General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe JFK conspiracy theroy is just not allowed.
Please note this CNN's little miss obvious right winger is digging and trying to make John Kerry's statement an issue
Kerry reignites JFK conspiracy theories :
http://www.centurylink.net/tv/3/player/vendor/CNN/player/cnn/asset/cnn-kerry_reignites_jfk_conspiracy_theories-cnn
note : John Kerry did not say lone or two gunman gunman he said more than one involved.
What I believe personally is that a power group headed by Republicans was the major force involved. There were well known Republicans in Dallas a couple days before JFK was shot and I believe tricky Dick knew much more than we will ever know.
From the book: by Josiah Thompson: Six Seconds in Dallas
As we review the eyewitness testimony, we see that the conclusion
is not difficult to reach -- that indeed, the President was shot both from the front and the rear.
This conclusion can be reached by a consideration of several kinds of evidence:
v where the eyewitnesses heard the shots coming from;
v eyewitness accounts of the spacing of the shots, which came too close together for the lone
assassin hypothesis to be maintained;
v the total number of shots was too large for the lone assassin hypothesis to be maintained;
v the early shot hitting the President was not the same as the shot hitting Governor Connally,
invalidating the lone assassin hypothesis.
I think anyone in their late 50s and older remember that sad day very well.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Kerry has doubts and he was brave enough to express them.
Kudos to CNN for bringing in Josiah Thompson.
Thanks for the OP and info, INdemo!
pa28
(6,145 posts)He's good at it.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.
CIA Instructions to Media Assets
RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with (?)and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.
e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. (Archivist's note: This claim is demonstrably untrue with the latest file releases. The CIA had an operational interest in Oswald less than a month before the assassination. Source: Oswald and the CIA, John Newman and newly released files from the National Archives.)
f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
SOURCE: http://www.boston.com/community/forums/news/national/general/cia-instructions-to-media-assets-doc-1035-960/80/6210620
From 2003, first OP on DU I could find on it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x765619
Imagine that Tom Brokaw won't report on this CIA document. What a co-incidence.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)will undoubtedly proceed to push his OWN conspiracy theory.
The Warren Commission account is a conspiracy theory. It is a theory because it is not based entirely on facts certain. And it is a conspiracy because the report asserts that Oswald had other connections and motives for his action. In other words, it wasn't a botched bank robbery. It wasn't a rifle accident. It was something that Oswald conspired and planned.
So what we are talking about ALWAYS in this cases is the merits of one conspiracy theory versus other conspiracy theories. There were enough questions left unasked, enough leads left un-followed, and enough government agencies left silently uncooperative in both the Warren and 911 cases for any reasonable person to not accept those particular conspiracy theories at face value.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Agree, BlueStreak. One can almost tell who's read or not-read what by what they say and write. Tom Brokaw wants to keep cashing the pension checks, so he keeps on message.
Here's some of what Gaeton Fonzi meant, President Kennedy's jacket. The location of the bullet hole indicates he was shot in the back, not the neck.
Gerald Ford's Terrible Fiction
The initial draft of the report stated:
"A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."
Ford wanted it to read:
"A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."
Details why here:
http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Based on the jacket hole, if legitimate, that wouldn't even support the ORIGINAL version of the text before Ford tried to change it. That isn't ABOVE the shoulder. I thought Kennedy was shot in the head. How could there be a bullet hole in his jacket, unless he had the jacket pulled up over his head at that instant?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...which is supposed to have entered the back of the President's neck, exited through his throat, shirt and tie -- then angled rightward and then leftward, entering Gov. Connally's back, passing through ribs, exiting his chest, passing through his arm, and shattering the bones in his forearm and leaving large fragments which show up X-rays, entering his thigh, finally coming to rest on a gurney he did not use at Parkland, where it was found looking like this:
That's some theory. More details:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Single_Bullet_Theory
Mass
(27,315 posts)I have heard divergent opinions about who exactly was behind that, but most people I know share Kerry's opinion that there was more than one person involved.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
whathehell
(29,082 posts)Russ Baker, author of "Family of Secrets" claims Poppy Bush, a congressman at the time,
to be the only person over the age of six to claim he "didn't know" where he was when JFK was shot.
He was later established as being in Texas. 
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)I've often dismissed Kerry as a fellow Bonesman of Bush's, a 1%er and a "safe" opponent.
This challenges my assumptions.
thanks for posting!
Blanks
(4,835 posts)But the house committee (link below) determined that there was probably more to it than a lone gunman.
I've always believed the MIC. I think that makes more sense than the republicans. Funding for the Vietnam war and all that.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)on acoustical evidence thats very controversial. Several tests have shown it flawed, but CTs say those tests are flawed. Best call it inconclusive. And several members of the Committee put in the record they didn't support the second gunman finding.
Zeke L Brimstone
(89 posts)that one would have to be an absolute nutter to seriously believe that Mr Oswald was a solitary assassin.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)Baclava
(12,047 posts)JFK: The Smoking Gun
Bullet that struck Kennedy in the head had in fact been fired by Secret Service agent George Hickey from an AR-15 rifle carried in the car immediately following the President's vehicle.
Kill shot was accidental discharge - with the cover-up being secret service confiscating all the notes and 20 rolls of film taken at the autopsy which were never seen again
Forensics evidence showed a 6mm entrance hole in the back right lower portion of Kennedy's skull and exiting out through the top right, a 6.5MM solid bullet like from Oswald's gun could never make that hole, too big. The x-ray tech was later given instructions to tape bigger bullet fragments to the skull and take more x-rays to support a 6.5mm Carcano gun being used.
They made quite a case - bullet trajectory angles to show the fatal shot came from low and directly behind - right where the secret service follow-up car was - and a 15mph breeze in the face of Oswalds position - how could gunsmoke be smelled at street level by many witnesses including the secret service in the motorcade behind the presidents car
"We're not saying this was intentional," Menninger said Sunday. "This was a tragic accident in the heat of the moment."
"We don't suggest he was in any way involved in a conspiracy," Menninger added.
Donahue wrote about his theory decades ago, but McLaren said it's taken decades -- and the release of thousands of JFK-related documents during the Clinton administration -- for a proper review of all the evidence and information related to the case. The authors acknowledged Sunday that there are many other books and films on the assassination, but said theirs is unique because it is based on a new review of the documents released during the 1990s.
McLaren and Menninger also alleged that the government -- including Robert F. Kennedy -- covered up the involvement of the Secret Service and Hickey
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/28/jfk-second-shooter-documentary_n_3667317.html
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Baclava
(12,047 posts)right after the shots were fired...
zappaman
(20,606 posts)And the driver also shot JFK to make sure...
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 12, 2013, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)
Thanks for this, zappaman.
TYY
On Edit: I've changed my mind. I'm not totally convinced. The top video on the following site seems to show the driver's left arm on the steering wheel. So, who knows? Not me. http://www.jfklancer.com/greer.html
Baclava
(12,047 posts)what have YOU been reading?
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)It was clearly the driver.
Case closed.
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)What do you make of the video at the top of this site?: http://www.jfklancer.com/greer.html
TYY
Edit to add a different rebuttal video:
zappaman
(20,606 posts)It is a conspiracy to keep the truth hidden.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)He said after the first shot, he picked the gun up off the floor, clicked off the safety, and stood up to be prepared to fire at potential assailants. Didn't fire gun. Don't you think the other SS in car, or any of the hundreds of witnesses in the Plaza, would have noticed if he fired accidently or otherwise?
Baclava
(12,047 posts)the team picked to protect the president did the actual killing...accident or otherwise it would dissolve that organization
No way they would EVER admit to that - that's why the secret service closed ranks and destroyed all evidence of a second shooter
oh yeah - they would NEVER let that out - they would all have been lynched in the streets
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)Nobody in the crowd saw this happen, a guy with a rifle shoot the president from a car that was right behind him?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The gullible will gobble it up. :rolleyes:
This was proposed in a book 20 years ago. Hickey sued the author, and the suit was dismissed because the time limit ran out. He sued again when the paperback came out, and got a huge out of court settlement. The story is being recycled now because Hickey is dead and can't sue.
Baclava
(12,047 posts)just another theory among hundreds - better than blaming the Russian mafia
On the Road
(20,783 posts)immediately after the president he was protecting was shot?
Seriously?
Baclava
(12,047 posts)or so they say
On the Road
(20,783 posts)if he had NOT picked up the weapon IMO.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)There were a lot of flaws in the SS protection detail. Obviously in hindsight it would have been better to have a SA in the rear compartment of the limo to push Kennedy to the floor upon the first shot, and cover him up.
As to the SS detail in the following car, most were armed with handguns. Hickey was issued the rifle...I don't know if it was an earlier fully automatic AR 15 or a later semi-automatic. The former I would guess. Anyway, it seems evident his job was to return fire to an assault on the President. He prepared to do so upon hearing the first shot. No target presenting itself, he didn't fire. He can hardly just start spraying the crowd with bullets. No witnesses, from the crowd or in the car, have ever claimed he fired his weapon. The story is a complete fabrication.
pamela
(3,469 posts)That was the best show I've ever seen on the subject. I turned it on out of curiosity not expecting much and came away a believer.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)... about these 'bums' ... not that THEY were the shooters, per set, but that they were cover for the 'cops' that were 'arresting' (but never did actually arrest) them ... and why is the 'cop' carrying a rifle? Don't most cops carry handguns?
http://www.google.com/imgres?safe=active&sa=X&biw=1707&bih=1096&tbm=isch&tbnid=9kj23KGeFO205M:&imgrefurl=http://jfkmurdersolved.com/lois1.htm&docid=bxQT8QsnEYZnRM&imgurl=
&w=558&h=387&ei=3fyAUqnoA63d4AP514HoCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=180&vpy=102&dur=1170&hovh=187&hovw=270&tx=140&ty=121&page=1&tbnh=135&tbnw=199&start=0&ndsp=58&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:84
People can poo-poo the "Badgeman" pics all they want but when one compares that pic to this pic the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Hide in plain sight .... because whoever would think the shooter would be someone dressed like a cop?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)nonsense, and they know that people don't believe it no matter how many talking heads they pay to regurgitate it into the MSM. This is their new BS story. The idea that a security guy just picked up a gun and accidentally happened to blow off the head of the most important guy within 500 miles is crap. And then everyone in authority around him was so loyal that they would all agree to risk their own careers by being complicit in a huge conspiracy to protect this guy. Bullshit. It doesn't explain many, many loose ends. It's nonsense.
Baclava
(12,047 posts)
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)EVERY explanation is a conspiracy theory. All we can do is see which of the various conspiracy theories lines up the best with all the facts, including the geopolitical ones, and inter-agency ones.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)When I saw the footage, it was hard for me to believe the shot would have come from that distance. I think that if it happened as described here, it would inspire them to close ranks and not with bad intentions.
Archae
(46,343 posts)On the front page of DU is a statement by a birther.
We just about universally dismiss any and all birther claims, since those claims come from people who are nuts like Orly Taitz, have as their agenda to "get that n***** out fo the White House," hyper-partisan sore losers, and those who are in it for the ca$h they make pandering to the suckers.
Over at Free Republic birther debunkers get the "zot" ban rather frequently and quickly.
So here?
Conspiracy theories with just as much *REAL* evidence, but are about a liberal sacred cow, namely the killing of John F. Kennedy, are treated as enlightened truth like FR posters treat birther CT's.
It's been FIFTY (bleep) YEARS.
Ballistics (credible ballistics, not the fake ones,) show there was not "magic bullet."
People shot in the head can get their brains blown out. Just ask any military medic.
"JFK" was 99% fiction.
Jim Garrison was a grandstanding liar.
Ninga
(8,277 posts)Stone talks about his recent viewing of his film "JFK" - and offers comments. Stone also comments that the Zapruder film was altered by the FBI. (at the link).
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/5/oliver_stone_on_50th_anniversary_of
-snip-
OLIVER STONE: My thoughts. I saw the film inside these last few days, and I’ve been able to assess it again, and I’ve followed the cases more or less from the outside. I haven’t been inside. It’s amazing to me that people still deny it. As you know, I was in the infantry in Vietnam. I had a fair amount of combat experience. I saw people blown away in action. When you look once again at the basics of the film—the bullets, the autopsy, the forensics, the shooting path—and stay away from all the other stuff—Oswald’s background and Garrison, etc.—just follow the meat, the evidence, what you see with your own eyes in those six seconds, it’s an amazing—it’s all there. It doesn’t need to be elaborated upon. You can see it with your own eyes.
You see Kennedy make his—get a hit in the throat. Then you see Kennedy get a hit in the back. Then you see him essentially get a hit from the front. When he gets the hit from the front, which is the fourth or the fifth or the sixth shot, he goes back and to the left. That’s the basic evidence. You see a man fly back because he gets hit right here. Many witnesses at Parkland and at the autopsy in Bethesda saw a massive exit wound to the rear of his skull, to the right side. The people at Parkland, including the young doctor, McClelland, saw his cerebellum, his brain, go out the—almost falling out of the back of his skull. Later, when he gets taken—illegally—to the—to Bethesda, Maryland, the military—
-snip-
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/5/oliver_stone_on_50th_anniversary_of
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...peddling the Garrison conspiracy, which a jury threw out after only an hour of deliberation.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)or make decisions through other none evidenced based reasoning – including decisions concerning CT's or determining guilt or innocence in well publicized trials.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)But there's a lot of money to be made peddling conspiracy theories.. As long as gullible saps are lining up to buy books and DVDs, there will be story tellers willing to supply them.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Tell us:
1. The names of specific people who were involved in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
2. The specific actions they took in furtherance of that conspiracy.
3. The direct evidence you have to support 1 and 2, not just endless arguments from personal incredulity or the mass incredulity of conspiracy theorists.
If you can't even meet that minimal standard after FIFTY fucking years of investigation, then don't be surprised if people dismiss you as unconvincing.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)investigator, but as a virtual eye witness. Your questions, not to be rude, are ridiculous and irrelevent or to have specific knowledge available to those who WERE. He makes no claims to have been directly involved in the investigation.
His views unfortunately for the 'deniers' are mainstream and supported by a majority of the other virtual eyewitnesses across the planey.
If you want to question his opinion then at least do it with some facts of your own. I don't see any in your comment.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, let alone that of a "virtual" eyewitness.
And yes, I know all of the conspiracy mongers would like to dismiss requests for specific theories and direct evidence to back them up as "ridiculous and irrelevant", but the burden for producing affirmative evidence falls on those making an affirmative claim. I have no obligation to disprove every crackpot conspiracy theory about everything that's floating around out there.
There are a multitude of different conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination, all expounded by people who are absolutely convinced that their version of events is correct, and that anyone who disagrees is a "denier". But as a moment's intelligent thought would show you, since at least all but one of them must be wrong, there's no good reason for thinking that any of them must be true.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)official CT but have no theories of their own.
That is the inconvenient fact the deniers try so hard to ignore so they focus on the distractions in an attempt to pretend that they represent all those people who simply don't believe the 'official story'.
That there are so many holes in the 'official story' that you don't need to offer ANY theory other than 'that sure doesn't make any sense'. And, when something generates that reaction in so many millions of people, it will naturally continue to be viewed as as 'unsolved murder' whether people like it or not. And people will continue to want answers to so many of the unanswered questions.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)I can play that game. The "official story" is that the sky is blue, 1+1=2, chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor, the earth is round, and President Obama was born in Hawaii.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)obvious holes in it that it has been very hard to sell.
We have an unsolved murder that is now 50 years old. Unlike most unsolved murders, the government is refusing to release material related to the case. That raises the question, 'what are they trying to hide'? Decades old cases that have gone cold HAVE been solved and this one will too, eventually. All I know is, the official 'story' told mostly by Republicans, hasn't been very convincing.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)-There were witnesses that saw Oswald fire the weapon or at least saw the rifle fire the shots
-There were witnesses that saw Oswald murder the police officer
-Oswald's rifle fired the bullets that hit JFK
-Oswald's rifle was found at the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository
-Three cartridge casings and a snipers nest were found at the window
-The trajectory of the bullets came from Oswald's known location
That's only some of the evidence. The story is told by the evidence. Please don't give Republicans credit for better being able to follow evidence.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)believe is that he was 'lone wolf' operating all by himself. There is too much evidence to the contrary. I have no clue who he might have been working with or for. I just don't believe he acted alone.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)It was NOT anywhere near what you or the RW are saying. It boiled down to saying that there was not a solid enough investigation into what influenced Oswald. He specifically rejected "the grassy Knoll" etc or the idea that the CIA was involved when asked specifically about that.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)These guys have been on the case and they get results!
KansDem
(28,498 posts)I thought that the first time I saw it. "Back and front"
Then we were told the jerking back of the head was due to a "muscle spasm" in the neck. Now, the CNN bubblehead tells us the head jerked back to the explosion of the exit wound. These f*ckers can't get their stories straight.
The Zapruder film shows two shots. The right-wingers weren't counting on someone filming the assassination.
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)I've always thought. HE reacts as if to duck.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)there's absolutely no time to react. Nevermind that seeing a muzzle flash in broad daylight is unlikely.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)LOL.
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)And the fence at the back of the grassy knoll was in shadow.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)There were several shooters in the Depository, several more on the knoll, 3 on the overpass, and at least one in the storm drain. There was at least 30 or 40 assassins, they were tripping all over each other. It was a fullisade of lead, JFK didn't stand a chance....according to the CTs.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The "jerking" back of the head was slightly delayed and was not due to the momentum of the bullet.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)as Kerry, Thompson and myself, still have large problems with the official Warren Commission report. Reputable studies throughout the years have done a great deal to add to our doubts. Single bullet defenders don't generally provide any real insight to back them up---just "don't be silly, you just can't accept the simplistic truth!"
whathehell
(29,082 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)
dflprincess
(28,082 posts)John Sherman Cooper, Richard Russell and Hale Boggs all had doubts. Russell and Cooper both said publicly that they did not believe Oswald was in on it alone. All three slammed the FBI for it's conduct during the investigation. Boggs said J. Edgar Hoover "lied his eyes out" during his testimony.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)FIFTY people. Texans who know their gunfire sounds well.
How many witnesses said the gunfire was form one direction only? Zero?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Others said they couldn't determine because of echos, so its entirely possible that those who heard more than one direction or more than three shots heard echos without realizing it.
dflprincess
(28,082 posts)the fence on the knoll and admitted that they told the FBI what it wanted to hear:
In his book "Man of the House" (published in 1987) O'Neill wrote:
[div class = "excerpt"]
I was never one of the use people who had doubts or suspicions about the Warren Commission's report on the president's death. But five years after Jack died, I was having dinner with Kenny O'Donnell and a few other people at Jimmy's Harborside Restaurant in Boston, and we got to talking about the assassination.
I was surprised to hear O'Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence.
"That's not what you told the Warren Commission," I said.
"You're right," he replied. "I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."
"I can't believe it," I said. "I wouldn't have done that in a million years. I would have told the truth."
"Tip, you have to understand. The family-everybody wanted this thing behind them."
Dave Powers was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O'Donnell's. Kenny O'Donnell is no longer alive, but during the writing of this book I checked with Dave Powers. As they say in the news business, he stands by his story.
And so there will always be some skepticism in my mind about the cause of Jack's death. I used to think that the only people who doubted the conclusions of the Warren Commission were crackpots. Now, however, I'm not so sure.
If the Feds could pressure two of the men closest to JFK into saying what they wanted to hear, what chance did an ordinary citizen have of being heard?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)My feeling is that they were covering up incompetence and/ or assets.
By the time of the assassination, EVERYBODY was watching Oswald. FBI Agt. Hotsy was supposed to have questioned Oswald, but he wasn't home and Hotsy apparently didn't follow up or try to locate him. Oswald's acquaintence George de M apparently had some CIA contacts, if he was watching Oswald for them I don't know. But he was well aware that Oswald had radical politics, owned a gun, and was prone to violence (beating Marina and attempt to kill Gen. Walker). So if de M had reported this to CIA, and they sat on the info, it would be a major political embarrassment. Also, at the time they were still covering up all the CIA assassination attempts....they wouldn't have wanted any ties to that getting out.
bluedeathray
(511 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)That definitely settles it for me!
Logical
(22,457 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)might be convincing, but NOTHING as you correctly state, is not likely to convince 'us people' of anything.
Got anything other than your opinion of DUers, 'you people' I presume refers to DUers?
I can't imagine why you would think that offering NOTHING might be helpful to anyone.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)But I'm sure you know far more than 70% of this country as well as the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations which all agree that Kennedy was assassinated as a result of conspiracy involving more than just a lone gunman. I'm sure you'll have a rather logical explanation. Nah, you'll just spew more b.s. and expect to be taken seriously.
Logical
(22,457 posts)People make me laugh.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)ANd you're conveniently ignoring the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations. Were they just aching to stir up the public with their contention that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy? You all know how the government loves to stoke mistrust of itself. But no, you go on believing your fairy tales. The government would never lie to you and would certainly never engage in any conspiratorial behavior.
Logical
(22,457 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)Want to see who's got the bigger list? How about instead you use a smidgen of logic, I know that's a toughie for you, but see if you can try. Why were standard medical procedures not followed for JFK's autopsy? You'd think that would be pretty damned important when dealing with a murdered POTUS, right? Why were a number of JFK's organs not removed and weighed as per required procedure? Also, why was no autopsy performed in Texas as was required according to law? Why is it that Secret Service agents threatened to shoot Dr. Earl Rose rather than allow him to perform the autopsy where it should have been performed? Why is it that that Kennedy's body was being seen loaded into an ornate and heavy casket onto AF1, yet delivered to Bethesda in a body bag? I'm sure you've got perfectly LOGICAL explanations for all these things. Oh right, you're just going to ignore them, throw your hands up in the air and scream "but logic!"
Loudly
(2,436 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is generally accepted by the mainstream. In this case it is a minority who still believes the official story so the debunking has failed on a massive level considering that a majority of people around the globe consider the debunking to be the Conspiracy Theory, and doubts only increase as more evidence surfaces that the official story makes no logical sense.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)There are so many witnesses, and film. He would have to have levelled the gun over the windshield and fired the shot, without any of the hundreds of witnesses noticing. Impossible.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Thankfully people that still care about the truth won't let this issue die.
mth44sc
(2,435 posts)that deals with the physical and forensic evidence period. No theories about who - just a book that discusses how.
RagAss
(13,832 posts)But of course it was dismissed as "commie" propaganda...
BootinUp
(47,179 posts)That they were like truth tellers?
RagAss
(13,832 posts)I'm saying they had an official response that sounds a lot like many modern "American" theories...one day after the event. How many times have you seen or heard that clip re-broadcasted on network television or anywhere else ? I'm guessing never.
BootinUp
(47,179 posts)I might be able to respond.
dflprincess
(28,082 posts)They weren't/aren't any more honest than the KGB.
BootinUp
(47,179 posts)Trust this, I won't play your game.You bore the shit out of me.
California_here
(13 posts)2:21 into the video, Senator Russel tells LBJ he does not believe the same bullet hit Connally and JFK. Johnson replies, "I don't either.":
The number of people you don't trust is piling up.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...they didn't care if it was true or not. They admitted many years later they made shit up and flung it against the wall.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Just one opinion and to conclude they had it "figured out" is silly. Accusing Goldwater of assassinating Kennedy in order to win the next election is over the top lunacy no matter who says it.
randome
(34,845 posts)What is the point in rehashing old theories? What is the end game? Do you really expect someone to pop up and confess?
Do you want the truth? What if you already have the truth? You would never recognize it or admit it, would you? Because you want to believe in a conspiracy.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Rules are made to be broken. Including this one.[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)technology. There is no statute of limitation on murder. And there have been plenty of cases where the wrong person has been convicted only to be exonerated decades later when new technology has been used to analyze the evidence.
Whenever there is either an unsolved murder or a conviction that is doubted by a lot of people, people just have a natural desire to resolve it and to hold those responsible accountable.
This is that kind of case. So many unanswered questions, so many who never accepted the official story, and more information coming out all the time, casting even more doubt on the very flawed conclusions of the Warren Commission. Even if this not a US President, there are just so many holes in the 'findings', so much still hidden and for what reason after 50 years?
And very old cold cases do get resolved. THAT is why people are still interested, just as people remained interested in other Cold Cases.
meanit
(455 posts)and believe that Oswald was the lone assassin? Ridiculous....
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)From where could a shooter have fired, in order to produce Connally's injuries, without striking Kennedy?
Connally himself said there were three shots and was emphatic that the first and third did not hit him. That leaves a small time frame in which a shooter could have hit him (and him alone) and it limits the possible locations from where such a shot could have come.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)I agree with Kerry that there was likely a conspiracy. I put together the following the other day... http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4010042
LBJ and the men involved with Brown & Root/Halliburton, Bell Helicopter, Ling-Temco-Vought etc.
Otherwise known as the Suite 8F Group.
The winker is a member of the S8G and, according to his wife, it was his appreciation dinner that caused Kennedy to change his plans and head down to TX earlier than he originally planned.
Emphasis my own
M: Is it correct that both Lyndon Johnson as Vice President and John F. Kennedy were here in
Houston for a testimonial-type dinner for you and your husband? Is that right?
T: Yes, it came about--a group of people--Albert had been saying he was going to retire. As amatter of fact, he had made that announcement, so President Kennedy asked him to
reconsider; that he was needed very much; and would he consent to stay on. Of course, he
was ill at that time, but he was certainly able to carry on his work. So then my husband's friends got up this dinner for him, and they asked my husband what did he think about
asking President Kennedy to come. He said, "Fine," he thought it would be a wonderful
gesture, but after all, he was so busy that he would certainly understand if he did not come.
Much to our surprise he did call my husband one day and said, "I'm coming to the dinner. I had planned to go to Texas but not at this particular time. Since your dinner is going to be then, I think I will come." Well, immediately of course word got out and then all the people began to make these plans. First, he'd go to San Antonio, then he'd come here, then he'd go to Fort Worth, then he'd go to Dallas, then he'd go to Austin. Well, it became very
involved.
Too, of course, the Secret Service had a say. All along the time my husband kept saying, "Oh, I hope nothing happens while he's here in Houston at my dinner." I remember very well when we were driving in. We had a Secret Service man in the car--
M: Was this in the motorcade?
T: Motorcade coming in that afternoon. And he would say, "Do you see anything along the
road?" And he kept looking that afternoon, I remember very well.
my husband was asked to get back on the plane--I don't know just how it did happen--but anyway, he was the one that said to President Johnson, "You can't take off until you are sworn in as President of the United States."
That's how he happened to be right there in front. (Mrs. Thomas says that her husband was the first to address Lyndon Johnson as "Mr. President."
In 1964, Thomas was named Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. His old college roommate was George Brown of Kellogg Root and Brown/Halliburton
David Harold Byrd was also a member of the s8g. He owns the Dallas Book Depository. He also is a partial owner of Ling-Temco-Vought which turned out one aircraft a day for several years during Vietnam.
Bell, another s8g member and the founder of Bell Aviation, later Bell Helicopter, benefited greatly from Vietnam and had long associations with LBJ. LBJ had helped Bell get military contracts as far back as the 1940's. Michael Paine, his wife shared a home with Marina Oswald and she was the one who suggested the Book Depository job to Lee (according to the Warren Report), worked for Bell Helicopter.
The Brown brothers, also members of the s8g. They were the founders of Brown & Root. The company was purchased by Humble Oil's Halliburton in 62.
NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1569483"Nearly 40 years ago, Halliburton faced almost identical charges over its work for the U.S. government in Vietnam — allegations of overcharging, sweetheart contracts from the White House and war profiteering. Back then, the company's close ties to President Johnson became a liability. "
"The story of Halliburton's ties to the White House dates back to the 1940s, when a Texas firm called Brown & Root constructed a massive dam project near Austin. The company's founders, Herman and George Brown, won the contract to build Mansfield Dam thanks to the efforts of Johnson, who was then a Texas congressman."
The other members of this group had oil ties. They were going to take a massive monetary hit (an estimated 300million a year) if Kennedy had been able to follow through with his plans to eliminate the Oil Depletion Allowance.
A damning number of links exist but this sampling shows just how much money was made off of the assassination and as a result, the Vietnam war.
~ Jack Ruby"When I mentioned about Adlai Stevenson, if he was vice president there would never have been an assassination of our beloved President Kennedy " "Well the answer is the man in office now"
~Jack Ruby"Well, you won't see me again. I tell you that a whole new form of government is going to take over the country, and I know I won't live to see you another time"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4010042
These same companies are still in the war profiteering business.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)as well as the Military Industrial Complex.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2749997
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)There would be no conspiracy theories if it weren't for Jack Ruby. That's the part that doesn't fit. Why would a nudie bar owner with mob ties kill Lee Harvey Oswald? That's the part that makes no sense.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)However, if a group of conspirators was going to silence Oswald, I doubt they would do such a messy job. Oswald could have been killed in the book depository "caught in the act", or killed on the street "trying to get away". No one would have questioned it. Plus, Ruby as a "hit-man" is rather implausible....do the conspirators not know a professional killer, and have to resort to a small-time hustler?
IMO, Ruby probably probably considered himself a vigilante, and thought he was doing society a favor. Perhaps he thought he would be celebrated as a hero. Maybe the lone-nut theory is the two lone nuts theory.
JVS
(61,935 posts)Oswald having spent time in the military, then the Soviet Union, then returning to the US is enough to raise questions about whether he was working in connection with Soviet or US intelligence. The film and the magic bullet theory also still would cast a lot of doubt on the idea that Oswald acted alone.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)He was a narciscist. He thought he was destined for great things, and society refused to recognize his greatness. And his repeated failures created dissonance, and caused him to become increasingly violent and unstable.
What we know:
As a teen, he started studying Marxism to appear an intellectual. He quit 10th grade to join the Marines...his brother was in Armed Services and respected, so he thought he would be too. His Marine career was a failure...he was court-martialled twice, spent another stint in the brig, demoted, and eventually discharged. Marines probaly happy to see him go. So, surely Russia would welcome such a great man with open arms, right? Not exactly. Russia gave him a one week tourist visa. On the day his official escort was supposed to deliver him to the airport, he slashed his wrists so his stay could be extended by a stint in the hospital. Somehow, he convinced the Russians to let him stay. Thinking that he's probably a CIA plant, Russia ships him off to a toaster factory in remote Minsk, where he's watched 24/7 by the KGB. This is hardly the treatment that such a great man deserves. Russia, home of Marxism, no less! So he becomes disillusioned with Russia and decides to return to the US. He's still a US citizen (despite earlier attempts to renounce his citizenship), so the US can't refuse him. Settling in New Orleans (after extensive questioning by CIA, FBI, and State Dept) he decides to take up the cause of Castro. He attempts to start a Pro-Castro chapter in NOLA, but is turned down by the national office. They just send him literature instead. Obviously they don't recognize his greatness. So, he's going to prove how deserving he is. He attempts to infiltrate a Cuban exile group and fails. He tries to bait the exile group into an altercation, and ends up getting arrested himself. Then he has a debate on local radio with a person representing the exile group. This turns out badly when the moderator points out Oswald's earlier defection to Russia. This is all in addition to the constant job changes (he keeps getting fired) and inability to support his family.
So, things aren't working out so well in NOLA for such a deserving man. Obviously its everyone else's fault. So he moves to Texas. Buys guns. Tries to travel to Cuba (surely this is a Marxist utopia that will recognize how destined for greatness he is). Cuba doesn't give him a Visa....reasonable to assume that the Russians warned them about letting this nut-job into their country. He tries to kill ret Gen Walker, but fails. He can't support his family, so Marina and kids move in with the Paines in Irving, Oswald rents a room near the School Book Despository, where he's gotten another menial job. Having failed miserably at every undertaking, and blaming society for his failures and failing to recognize his greatness, he decides to attempt the greatest act of all...assassinating the President. Unfortunately, he succeeds. Blind luck that all the cards fell in his favor, but they did.
JVS
(61,935 posts)was too busy in 1963 getting in trouble for shooting at generals, disturbing the peace, then travelling in and out of country. It looks like this guy got a pass to go wherever he wanted and do whatever he wanted.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Thats a gross exaggeration. He got a standard one week tourist visa, which he got extended by slashing his wrists. My guess is the Russians couldn't figure out what the hell he was doing, so they stashed him someplace harmless, on the chance he was a CIA plany and they could bust a spy ring. This was before Cuban Missle Crisis, and U-2 spy planes, so relationship between US and Russia not as tense as a couple years later. Also, Oswald was not free to move around, and he was watched 24/7 the entire time he was in Russia.
BTW, I have friends who visited Russia in the early 80s for 3 months, and Ukrainian friends who first visited here about same time. Travel/visas not at all impossible to get, except times of high diplomatic tension (like Missle Crisis). Same with Cuba....I've been there twice, in late 70s and again early 80s. The hangup is usually on the US end, not the Russia or Cuba end.
JVS
(61,935 posts)suspicious of people who choose to travel there. What seems odd to me is that the state department sees fit to help a dishonorably discharged marine who has renounced his citizenship get his passport back and let him bring a wife over.. I'd think they'd want to look long and hard into what the hell he had been up to for 18 months and that if they'd even let him back into the US, they'd yank his passport upon repatriation and tell him to fuck off.
But travel, renunciation of citizenship, suicide attempt, getting back your US passport from the consulate without a hitch, meanwhile entering a marriage, attempting to assassinate General Walker, leaving the country late 1963 despite legal troubles and attempting to go to Cuba pushes the boundaries of credibility. Does this guy have a guardian angel looking out for his paperwork? Maybe the Russians were right about him being a plant. I'm not saying that I know what his connections were, I'm just thoroughly unconvinced by explanations like yours that he "obviously" had no connection to anyone. His path seems to have been made awfully clear.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)So the US had to accept him back. I assume he wasn't interregated closer because US intelligence wasn't terribly concerned with the details of Russian toaster manufacturing. He was being watched, but rather ineptly. See James Hotsy, who never bothered to determine his whereabouts in the days prior. Thats probably what FBI was covering up.
JVS
(61,935 posts)worry about.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)You've got the original assassination conspiracy. Then there's all the coverup conspiracies...faked photos, forged Zapruder film, faked autopsy, etc. Then theres all the "silencing" conspiracies to eliminate witnesses. Every inconvienient fact is relabeled to be part of the conspiracy, until there's hundreds of people involved. Now, what is the probability of hundreds of people not only doing their assigned role successfully, and also keeping silent about it? Zero. Murphy's Law tells us that somewhere an operation will run into a snag, and fail. Someone will get liquored up and blab, or offer up information in a plea-deal for an unrelated crime.
Secondly, there is the matter of Oswald himself. The guy was not only unstable, but unreliable. He was a failure at everything he did prior to 11/22. If a group was conspiring to commit such an epic crime as assassinating the President, would they assign the most crucial role, the assassin himself, to a loser like Oswald? Any of the common groups mentioned by CTs....Mafia, CIA, RWers, Cubans, etc ... have professional hitmen. So why would the job be given to a 24 year old unstable and unreliable loser?
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Are you talking about the Warren commission conspiracy theory? Or one of the other conspiracy theories?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Do conspiracies exist? Absolutely. And the chances of success and undiscovery are fairly good when the conspirators number a handful or less. Look at the 2 Colombine conspirators, for example.
However, as the number of conspirators grows, the probability of success and undiscovery plummets pretty rapidly. All it takes is for one person to fuck up, encounter an unforeseen snag, or get liquored up and blab. Watergate. Iran-Contra.
Since the conspiracy du joir is the JFK assassination, let us examine it. There's the prime group of shadowy figures that organizes the assassination. They have to bring in hit-men. Local LE and FBI have to be organized the plant the evidence. WH staff and SS have to be brought in to make sure the parade route drives past Dealey Plaza. 2 dozen or more doctors and ER staff have to be told what to do. Then the autopsy staff of 30 or so has to be told what they are to find. Then theres all the film experts, ballistics experts, fingerprint experts, etc who have to recieve their instructions. Then theres the "clean-up" squad, to silence any loose ends. Jesus....were talking hundreds of people here, each in charge of a critical part of the operation and possessing some crutial knowledge of part of the conspiracy. Yet...no one fucks up. No one blabs. No-body has a vindictive ex-wife. No-body offers up knowledge of the conspiracy in a plea-deal for an unrelated crime. The odds of that happening are astronomical. Too many people involved. If there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy (and no doubt, many wanted him dead), it would be planned in a manner that involved AS FEW people as possible, with AS FEW witnesses as possible. 11/22 simply doesn't fit that model.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)in a very public place filled with dozens of witnesses.
Surely, there must have been a safer/easier way to kill JFK..
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Whether it's CIA, Mafia, Texas Cabals, etc.... its going to be a clean hit. No witnesses. Like Jimmy Hoffa.
Uncle Joe
(58,403 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby
Another motive was put forth by Frank Sheeran, allegedly a hitman for the Mafia, in a conversation he had with the then-former Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa. During the conversation, Hoffa claimed that Ruby was assigned the task of coordinating police officers who were loyal to Ruby to murder Oswald while he was in their custody. As Ruby evidently mismanaged the operation, he was given a choice to either finish the job himself or forfeit his life.[55]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_hoffa
James Riddle "Jimmy" Hoffa (born February 14, 1913 – disappeared July 30, 1975) was an American labor union leader who vanished, aged 62. He is widely believed to have been murdered.
(snip)
Hoffa became involved with organized crime from the early years of his Teamsters work, and this connection continued until his disappearance in 1975. He was convicted of jury tampering, attempted bribery, and fraud in 1964. Hoffa was imprisoned in 1967, and sentenced to 13 years, after exhausting the appeal process. In mid-1971 he resigned the Teamsters' presidency, an action that was part of a pardon agreement with President Richard Nixon, to facilitate his release later that year. Nixon blocked Hoffa from union activities until 1980 (which would have been the end of his prison term, had he served the full sentence). Hoffa attempted to overturn this order and to regain support.
(snip)
Hoffa had first faced major criminal investigations in 1957, as a result of the John Little McClellan Senate Labor Subcommittee's work. He avoided conviction for several years, but when John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960, he appointed his younger brother Robert F. Kennedy as Attorney General. Robert Kennedy had been frustrated in earlier attempts to convict Hoffa, while working as counsel to the McClellan Subcommittee. As Attorney General from 1961, Robert Kennedy pursued the strongest attack on organized crime that the country had ever seen, and he carried on with a so-called 'Get Hoffa' squad of prosecutors and investigators.[14]
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)not assassinated in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses, not to mention SS, FBI, and local PD.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)there certainly is a school of thought that the best crimes are best done in plain view, either to intimidate the public, or because the public would instinctively believe it couldn't be true, just as you expressed.
I'm glad that you agree they are all theories, and none of them are secured by the facts that are available to us.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I don't believe that Oswald acted alone is a theory.
It's the one conclusion that matches ALL of the evidence.
If you or anyone can make a better case, I'm all ears.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)I don't understand what this sentence is saying: "I don't believe that Oswald acted alone is a theory."
But there are all sorts of contradictions with any of the conspiracy theories, including the Warren Commission's conspiracy theory.
Obviously the marksmanship is extremely improbable, and the path of a single bullet is practically impossible. Then we have the issue of Jack Ruby and his connections -- why was he compelled to silence Oswald, and was he also supposedly acting alone?
The Warren conspiracy theory is at least as problematic as any of the other conspiracy theories, but this is the one that the government wanted us to accept.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is fun to discuss them. No one can prove anything, so the argument goes on and on.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...can be accused of being part of the conspiracy, so there's no end to it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)discovered the poker game was just a poker game - his reaction: "Then it's (the conspiracy) bigger than all of you!"
California_here
(13 posts)When it would be the Lone-Nut theorists to prove that Oswald acted alone. In their minds, they have proved it. In the minds of the overwhelming majority, they have not. You have had decades to convince us. You have failed miserably.
They couldn't prove anything because Oswald died, they might argue...but then we are told again that another lone-nut, Jack Ruby, killed Oswald because he felt oh-so-bad about Jackie.
treestar
(82,383 posts)so he will forever remain the "alleged" killer and that is the breeding ground for CTs.
The burden of proof in court would just be against Oswald, and it might be met if he did the killing. If there was someone else involved, they might have had to make a deal with him to get him to talk.
Ruby killing him thus triggers it all - it seems Ruby lived three years more, but never said anything definite. Nothing that could create a prosecution of anyone else. And that prosecution even if undertaken would have to be proven.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)but there wouldn't be much point.
The role of the WC wasn't to establish who did it, which was obvious, but what happened. They did a fairly good job establishing the sequence of events according to the evidence available. Yes, the FBI and CIA weren't fully cooperative. Of information released by them since, there hasn't been any bombshells that prove a conspiracy or implicate the CIA or FBI. Mostly just admissions of assassination plots of foreign leaders, mind-control experiments, propaganda and disinformation efforts, domestic surveillence, etc. They were hiding that at the time of the WC. There hasn't been any indication to date those programs had any relevence to the Kennedy assassination.
polynomial
(750 posts)In today’s politics anyone can see the bias in Texas government. Imagine nineteen sixty two I was in high school at the time. We all know the internet did not exist. The only persons close to whistle blower back then where television journalist. Worse was that era of game show scandals.
Even then, child star Patty Duke, then a child actress who had competed on The $64,000 Challenge (a companion show to The $64,000 Question), testified to having been coached. According to wiki, however every once in a while it is said in passing when referring to corruption “That’s the sixty four thousand dollar question”. The boomers of that age understand that slang. It means corruption.
So, here America has another era of even more powerful corruption in that serious top level people that have deep pockets will feel the pressure acting weird doing political strange things that maybe orchestrated by the new gaming system called twenty four seven news. Moreover the complicity is extended to the judicial that place gags, make flea deals and even seal the grand jury report for unknown reasons that are loaded with soft money.
From my view John Kerry is doing the best he can while swimming in a pool of corruption. That is corruption significant on both sides of the political spectrum because plenty of Republicans are parading around as democratic people but care not what they can do for the country. They only care what the country can do for them.
oswaldactedalone
(3,491 posts)what the hell are you people smoking? All this badgeman, limo driver, three hobos, et al. crap has been so debunked that it's amazing it keeps popping up. Congress made an error when it took into account the "fourth gunshot" theory and should renounce it.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)and no evidence to the contrary will convince people otherwise. Just like RWNJs cling to their Birther and Benghazi conspiracies, despite all evidence to the contrary.
meanit
(455 posts)It was a conclusion that Congress came to in 1979 and it is the public record. Yet according to you, the Congress should renounce this "error" it in favor of the Warren Report, because it doesn't fit with your idea of the events?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)There were only 3 shell casings found next to Oswald's rifle. No 4th shell casing was found anywhere. No bullet, fragments or whole, has been found that didn't match Oswald's rifle. No picture or video shows a second gunman. No witnesses saw a second gunman. So, pray tell, where did the 4th shot come from, and where did it go?
meanit
(455 posts)like it or not.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)There has NEVER been any evidence to the contrary that anybody other than Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and Officer Tippit and wounded Governor Connolly.
And there never will be.
There are people who believe the earth is flat and people who believe the moon landing is a hoax. But that doesn't mean either is true.
Same with the JFK assassination. The country knew the truth the minute Oswald was captured.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Usually people at least attempt to defend their position before they bring out the ROFL Surrender Smiley.
Bobcat
(246 posts)I do not know who killed President Kennedy. May I suggest that thee Warren Report is a whitewash. Read Sylvia Meagher's book "The Warren Commission: Accessories After the Fact". It cites actual testimony from Warren Commission witnesses (published in 26 volumes)and then contrasts their testimony with the conclusions arrived at in the Warren Report. There is a significant disconnect. The preponderance of the evidence collected by the commission itself does not support the version of events put forth by the Warren Report.
reddread
(6,896 posts)without the whitewash of the October Surprise "investigation" the Bush family name would have been officially mud as
the traitor Poppy paid to detain the American hostages. Eventually pre-emptively pardoning Weinberger to keep his mouth shut.
Kerry was a part of that. A made man.
and BIG LEAGUE CONSPIRACIES BOLDLY SUCCEED WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.
Pathetic the liars who would purport otherwise, especially in light of the real consequences paid by this country
because of the MURDER of JFK.
http://www.nlpwessex.org/docs/irancontra.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._John_Heinz_III
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_Heinz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=46067
Heinz was on the plane.
Kerry ran the whitewash.
and took out the dirty laundry.
SCUMBAG.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)If earwitness A says 3 shots were fired, and earwitness B says 4 shots were fired, are they supposed to conclude 3.5 shots were fired? No. Their role was to hear and examine all the evidence available to them, and report their conclusion. In the course of hearing testimony, some witnesses will be taken more credibly than others. Just because some witnesses were less credible than others doesn't prove the WC was trying to cover up the truth, it just means there was less corroborating evidence for some testimony than others.
Earwitness A hears 3 shots. 3 empty shells are found in depository. No further shells are found. Thus earwitness A's testimony has more corroboration than B's, and is part of the findings.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Fits in perfectly with the CIA stuff. And Poppy has said he "doesn't remember" where he was that day. That makes him about the only adult in the Western Hemisphere who was around then who doesn't remember where s/he was that day.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Mohrenschildt's relationship to Bush and Oswald is much more than six degrees of Kevin Bacon.
The WCR Magic Bullet Hyenas who think anything but the truth matters here cannot reconcile
their supposed commie loose cannon pro-Cuba kid with Mohrenschildt's friendship.
A boiling hot cold war marine recruit with com-symp innards?
Lets hear the list of friends and relations he MUST HAVE if he is a red leftist radical?
Instead, it is all Bay of Pigs alums and people like Bush in the shadows.
What traitors, what phony Democrats would stand for the falseness of the WCR?
Infiltraitors.
We are beset by a security complex that serves the needs of the elite, and when Jeb Bush
defiles a bible taking the oath of office, all these coverups will have bloomed and fruited
right in our faces, again.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)de M was a petroleum engineer who did a great deal of foreign travel. Its reasonable to assume such a person might be questioned by CIA on occasion, but that doesn't make him in CIA....no more than being questioned by the cops makes one a policeman.
It is possible that de M was watching Oswald, either by request from the CIA or on his own initiative, and was reporting his observations to the CIA (legally the CIA couldn't conduct domestic surveillence, but they routinely ignored that). It would be interesting to see CIA files inre de M, but I'm not aware of them being released.
It is reasonable to assume de M knew Bush, since both were in the petroleum business living in Dallas. Like de M, Bush probably made reports to CIA. Possibly he had even closer working relationship with CIA.
Oswald was not in the petroleum business, and Bush was not part of the Russian ex-pat community; thus there is little probability of their meeting, and no evidence they knew each other.
reddread
(6,896 posts)it will never snap under rules of logic being applied/ignored here.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Kennedy had a lot of enemies, no question. However, there is zero evidence that any group conspired to successfully assassinate him. People's hunches and suspicions are not evidence. If anyone had any evidence supporting their suspicion, they never made it public.
A good analogy is Jesus. There is no evidence he existed. Accepting his existance is a matter of faith, not a conclusion based on factual evidence. The conspiracy theory operates on the same level...one is basing their belief of faith alone, not on any supporting evidence. Indeed, that faith necessitates ignoring or discounting a whole lot of evidence.
reddread
(6,896 posts)oswaldactedalone
(3,491 posts)but can't go along with the conspiracy idea.
reddread
(6,896 posts)not when it leans towards russians and cubans.
thats the official line as published by Woodward in his biggest affront to history, Veil.
Oswald must have been a serious loner, all right. Otherwise we would have the names and stories
of ALL THOSE RED COMPATRIOTS HE HUNG WITH.
After all, communism is about communal interests, isnt it? No shortage of active believers back then,
except maybe in the US military circa late 50's?
The more people cry out that he did it alone, the more it appears he still has friends in low places.
Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)Who here believes the 9/11 Commission?
Commissions are "fixers". I don't believe the official story involving either subject, because I don't believe in magic, which is what both of those reports ask of me.
I see no harm in looking for the truth.
rickford66
(5,528 posts)I read this book when it came out and am convinced the SS agent accidently fired the fatal shot. Oswald may or may not have been involved in a conspiracy, but the documentary based on the book is worth watching. The book delves much deeper with more facts and figures etc.
roamer65
(36,747 posts)Nixon mentioned to Stone and other aides he knew Jack Ruby. Ruby was put on payroll as an informant by Nixon's people in 1947. Here's the quote Nixon said to his aide after seeing Ruby shoot Oswald, "I know that guy". Nixon told Stone Ruby was introduced in 1947 to them as one of Lyndon's boys.
