Assassination Theory
One of the sad truths of getting older: Friday nights are rarely as glamorous as you think they’ll be.
As proof I offer this equation: A slow Friday night + an empty house + much-needed clean laundry = Watching a History Channel documentary.
Go ahead, try to tell me I’m wrong. I know. Math doesn’t lie.
You know who else didn’t lie? Anyone involved in the Warren Commission, according to this particular History Channel documentary. I believe it was called “The Truth About the JFK Assassination,” but don’t quote me.
My faith in the History Channel started to erode around the same time they started airing “UFO Hunters.” So I assumed this would be a pro-paranoia program. To my surprise, it spent two hours calmly – if a bit shallowly – refuting the major bullet points (excuse the pun) of assassination conspiracy theory.
And to my eternal disappointment…it all made a lot of sense to me.
Ten years back, full of piss and vinegar and an interest in being paranoid, I picked up a great book by Richard Belzer called “UFOs, JFK and Elvis,” where the Belz offers up the salient points of JFK conspiracy theory with good humor and reasonable self-awareness.
The through-line of his book is basically, “I don’t expect you to buy all these half-baked theories, but if even one of them shakes out for you, doesn’t that make you want to question everything else you’ve heard?”
Absolutely reasonable assessment. Inspect a couple faulty rungs, and the entire scaffolding comes falling down.
And there’s definitely some questionable content when it comes to the investigation of JFK’s killing. Why does a supposed nobody like Oswald pop up all over the intelligence community in the years leading up to the assassination? How did a fair shot with a rifle make a million-to-one (well, one out of three, anyway) shot from that book depository? Why did so many witnesses assume the sound of gunfire came from the exact opposite position as the apparent location of origin?
These are good questions that deserve real thought. Which the documentary…kind of gives. Oswald’s connections are left untouched, but some long-standing conspiracy truths are quickly and simply shot down, using modern science to disprove revelations 30-year-old science supposedly uncovered (short version of everyone thinking shots came from the grassy knoll? Shock-alert: sound tends to echo).
But most telling for me was the debunking of the “Jack Ruby killed Oswald to keep him from ratting out Ruby’s mafia buddies as complicit in the assassination” theory.
Their proof? A bunch of old buddies and some former dancers at Ruby’s strip club, all of whom spoke of Ruby as a guy who wanted to be a big shot, but quite simply was incapable of keeping his big yap shut if he actually had connections to the mafia. Let alone if he had any connections to a massive conspiracy to eliminate a sitting president.
People like to talk. People like to brag. People who wave guns around in public in particular like to brag. (If you don’t believe me, go see who’s been arrested in your state recently. They aren’t exactly James Bond villains. They are morons.)
Which immediately humanized Ruby for me. And right there is where conspiracy starts to fall apart: the recognition that conspiracies are made of people. And they’re not Cigarette-Smoking Men or mysterious women in wigs who disappear when you turn away for a second.
Sneaky plans are concocted by day-to-day schlubs who, for whatever reason, want to get something done fast and quiet rather than sit around going through pain-in-the-ass process.
Conspiracy is rooted in humans trying to sneak a fast one 
past the other guy.
Ben Franklin, quotable son of a bitch that he was, said, “Three men may keep a secret if two of them are dead.”
A little closer to my point, there is a line from…a thing…somewhere (sorry, I have no clue where I heard it), that goes, “Here’s how I know there’s no such thing as conspiracy. You ever hear of ‘Watergate’? I rest my case.”
The point here is that we put so much weight into Conspiracies with a capital “C” that we sometimes discount People with a capital “duuuuuurrrrh.”
One more quote for you, from Warren Ellis and Darick Robertson’s “Transmetropolitan“: “There’s one hole in every revolution, large or small, and it’s one word long: People. No matter how big the idea they all stand under, people are weak and cheap and frightened. It’s people that kill every revolution.”
This isn’t something I necessarily would’ve understood ten years ago, when I got that Belzer book. But after the eight years we’ve lived through, where every paranoid suspicion has led to a sheepish admission from the administration perpetrating the crimes – what are the odds anyone could have actually kept quiet about something as juicy as killing a president?
But it makes me sad, coming to this realization. There’s still plenty of questions surrounding the Kennedy assassination, and I still don’t believe we’ll ever hear the whole truth on the subject. But 
sometimes growing up means realizing the world isn’t made up of clever genius supervillains.
It’s made up of stupid, shitty people who think they can get away with something. On the bright side, they’re often proven wrong. Which should probably be a comfort.
But it does make the world a slightly less interesting place to live in.
January 30, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Good timing on this, considering the newly released Bushie-nonsense; i.e., his attempt to still claim “Executive Privilege”, even after having left office. The sad(glad?) thing about high scale bumblers, is that they bring us all back down to reality, regarding political “conspiracies”: If you can imagine it happening, of course it did.
Some of these guys worked so hard at concealing potential mistakes, they essentially confirmed to us that they were, in fact, making them. Big mistakes. And often. Undeniable transparency resulting from self-absorbed blundering. The end of the Bush admin. was like an “So, the tooth Fairy isn’t real?” moment for the U.S.–and politics here would never be the same again.
January 30, 2009 at 3:11 pm
“FBI” and “CIA” is 30% intelligence and 70% reputation and razzle-dazzle.
January 30, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I don’t know. Every time I hear about what the administration was doing to create a permanent republic majority, and I realize how close they came to it, I get the shivers.
If the war in Iraq hadn’t gone as badly as it did, the plan might have actually worked. Of course, an administration that wouldn’t bungle the Iraq war might also have been an administration that wouldn’t have tried to seize control of executive authority, so who knows. All I can feel at this time in American history is “whew.”
February 3, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I agree that a very very large majority of people all across the planet heaved a collective sigh and said “whew” on Nov. 5th and an even bigger one on Jan 20th – when the inauguration speech went off without a hitch (or a bang).
March 22, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Is there no space left where 2 or more Bush haters won’t congregate? Are you so worried about Bush’s executive authority reach that you can’t worry about the current admin’s reach that we give him the keys to our houses, our treasury, and the future of our great grand kids? He has the makings of the tyrant we feared in Bush and doesn’t even seem to care that some of us have figured it out.
I also lost all hope for the History Channel after “UFO Hunters”. It’s just awful.
JFK. Oswald did it.
Ruby. A little man no one would want in a conspiracy.
March 22, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Larry: I think you’re misunderstanding the nature of statistics. If half of the country hates Bush, then any place where people congregate for a reason is actually likely to have two or more Bush-haters there.
As for the current administration, so far all it seems like Obama’s done is roll back a bunch of fairly nasty executive orders that Bush had put into place to begin with. The rest of it–stimulus, budget, bailout–that’s all debatably the job of government or not, but one way or the other, it was passed by Congress. That’s the way the government is supposed to work. Technically, congress still has the keys to the treasury, which is about right, on the grounds that its congress’s job to hold the keys to the treasury.
I’m not sure who else would do it. Obviously, you don’t want a treasury that’s just filled with money that no one is ever allowed to take out. That’d be pretty pointless, as far as treasuries go.
As for giving him the keys to my house, I’m not aware of any plans of either the president or congress to change the reach and applications of eminent domain laws. If you know of some, I’m sure we’d all appreciate a link.
Giving away our grand-kids’ future is an interesting idea. I mean, Bush spent a trillion dollars waging a war that could never have possibly have benefited us. It was just a big hole that he threw money into. I didn’t approve of that. Obama wants to spend money on things like infrastructure, education, and healthcare–these are things that will generate work in the short term, and provide long-term careers and stability for the economy to grow in.
Just like how there are sometimes bad things to go into debt for–like, I don’t know, it’s bad to go into debt so that you can buy a giant SUV with gold rims–sometimes there are good things to go into debt for. A nice house in a stable market, that’s a reasonable thing to take out a mortgage to buy. You’re giving up some of your future earnings in order to get it, yes, but the net benefit, in terms of property value, equity, and usage actually exceeds the amount of money that you put in.
March 22, 2009 at 10:39 pm
It’s so weird. When I wrote this, I was kind of hoping we’d get a lot of “You’re such a sucker, Oswald couldn’t have acted alone, blablabla CIA” comments.
In retrospect, that was such a 20th-century way of thinking. I miss the old, conventionally paranoid internet the “X-Files” told me existed. How disappointing.
Now that we’re deeper into the decade, 21st century paranoia is something I’ll need to keep an eye out for.
March 23, 2009 at 10:48 am
“Obviously, you don’t want a treasury that’s just filled with money that no one is ever allowed to take out.”
?
Right now that would be a very nice situation to be in.
Obama hasn’t repelled the Glass-Steagall act. Largely responsible for the mess we’re in.
He hasn’t acted on the community re-investment act.
He hasn’t done anything about this. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
The people responsible for all that are still in power and consulting him on a daily basis.
I sometimes wish I could see the world the way you do. Then I wake up and damn…
March 23, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Larry: Yeah, I don’t think it’d be accurate to qualify my worldview as dreamy, just complex. When the CRA was first established, I can generally see that it was a good idea–especially that provision in it that demanded that banks still only dole out mortgages responsibly. There was nothing in it that said, “Hey, why don’t you start passing around these NINA loans, so that everyone, no matter how deep in debt they are, can buy a house!”
But, more importantly, that was 10 years ago. The idea that fiscal policy is something that you’re supposed to just set and leave alone, and then everything is going to work out forever and ever seems kind of retarded–like setting a permanent tax rate or something. That’s ridiculous. Taxes, like fiscal policy, are dynamic–you raise them when you need to, lower them when you can.
You start the CRA because it will work at first, and when it starts to get out of hand, you pull back on it. The mortgages that are going under now are not the mortgages that were established 10 years ago under the CRA–in fact, minority homeowners represent less that 11% of the mortgages that are capsizing now. Just because something was a good idea in 1999 doesn’t mean it will remain a good idea five years later; this all-or-nothing, ideological approach to economic policy seems completely insane to me.
As for the Glass-Steagall Act, I think one of the big problems with it is not that it hasn’t been repealed, but that parts of it have been repealed, namely with the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act. Of course, it’s very difficult to just un-repeal something. Obama can’t strike down the GLBA in order to un-repeal the elements of the GSA that kept bank divisions separate–I’m assuming this is what you mean when you say that it’s what’s responsible for the mess we’re in now. Unless you’re talking about the Fed’s ability to control interest rates, but as much as that has caused us problems in the past, it’s also been used to great effect, so it seems like a mixed blessing.
As for sitting on treasuries, it seems like it might be a good idea now but, of course, the government isn’t a person. It doesn’t have a retirement that it’s saving for–it has a living, dynamic, complex system that it has to provide and distribute energy to, which is why its mandate is to take and redistribute energy. That is why the very first power of congress is the ability to take money from some places and put it in other places. Sitting on a big pile of money is directly counter to its purpose–the government is supposed to spend money. That’s what it’s for.
Of course, all of this isn’t to the point at all: your problem with Obama was that he’s becoming a tyrant–but you can’t support a thesis like that by saying that the biggest problem with Barack Obama is that he hasn’t done things that are illegal for him to do anyway. Repealing acts of congress would be tyrannical.
March 23, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Thanks for the replies.
“…it has a living, dynamic, complex system that it has to provide and distribute energy to, which is why its mandate is to take and redistribute energy….”
By saying “energy” you really mean money. And by saying “money” what you really mean is “other people’s money.” I wish it had all this energy, I mean money, to redistribute. But it doesn’t. If your bank account looked like the government’s bank account, you would quickly conclude you were broke.
I just can’t understand how we are supposed to spend ourselves into prosperity. Or better put, borrow our way out of debt. If deficit spending was the way to prosperity, we would all have 6 figure jobs by now.
One trillion dollars, to fix infrastructure. One trillion can rebuild the Interstate Hwy System three times. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm
Improve our schools??? There are school districts in the US right now that spend over $12,000 per student and have dropout rates in the 60% range. A direct relationship to spending and scores is very hard to establish.
One trillion for universal health care. Maybe that might work, but it’ll be one trillion per year, forever. If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it’s free. And let’s put everyone Medical Records in computer files where they can be accessed. You first.
One trillion on public works???? One trillion can build over a thousand Boulder Dams. (Adjusted for inflation) http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM12MP
My bet is all the money will be gone before the first environmental impact statement is completed.
While the New Deal was expensive, and arguably didn’t work, at least we got a bang for our bucks. Projects that are still in use today. We can’t get a new Boulder dam with this stimulus money because it has been determined hydroelectric power isn’t renewal !!!!!!
“But, more importantly, that was 10 years ago. The idea that fiscal policy is something that you’re supposed to just set and leave alone, and then everything is going to work out forever and ever seems kind of retarded–…”
And you suggest Bush should have repealed the CRA and taken the heat for denying low income people housing. Clinton sets it up right before he leaves office, gets credit for doing it, and lets Bush be the fall guy. Nice. Yet he should have done just that. If this crisis had been avoided, he would just be remembered as the president that took away low income housing. But why should he have slammed the door? You’ve got the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee telling everyone that… “”These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” July, 2008 http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/9/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle.html
Yes, it is complicated. Even more when you realize whose responsible and then try to wrap your head around that aspect of the meltdown.
I hope it all works out for everybody.
March 23, 2009 at 8:33 pm
A careful reading of the CRA didn’t find the word “responsibly” or “responsible” within the text of the document. But this part pretty much makes my point and pretty much doomed the US economy through the failure of the housing market and the domino effect that followed.
(3) regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered. (b) It is the purpose of this chapter to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.
(Pub. L. 95-128, title VIII, Sec. 802, Oct. 12, 1977, 91 Stat. 1147.)
SHORT TITLE Section 801 of title VIII of Pub. L. 95-128 provided that: ”This title (enacting this chapter) may be cited as the ‘Community Reinvestment Act of 1977′.”
REPORT ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LENDING Pub. L. 102-550, title IX, Sec. 910, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3874, provided that: ”(a) In General. – Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this section (Oct. 28, 1992), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Comptroller of the Currency, the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration, shall submit a report to the Congress comparing residential, small business, and commercial lending by insured depository institutions in low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods to such lending in other neighborhoods. ”(b) Contents of Report. – The report required by subsection (a) shall – ”(1) compare the risks and returns of lending in low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods with the risks and returns of lending in other neighborhoods; ”(2) analyze the reasons for any differences in risk and return between low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods and other neighborhoods; and ”(3) if the risks of lending in low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods exceed the risks of lending in other neighborhoods, recommend ways of mitigating those risks.”
While it does say “to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.”
Operation such as Acorn used its muscle, armed with CRA to successfully lobby and sue to get lending institutions to lend to risky businesses and ultimately many of these defaulted.
http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12443&L=0%2Findex.php%253…
“Representatives signed agreements to establish programs for low- and moderate-income people to qualify for mortgages in their communities. Citibank, the nation’s largest bank, did not participate. In response, the conventioneers held a lively action at Citibank’s downtown Manhattan headquarters, and won a meeting to negotiate for similar programs. The meeting also led to increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac funding from the secondary mortgage market to ACORN neighborhoods. These efforts led to billions of dollars of primary and secondary mortgage money flowing into ACORN communities over a period of several years.”
Good intentions for sure, but bad very consequences the rest of the country, the world, and finally the very people it was meant to help.
March 25, 2009 at 12:56 pm
“…minority homeowners represent less that 11% of the mortgages that are capsizing now.”
But If that minority consisted of 11% of the total of all mortgage holders, that would be a very high default rate indeed. 100%, statistically speaking.
November 15, 2009 at 11:06 am
Larry, Nobody would like to believe Oswald did it all by himself, more than me. But I have a problem. Why were so many second and third stories made up? I also remember the Dallas Police comming down with “TWO” rifles from the depository, not one ! Seems over time the other rifle has dissapeared as if it never happened. With all these we’re going to tell the truth programs about the assassination, they leave out the firing possibility from the water tower directly behind where Kennedy’s limo was. Also just open up the files that are sealed fo another X amount of years and see what they say !! I’m not, a conspiracy freak, but something is not right with every story they try to sell !That !, is what makes people say conspiracy !! Or is it simply that the truth and our government have nothing in common, and have never met? Kind of like we are servants of the people statement. Under what program ever, does the servant tell the owners what to do? But, if you start with that lie, you will swallow a great story. You will not have the truth !!! Evidently you still believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and of course, the only egg laying rabbit ever, the Easter Bunny !! Yep, you and Wendy, and Peter of course, can really fly !! Common sense says that nobody goes to that much trouble to tell the simple truth, period!! My bad, they’ve never met, except in your mind.BUT GEE !! As long as you’re happy !! Just don’t ask for or look for me , on your “Let’s Get Gullible Train !” I,m not saying all of what they said is wrong. What I’m saying is not all of what they are saying and did is right !! Nither has it been explained away as human error. “Never be a man so blind, as he who will not see.” In Texas, they have a common sense saying, “Don’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining !” Get an umbrella, before you believe all of what you saw !
November 16, 2009 at 9:58 am
Cecil
The Dallas police never came down with 2 rifles. Show me the archive footage. It doesn’t exist.
Most of the second and third stories were “made up” by people like you, just like the 2nd rifle story you just made up, because you thought you remembered something that you didn’t.
Besides, if you wanted to place two gunmen on the target, why would you place them in the same building? Or did Oswald just bring a spare?
Not only did they leave out the firing possibility from the water tower, they also left out the firing possibility from the 4th floor and the 3rd floor of the SBD building. Or any other countless number of windows or manholes or low flying choppers. Because they weren’t practical or not supported by eye witnesses.
So where’s this water tower supposed to be? To be behind JFK, it would have to have been on Elm street. Nothing but the Dal Tex building, county records building, and county criminal courts building directly behind JFK. Oh yes, and the school book depository building.
So the people that “Covered it up” put the “real” evidence in the files and have locked them up? Knowing that they would not be open during their lifetime, I guess. Does that sound plausible to you?
When you speak of “our government” not being truthful, do you speak of our LBJ government, or our Nixon government? Or perhaps would don’t trust the Carter gov, I’m sure you have no faith in the Reagan administration, or the Bush 1 or Clinton guys or Bush 2, and we all know Obama can’t be trusted. Get my point?
You began your email sounding like a reasonable person. Then this tooth fairy, Santa Claus, easter bunny thing took hold of you and you went off on a looney rant.
But what is strangest about your rant is that you never mention who helped Oswald, or if Oswald didn’t do it, who did? Or who paid to have it done? Or how it was done? Or why it was done?
Yeah you got all the answers…
March 11, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Ignore the fact that in the Hughes film a human like shadow appears then disappears in the window next to the shooters nest. The analyst saying that the disappearance means no one is there?!?!?
Ignore the fact that witnesses say the gun was taken in slowly after the shooting, the gun was wiped clean, hidden, and the shooter ran down the 4 flights of stairs to the second floor where Oswald was seen calm, not out of breath by a cop within 90 seconds
ignore the fact that it is 7 miles to his rooming house in oak cliff, but he managed it in about 20 mins escaping past the cops, caught a cab, changed to a bus, and walked back with traffic chaos because of the president visit
ignore the fact that he went out of his way to shoot a cop dump his jacket walk to the cinema go in without paying when he had cash
ignore the fact that a soldier just yards from the grassy knoll witnessed shots from there
ignore the medical testimony of a gaping headwound stating it was a shot from the front right
ignore the fact that later photos showed a small bullet wound
ignore zapruder film showing short time between shots, and Connolly swearing it was a high powered rifle
if you can ignore these facts and questions and many others over the years, and still just believe it was Oswald then that is fine
you only have to prove that there was a helper/second gunman and it is a conspiracy end of
hitler always said ” the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it”.
March 11, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Ignore the fact that in the Hughes film a human like shadow appears then disappears in the window next to the shooters nest. The analyst saying that the disappearance means no one is there?!?!?
Is this one of those “images” you can’t see unless the film is computer enhanced, then you still can’t see it unless the computer enhancer points it out to you, then you still can’t see it unless you believed it was there all along?
—————————————————
Ignore the fact that witnesses say the gun was taken in slowly after the shooting, the gun was wiped clean, hidden, and the shooter ran down the 4 flights of stairs to the second floor where Oswald was seen calm, not out of breath by a cop within 90 seconds
No indication the gun was wiped clean. He didn’t hide it he threw it behind some boxes on his way out. 4 flights of stairs my seem like a superhuman feat to you, but remember .. He was running DOWN the stairs not up the stairs. He was young, healthy, and a former marine. I could look calm and collected and hold my heavy breathing for a few seconds while a cop runs past me if I thought I had to. Couldn’t you?
————————————————————–
ignore the fact that it is 7 miles to his rooming house in oak cliff, but he managed it in about 20 mins escaping past the cops, caught a cab, changed to a bus, and walked back with traffic chaos because of the president visit
Eyewitnesses saw Oswald at the TSBD and at the boarding room later. These witnesses have never been connected with any part of any conspiracy. He was witnessed in the cab and the bus. So the bus driver and the cab driver and his land lady were all in on it?
——————————————————————————–
ignore the fact that he went out of his way to shoot a cop dump his jacket walk to the cinema go in without paying when he had cash
He shot the cop because the cop had ID’ed him and pulled over to question him. He didn’t go out of his way, Tippit came to him. He dumped his jacket to help in his escape. All consistent with a man fleeing a crime. He did go into the movie theater without paying and this was witnessed by Johnny Brewer who worked at a shoe store across the street from the theater. No conspiracy is complete without the guilty shoe store clerk.
———————————————————————
ignore the fact that a soldier just yards from the grassy knoll witnessed shots from there
This might seem more like a fact than hearsay if you only had the name of the soldier. Show me his written testimony, or an audio tape or a film of his statement, then I’ll pay attention.
————————————————————————
ignore the medical testimony of a gaping headwound stating it was a shot from the front right
Show me the photo of the gaping exiting wound on the left rear. Not there is it?
———————————————————————
ignore the fact that later photos showed a small bullet wound
Not sure which “later photos” you are referring to. Any photos shot after Nov 22, 1963 were not photos of JFK. A small bullet wound is typical of an entrance wound.
—————————————————————-
ignore zapruder film showing short time between shots, and Connolly swearing it was a high powered rifle
The time required to cycle the bolt action on Oswald’s rifle has been established and tested time and time again and are consistent with the timing indicated in the Zapruder film. JFK WAS shot with a “High powered rifle” they stopped making low powered rifles before the end of the civil war.
——————————————————————–
if you can ignore these facts and questions and many others over the years, and still just believe it was Oswald then that is fine
You haven’t stated any facts. Most of what you have written was contradicted by eyewitnesses at the time of the assassination or in complete agreement with the Warren Commission. Other “facts” you claim are not supported with names or documents or references to documents.
————————————————————————-
you only have to prove that there was a helper/second gunman and it is a conspiracy end of
If you had only “proved” something, anything, maybe that last statement would have made more sense.
————————————————————————–
hitler always said ” the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it”.
And with that I agree. The JFK conspiracy is one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated. There are at least 50 different conspiracies that all contradict each other. ie.. The mob, Cubans, Hunts, CIA, FBI, Dallas police, right wingers, left wingers, …. Since they all can’t be true then at the very least, 49 are lies. Which lie do you believe?
March 11, 2010 at 10:53 pm
..”Why does a supposed nobody like Oswald pop up all over the intelligence community in the years leading up to the assassination? How did a fair shot with a rifle make a million-to-one (well, one out of three, anyway) shot from that book depository? Why did so many witnesses assume the sound of gunfire came from the exact opposite position as the apparent location of origin?”..
A. He pops up across the intelligence community because he left the Marine Corps (pronounced “core” ) and moved to Russia and renounced his US citizenship. That will put you in the crosshairs every time.
B. He wasn’t a “fair shot with a rifle” He was a marine sharp shooter. It wasn’t a “million to one shot”. I’ve looked out that window at least a dozen times. I could make the same shot without a scope and I’m only a “fair shot”.
C. The shots rang out in the presence of maybe a half dozen Harley Davidson motorcycles. That can get pretty loud. Surprised anyone even heard the shots. Many more heard the shots from the TSBD building. The police followed the leads. The picket fence behind the grass knoll gave them nothing. The TSBD gave them a gun, cartridges, and finally, Oswald.
March 12, 2010 at 8:20 am
Medical testimony – video footage is available showing the medics in front of the cameras minutes after the shooting showing the angle of trajectory
in interviews they describe the wounds to the head
their drawings show the head wounds normal procedure I believe in medical notes
they were not called to the house select committee in the 70s to give evidence
this is just one query, but I appreciate your comments about witnesses etc. The witnesses that corroberate Oswald as the assassin are used but those that do not are ignored
March 12, 2010 at 8:27 am
Oh yeah the photo with Oswald holding the rifle
the shadow under his nose shows the sun to be directly above his head – the shadow on the ground shows the sun to be to his front left. Analysts have proven that the photo is not faked but always ignore the nose shadow. If it is fake, did Oswald produce it to protect himself such as the hidell alias or was it to link him with the gun. We can’t have that debate as no official record recognises it as having been tampered with
good debating this with you
March 12, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Truth Seeker wrote “Medical testimony – video footage is available showing the medics in front of the cameras minutes after the shooting showing the angle of trajectory
in interviews they describe the wounds to the head
their drawings show the head wounds normal procedure I believe in medical notes….”
Actually this is what really happened..
“With respect to the head wound DrRobert McClelland, another
of the doctors who attended the President., said in his testimony before
the Warren Commission, that the right posterior section of the skull
had been blasted. (6) Dr. Kemp Clark, who also assisted with the President, similarly described the wound as being in the back of the President’s head-in the right posterior part.”
These “medics” and the video minutes after the shooting, of course doesn’t exist. But, if it did exist, would you say that these medics did part time forensics on the side? Or were they forensics experts that practiced medicine part time on the side? These are 2 separate fields of work, and being good at one means nothing in the other. However they did testify that the wound was on the “right posterior section of the skull”.
March 12, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Truth seeker wrote..
“Analysts have proven that the photo is not faked but always ignore the nose shadow…. We can’t have that debate as no official record recognises it as having been tampered with”
Well, since the photo has been proven “not to be fake”, and nothing official recognizes that it is fake… (your words) I guess it would be hard to have a debate on that point. The shadows look natural to me. Anyway…
Dartmouth Computer Scientist Hany Farid constructed a 3-D model of Oswald’s head and portions of the backyard scene, and he determined that a single light source, the sun, could explain all of the shadows in the photo.
You’ve given us nothing. A short list of your weakest efforts. And I figure these are your best arguments and that’s pretty sad.
Million to one shot… NOT
Oswald was a “fair shooter”… NOT, marine sharp shooter actually.
Conneley swore that it was a high powered rifle…. I would hope so.
Hughes film a human like shadow…. Have you actually watched the Hughes film? not a chance!
A mysterious soldier, with no name, that saw the whole thing…. Yeah right.
March 12, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Oh yeah, Oswald going down the stairs – 3 shots (10 secs) the gun was withdrawn slowly from the window (20 secs) get out of sniper nest (5 secs) cross to the other side of depository (10 secs) run down 4 floors (15 secs) total 1 minute Marion baker ran into building after the first shot and met Oswald WITHIN MAX 90 secs and met him on the 2nd floor restroom looking calm. I agree its possible, but unlikely that Oswald could have done that and not given away some clue to baker that he had just run down from the top floor. He was in the marines but left in ’59 unless you are implying that he was in the marines at the time of his death ?
March 12, 2010 at 1:45 pm
You argue the points well but try and replicate the shadows in the photo it’s impossible
nice talking to you take care
god
xx
March 12, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Lol supposed to say goodbye
March 12, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Oops again if he such a good shot why did the first shot miss the car?
The rooming lady did not see him he was in and out so quickly
his face was all over the media within 2 hours of the 2 shootings he was bound to be identified by some others did not identify Oswald as the man
if all the documents prove oswalds guilt then why not release them now
also why was he not prosecuted for his defection?
Thanks
March 12, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Does it really take 20 sec to withdraw a gun “slowly”? Oh, I see… the longer it takes to withdraw the gun slowly, the less time it gives him to get downstairs. That way a non thinking reader might think you actually have a point. Nice.
He was in the marines but left in ‘59 unless you are implying that he was in the marines at the time of his death ?…
What I wrote was … “He was running DOWN the stairs not up the stairs. He was young, healthy, and a former marine.” notice the word “former”.
Oswald was in Dallas at the time of his death. Or as you would put it. “That’s what they want us to believe!”
“You argue the points well but try and replicate the shadows in the photo it’s impossible”
Don’t assign me homework.
If I were to replicate the photo to the very last detail, you and your kind would just claim that IT WAS A FAKE, MADE TO LOOK “NOT” PHONY.
March 12, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Oops again if he such a good shot why did the first shot miss the car?
Shooting through a tree that was in the way.
————————————————-
The rooming lady did not see him he was in and out so quickly
Yes she did and said so in an interview with the police Nov. 22, 1963.
—————————————————–
his face was all over the media within 2 hours of the 2 shootings he was bound to be identified by some others did not identify Oswald as the man
Ain’t that a shame.
——————————————————–
if all the documents prove oswalds guilt then why not release them now
I don’t know. You tell me. Kennedy himself had a lot to hide personally. His family was well connected to say the least. A time table was set up to release the documents and a lot of documents have been released.
———————————————————
also why was he not prosecuted for his defection?
He didn’t defect, he got an honorable discharge, for hardship reasons.
——————————————————–
Come on man! Is that the best you can do?
March 12, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Sorry yes I have seen the Hughes film and I will give you the name of the soldier when I find it and the name of the documentary showing the Hughes film
March 12, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Happy hunting matey
lol
March 15, 2010 at 3:30 am
I literally stumbled onto this site almost exactly one year ago. I was googleing for JFK photos and found this discussion. I recall clearly how I was stunned to see the first entries into a conspiracy forum about the JFK assassination were about our former president Bush and nothing about JFK, Oswald, Ruby or Dallas. Never happy with Bush myself, but very leery of his replacement I kept reading…
threatqualitypress Says:
January 30, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Every time I hear about what the administration was doing to create a permanent republic majority, and I realize how close they came to it, I get the shivers….Of course, an administration that wouldn’t bungle the Iraq war might also have been an administration that wouldn’t have tried to seize control of executive authority, so who knows. All I can feel at this time in American history is “whew.”
Lisa Says:
February 3, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I agree that a very very large majority of people all across the planet heaved a collective sigh and said “whew” on Nov. 5th and an even bigger one on Jan 20th – when the inauguration speech went off without a hitch…..
to which I replied…
Larry Says:
March 22, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Is there no space left where 2 or more Bush haters won’t congregate? Are you so worried about Bush’s executive authority reach that you can’t worry about the current admin’s … He has the makings of the tyrant we feared in Bush and doesn’t even seem to care that some of us have figured it out….
A year later much of that ” very very large majority of people all across the planet” and most of the majority here in the US, have a new reality.
I also had a sigh of relief when Obama took office. Only difference is that I haven’t exhaled yet.
I have been holding my breath that the person being sworn wasn’t the same person that said…
July 2 in Colorado Springs –In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation’s military services, he made this pledge: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Or consider just some of his actions since he took office…
A. Feb 27, 2010 … President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation’s main counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act.
B. Sunday, 19 April 2009 18:00 The New York Times has reported that the Obama administration has stepped up federal surveillance of law-abiding Americans since taking office: “The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans…
C. DenverPost.com WASHINGTON — Although the FBI has acknowledged it improperly obtained thousands of Americans’ phone records for years, the Obama administration continues to assert that the bureau can obtain them without any formal legal process or court oversight…
D. April 07, 2009|By Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer The Obama administration is again invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration’s wiretapping program, this time against a lawsuit by AT&T customers who claim federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records.
E. The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.
F. Anyone who thinks the Obama administration isn’t serious about closing the tax gap should read this little ditty courtesy of Paul Caron:
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost….
G. During an interview with John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted. The nation’s chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, “It’s the right thing to do” to “tighten the grip around folks” who commit crime.
Obama hasn’t repealed any of the “illegal” surveillance tactics of the former administration, in fact, expanded some of them.
He has escalated the Afghan war, mimicking the surge that apparently worked in Iraq, that he voted against as a senator.
Regarding the economy, we’ve had “Cash for Clunkers” which allowed Americans that could afford a new car, to buy a Japanese car using other taxpayers money, and a seemingly endless effort to completely overhaul the one part of our economy that still has full employment… The healthcare system. Which he can’t seem to pull off despite having the biggest majority in both houses of any president in modern history.
And don’t forget the dictators and thugs that were once friendly with our president that now mock and ridicule him.
reuters.com — Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama was at best an “ignoramus” for saying the socialist leader exported terrorism and obstructed progress in Latin America.
I’m not sure even if that is a bad development.
All info presented in this post was copied from mostly “liberal friendly” sources. You don’t even want to know what the rest of the world thinks.