscators who attempted to apply flawed methods in the wake of the Barger tests. That includes the NAS team of Dr. Norman Ramsey, which never made its data generally available, and none of whom were even acoustic experts - as the original team had been. Indeed, as per an email from another acoustic researcher, W. Antony Marsh, the Ramsey team even exceeded the claimed errors of the Barger team and at a more fundamental level. Thomas himself pointed out their claimed use of a Poisson distribution - which wasn't that at all. And deliberately choosing absurd, unphysical H{M..N, n, i} sets (for the hypergeometric p-function) to try to make their conclusion conform to the null hypothesis of random noise. One example, was counting two distinct echoes as "coincident" - thereby immediately altering the p-value. In this sense, the most venerable principles of good faith scientific testing were violated. Many researchers, obviously, have wondered about the real purpose of a government-based team, given the government is four square behind the Warren Commission conclusion. (Not surprising, given the government has likely orchestrated the ensuing cover up from the get go with its politically -based Warren farce. After all, why destroy key evidence like JFK's suit coat, as well as have the limo disassembled, if they had nothing to hide? Why plant fake Secret Service agents in Dealey with fake IDs (commission books), to throw people off?)

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/larry-sabatos-new-book-does-not.html

Copy and paste all you like. But you don't get to dismiss this kind of evidence with a blog post.

The motorcycle was nowhere near Dealey Plaza. There are nine other impulses on that portion of the recording that are indistinguishable from the three impulses the HSCA attributes to the TSBD shots. There are three other impulses indistinguishable from the one the HSCA attributes to a hypothetical grassy knoll shot.

At the time of the assassination, the Dictabelt motorcyle is moving at a high rate of speed. It then stops, and soon after the motorcade is recording passing by the motorcycle. Since the officer, Willie Price, was never near Dealey Plaza, what is being identified as gunshots are actually motorcycle engine noises. When the recording is filtered for engine noise, the "gunshots" almost completely disappear.

Sabato's book is out now, and the details of the analysis is available right now:

http://www.thekennedyhalfcentury.com/pdf/Kennedy-Half-Century-Audio-Research.pdf

The HSCA was wrong.

The public has been lied to and bamboozled by its government so often and so consistently over the past 50 years, it's small wonder that paranoia-feuled idiocies like the sundry JFK "grand conspiracy" crap ends up seeming more plausible to a perpetually distracted and half-informed public. The fact is that every attempt to "pin the blame" for Kennedy's murder on a particular cabal or another has invariably relied on a level of half-truths and outright distortions that would make a CoIntelPro agent blush.

nt.

I am glad he cleared this up. I am also glad he said no 9/11 is an inside job posts in GD.

I totally agree with Skinner.

BTW I love your avatar.

I wish I could remember which DUer had it in one of their posts! It is DU made and DU proud!

and their "mission." At least they look like fools right there.

to be in CS...is their way of gaining control over another group and a way of censoring what is said there. Talking about JFK and his death is mainstream, talking about NASA blowing up the Moon is batshit crazy. The difference is as wide as the Grand Canyon.

But no matter how many people believe a lie, it does not become the true.

Ignorance is VERY democratic.

Everything else is speculation

But yes, there were two different types of ammo used, and shooters from opposite directions.

Were they working together?

We don't know. We will never know.

But we DO know there had to be a second shooter.

There's no evidence to support that. If this nonsense is based on that stupid "back and to the left" thing? Go and search for "Zapruder 313" and "Zapruder 314" (not posting them here because they're graphic). In the frame after the head shot? Kennedy's head snaps FORWARD, noticeably; the spray of blood and tissue is all to his front left. This is completely consistent with a shot from behind; there were no shots from in front.

The Zapruder Film is not the clearest view to catch the second shot.

Watch the main one, and you'll see it.

Thus, it could not have have been Oswald

Oswald did hit JFK, but the kill came from a different gun

I was wondering where you got that information since I have not seen that ever remarked upon.

Do I really have to point you to the mountains of evidence supporting this?

Or are you just trying to fuck with me?

You said "there were 2 types of ammo found."
If so, what were the 2 types of ammo found?
And please point me to the link that describes these 2 types of ammo.

so, I guess you just made that up?

And that does not say "2 types of ammo were found."
Keep digging,

And, by all means, keep demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge, it is pretty funny.

They found a bullet that did not match the others. ERGO, that is ANOTHER type of ammo.

If I found at the site an M&M and a piece of unidentified chocolate at the scene, I could correctly conclude two types of candy

No, he didn't word it the same way. Again, reading comprehension!

You are able to say the same thing with different words, you know

Like "My dog is brown" and "That brown dog is mine"

We can conclude that the brown dog is mine, and that it is brown

You're just being silly

Come back when you've grown up and learned how to read

No they didn't.
And the quote you pulled doesn't come close to saying that.
And I read just fine, thanks.

Come back when you can admit you made up "there were 2 types of ammo found."

Like I said, R-E-A-D-I-N-G....

Next word

C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-O-N

Can you say that? zappaman gets a cookie if you say it right

That's a good baby!

Goo

fragments recovered from the limo? From 6.5mm Carcano ammunition. Fired from Oswald's rifle (grooves and lands in the rifling leave marks on bullets in passage; this is basic forensics).

And:

You seem willing to believe that you can just ignore the evidence and then reach a conclusion without any facts to support it; it doesn't work that way. And in nearly fifty years, no alternative explanation that accords with they physical evidence, the ballistics, the trajectories, the known movements of Oswald, etc, has emerged to contradict the findings of the Warren Commission.

Honestly, I can't believe you're arguing that something you've clearly never read must be wrong; that'd be like saying "well you know, I haven't looked at any of the evidence for anthropogenic global warming, I don't trust those people, but I don't believe it anyway".

There is an axiom we said in journalism: If you read the story, and still have questions not addressed, the writer has done a piss-poor job of writing.

That's how I felt after the Warren Report.

My first question was "How did Oswald get so many shots in such a short time?"

timing starts with the first shot, there was a round already chambered. Three shots in 8.3 seconds is quite achievable.