JFK Assassination

[Normandy6644]

I watched the show on ABC the other night about the JFk assassination and essentially it convinced me that Oswald acted alone. Sure, the show was only 2 hours and didn't make an attempt to debunk every conspiracy theory, but it certainly presented the case for Oswald acting alone. His own brother even commented on it saying that he doesn't believe anyone else had anything to do with it. What do you think?

PS - Let's keep this polite too, no attacks, just opinions and open minds. :D

[Eroica]

I don't care what anyone says: the headshot came from in front of Kennedy, ergo there was a conspiracy.

[Vega115]

i have watched the Zepruder film (sp?) and from the look of it, the front part of the head "exploded", meaning that a bullet had to come from behind. Conspiracy? I dont think so.

[Ripper 2.0]

i have watched the Zepruder film (sp?) and from the look of it, the front part of the head "exploded", meaning that a bullet had to come from behind. Conspiracy? I dont think so.

Vega is correct, the shot came from behind. Here is an experiment youi can try if you shoot. Put a cantelope on a post and shoot it with a high powered rifle. It will fall towards you. Just a quirk of physics. The bullet does not tranfer much momentum to the melon, but it does cause the pulp to be forcebly ejected from the far side. The "Up and back" that Oliver Stone's movie repeted like a mantra was just a Holywood thing.

I will say this though, the invenstgation was very poorly handled. I doubt we will ever have any closure on it.

[Visitor]

You forgot the "I'm not sure" option.

[Colt]

Ripper, one of us might want to explain how a bullet impact works, the physics of it and what it does on penetration.. Of course I'm not sure if the BA would like that or not. -Colt

[Andromeda321]

Speaking as someone who lives right down the street from the Kennedy Assasination Conference that finished up today, have you guys actually read word for word what the single bullet theory is? It doesn't make much sense...
And to quote Cyril Wecht during a lecture I heard him give, "If your parents are one of the fifteen percent of Americans who believes the official story about who shot JFK, go home and ask them if they were aware that the people who conducted the autopsy had never dealt with a gunshot case before. It's like getting appendicitis and having someone operate on you and you die anyway because the doctor was an epidermologist."

[Ripper 2.0]

I already pointed out that the investigation was poorly done. It has been pointed out by a number of legal scholars that they would never have been able to convict Oswald. There were jurisdictional issues, chain of custody issues, and several other problems that would have made a lot of evidnece inadmissable, or at least questionable.

This is classic fuel for the conspiricy theorists. The less evidence there is, the more it proves their point.

The fact that the examiner had not experience with gunshot wounds does not prove anything. A rifle shot at that range with FMJ ammunition would produce a through and through wound at any range in question. All they would have to determine is which was the entry wound.

The investigation of the Kennedy assasination was the Grenada of police work. It should have gone to the local police, but naturally all of the feds wanted control of the investigation, with the result that no one was in charge.

[Andromeda321]

The fact that the examiner had not experience with gunshot wounds does not prove anything. A rifle shot at that range with FMJ ammunition would produce a through and through wound at any range in question. All they would have to determine is which was the entry wound.
A wound from a gun shows not only the entry wound and exit wound. It also shows how far away the shooter was, what kind of weapon the shooter was using, and the direction the bullet came from. A lot of forensic stuff is very subtle and you can't notice it until you know what to look for from prior experience.
Another interesting case in point: you know how Kennedy had a bullet wound to his throat? The people who did the autopsy assumed it was not a bullet wound at all and it was just a trechtioctamy (however you spell it) the surgeons did in Dallas. In actuality the Dallas surgeons expanded the bullet wound while trying to save him, but the people doing the autopsy did not know this because they didn't know the difference and never checked with the Dallas surgeons (which you never EVER do!). By the time word got out their official report was filed.
I of course am by no means an expert on this but my facts are from an internationaly known forensic scientist who was involved with the assasination. I kinda assume he knows what he's talking about in these matters! At least I hope so...

[Ripper 2.0]

On a through wound you would not be able to tell what kind of firearm was used. A FMJ bullet does not expand, and tends to make pretty clean wounds. Still, in the case of a head shot the exit wound is going to be explosive. The Zapruder film clearly shows the exit wound in the forehead.

Remember, this was 1963. Forensics was not as developed as it is today. The point I am making here is that even though there was lots of incompetence going around, that does not mean there was a conspiricy.

I remember in the movie JFK the question was raised "Why did they not put Robert Kennedy in charge of the investigation?" The reason is simple, you never put someone with personal ties to an investigation in charge of the investigation.

[Reacher]

I'm doing my homework, two assignments, when I decide to pop in to the BABB for maybe a bit of inspiration. Imagine my surprise when I saw a thread about the subject of my two assignments!
The first asks me to point out any bias present in the Warren Commission and the conspiracy-beleiving movie JFK. The second asks me to draw my own conclusions.

[Normandy6644]

I'm doing my homework, two assignments, when I decide to pop in to the BABB for maybe a bit of inspiration. Imagine my surprise when I saw a thread about the subject of my two assignments!
The first asks me to point out any bias present in the Warren Commission and the conspiracy-beleiving movie JFK. The second asks me to draw my own conclusions.

How cool!

I will admit that the Warren Commision only fueled doubt by screwing up parts of the investigation and missing certain facts, but as has been said that doesn't prove any conspiracy. The main thing is that here we are 40 years later and there isn't a single theory that can beat out Oswald acting alone. Not that anything can be concluded from that, but it does put a damper on some of the conspiracy theories in a way. And until something is legitimately proven that there was a conspiracy, the verdict stands.

Remember, it is not up to those who believe Oswald acted alone to substantiate the claim, it is up to the conspiracy theorists to prove their claim. it is analogous to the moon hoax; those who believe it was faked must prove it, not the other way around. Pointing out gaps or flaws in the Warren Commission in no way proves a conspiracy.

[frenat]

The problem with conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination in general now is that most if not all of the evidence is now gone. One can speculate all they want but nothing will ever be proven. If there was any evidence of a conspiracy then surely by now it has been destroyed.

[Donnie B.]

Speaking as someone who lives right down the street from the Kennedy Assasination Conference that finished up today, have you guys actually read word for word what the single bullet theory is? It doesn't make much sense...
Andromeda, I assume that you missed the ABC special referred to in the OP. The doubts you express about the single-bullet theory were completely put to rest. It's not a theory now -- it's a fact.

Here's what they did, and why it was so convincing. They used the Zapruder film, and other movies shot that day, and did a complete 3-D animation of Dealy Plaza, the buildings and terrain surrounding it, the Presidential limo, and two of its occupants (Kennedy and Connelly). They overlaid the 3-D model directly on top of the frames of the Zapruder film to produce an absolutely exact recreation of the events. Once the animation was done, of course, they could vary the point of view freely. They showed several different views during the TV show, including an Oswald's-eye view.

There were several facts that are often ignored or glossed over by conspiracy theorists. First, Kennedy was not directly behind Connelly in the car; he was six inches to the right (that is, out toward the side of the car) and three inches higher (Connelly was in a jump seat). Second, Connelly was not facing forward at the time of the "single bullet" shot. Oswald missed his first shot; Connelly (and many others) heard it, and he turned sharply to his right, trying to see what had caused the sound. That's the reason the bullet didn't have to change direction in midflight.

In the reconstruction, the animation was frozen at the time the second bullet hit. You could see that its path was absolutely straight, from the 6th-floor window of the book depository, through Kennedy, and then through Connelly. Everything fits, just as it was recorded in the Zapruder film. There's no doubt at all: Kennedy's neck wound and all of Connelly's injuries were produced by one shot, Oswald's second. The first shot missed everything; the third ended Kennedy's life.

As Gerald Posner put it... case closed.

[Ripper 2.0]

One of the other interesting things that came up in KFK was the fact that on one hand they were saying that Oswald was an idiot, and on the other saying that he should have known to take the shot when Kennedy was coming straight on. The also had the scene where the guy was trying to show that there was no way Oswald could ahve gotten the shots aff as fast as he did. In the scene he was being intentionally slow. Anyone could have worked the bolt twice as fast as the guy giving the demonstration. Then they make a big deal about how far the shot was. It was only 88 yards. I could do that with a pistol. At that range there is not need to lead the target or compensate for the downward angle.

[xochitl]

Gerald Poser is as intellectually dishonest as the Moon Hoaxers and anyone who parrots his fraudent ideas is hardly committed to the truth.

Here is resource (http://www.assassinationweb.com/issue1.htm) concerning Posner. I suggest ya'll interface and learn about the methods of this sensational psuedo-investigative journalist.

[Normandy6644]

I hate to burst your bubble, but even if Posner is dishonest and a bad historian (which I don't think he is anyway) he is not the only proponent of Oswald's guilt. There are quite a few resources on the subject, specifically non-internet ones that are somewhat more valid.

PS - I said let's keep this topic polite, I suggest you follow the instructions.

[R.A.F.]

Remember, it is not up to those who believe Oswald acted alone to substantiate the claim, it is up to the conspiracy theorists to prove their claim.

Exactly, Normandy6644! It seems that some folks have a hard time realizing this simple truth. I'm also surprised that 7 people voted "for" conspiracy.

[Eroica]

As Gerald Posner put it... case closed.
Not necessarily. Even if we accept that there was only one shooter, and that he killed Kennedy from the sixth floor of the book depository, there still remains the possibility that it wasn't Oswald.

[A.DIM]

While there may indeed have only been "one shooter," the thing that makes me consider "conspiracy" is the fact that JFK wanted to withdraw from Vietnam, but as soon as Johnson took over, more money and troops were allocated to the war. Anyone know the supposed reason for this?

Additionally, several eyewitnesses claim to have seen Oswald and Jack Ruby together in a strip club just weeks before the assasination. If this is factual, what were they doing together?

[Ripper 2.0]

It has long been known that Ruby knew Oswald. I do not see how this leeds to conspiticy. Most murders in the US are between people who know each other.

In any court case motive can be important to the jury, but it does not prove anything.

[Kaptain K]

FWIW - Nellie Connally has stated that there were three shots; the first wounded the president (neck wound), the second hit the governor, and the third killed JFK. When questioned, her reply is "were you in the car?". :o

[Luke T.]

There are photos of Kennedy's body on the internet taken after he was dead. If you look, you can clearly see the right side of his forehead is serioulsy damaged. And watching the Zapruder film, you can see a lot of mass explode from his head forward. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

All that mass being blown from the front, right side of his head pushed it back and to the left.

Another thing. The "magic bullet." People who fall for this belief that a bullet was planted on the Governor of Texas' stretcher like to believe some sooper sekrit agent man strolled by the Governor as he lay on a stretcher and casually planted a "pristine" bullet by his leg. What they never bother to explain is how the person who planted this magic bullet went about getting the one that the Governor was shot with out of his body so there wouldn't be two bullets of different ballistics found.

Hmmmmmmm.

[russ_watters]

Ripper, one of us might want to explain how a bullet impact works, the physics of it and what it does on penetration.. Of course I'm not sure if the BA would like that or not. -Colt I'll give it a shot (so to speak). On a shot with an entry and no exit, all the momentum of the bullet is transfered to the victim (minus whatever is absorbed in its fragmentation). So the victim responds similar to if punched. They don't fly through the air like in the movies though.

In a head shot with an explosive exit wound, the matter exploding away from the bullet may well have more energy than is absorbed by the entrance wound. That is simply a property of collision kinematics. The best analogy I can think of (though not a perfect one) is hitting a golf ball - the ball doesn't travel at the speed of the club-head but at the speed of the club-head plus a percentage of the speed of the club-head as determined by its and the ball's elasticity. So that explosive exit wound is carrying more momentum than you might think - and it is carrying momentum away from the head. So action-reaction: the head moves in the opposite direction.

[TinFoilHat]

Gerald Poser is as intellectually dishonest as the Moon Hoaxers and anyone who parrots his fraudent ideas is hardly committed to the truth.

Typical conspiracy believer behavior. If you can't argue on the facts, use personal attacks and insults. JFK conspiracy believers usually do this after being backed into a corner - something they have in common with the Moon Hoax Believers.

Even if Posner is a completely worthless scumbag, it doesn't affect the mountains of evidence pointing to Oswald being the sole shooter.

[Stuart]

While there may indeed have only been "one shooter," the thing that makes me consider "conspiracy" is the fact that JFK wanted to withdraw from Vietnam, but as soon as Johnson took over, more money and troops were allocated to the war. Anyone know the supposed reason for this?

There is no "supposed" about it. We know exactly the reason for it. The story goes back to the early 1950s and the start of the Eisenhower era. (This is based on a post in the "nukes in orbit" string and is complementary to that.)

Eisenhower had a very specific strategy for dealing with the USSR. It was called containment. Essentially, it meant bottling the USSR up then hitting them with challenge after challenge until their economy collapsed and their society imploded (that's more or less what did happen by the way - later). So, the plan was to build a masisve offensive nuclear capability, when the USSR tried to match it, build a massive defense capability that neutralized that offensive capability then hit them somewhere else. The greatest strength the US had was its economy; the Eisenhower plan was to cut US defense expenditure back as far as possible and thus stimulate the greatets possible level of economic growth. For reasons that don't concern us here, armies had got to be very expensive things in the decade between 1945 and 1955. The US could achieve great things by slashing the army back - the beauty was the strategic position of the USSR meant they couldn't do the same.

The US Army was slashed back to being a tripwire. The key to the Army role was a thing called the Pentomic Division, a division structured in such a way that it could only fight using nuclear weapons. That meant if anybody attacked a Pentomic Division, it would mean an immediate nuclear reply - and the devastating American superiority in nuclear firepower made that national suicide. So puttinga cheap, light pentomic Division in the path of an attack stopped that attack dead. Either the attack ended or the war went nuclear.

The Army hated the Pentomic Division. and waged a constant war against it. One of their converts was John F Kennedy. He accused the Eisenhower administration of allowing the army to decay and ridiculed the Pentomic Divisions (in fairness JFK was probably too stupid to understand the rationale behind those divisions). JFK wanted a big army so he could go into third world confrontations with the USSR (something Eisenhower wanted to avoid - that was the job of the Marines and regional allies).

Building a big army requires a cadre of instructors and personnel. And, by the early 1960s, armies required a lot of money. Kennedy looted the only part of the Army that had prospered under Eisenhower, the Army Air Defense Command (ARADCOM) to provide that cadre. ARADCOMs budget (the ABM effort) was gutted to provide the funds for a new US Army. That was the Army that went to Vietnam. Kennedy ALWAYS intended a mass deployment to Vietnam - the NSC papers make that very clear. Johnson simply followed the Kennedy strategy. The reason why there was such a long delay before sending massed forces to Vietnam was that there were initially no massed forces to send. It took time to train the new Army, time to reorganize the Pentomic Divisions as regular line units and time to get everything in place.

If the theory of the "Vietnam" conspiracy is accepted, it has to be believed that "they" killed Kennedy for doing exactly what they wanted him to do..............

[Normandy6644]

Gerald Poser is as intellectually dishonest as the Moon Hoaxers and anyone who parrots his fraudent ideas is hardly committed to the truth.

Typical conspiracy believer behavior. If you can't argue on the facts, use personal attacks and insults. JFK conspiracy believers usually do this after being backed into a corner - something they have in common with the Moon Hoax Believers.

Even if Posner is a completely worthless scumbag, it doesn't affect the mountains of evidence pointing to Oswald being the sole shooter.

Exactly. This is what I was saying earlier. As for the Vietnam thing, I don't think anyone would argue that there could have been a conspiracy - there may have been a plot to kill JFK - but the evidence points to just Oswald. PERHAPS there even were assassins on the grassy knoll waiting for a clear shot, but Oswald did it first. No matter what is said about conspiracies and how likely or unlikely they were, the fact is that the evidence points otherwise.

[Ripper 2.0]

Ripper, one of us might want to explain how a bullet impact works, the physics of it and what it does on penetration.. Of course I'm not sure if the BA would like that or not. -Colt I'll give it a shot (so to speak). On a shot with an entry and no exit, all the momentum of the bullet is transfered to the victim (minus whatever is absorbed in its fragmentation). So the victim responds similar to if punched. They don't fly through the air like in the movies though.

In a head shot with an explosive exit wound, the matter exploding away from the bullet may well have more energy than is absorbed by the entrance wound. That is simply a property of collision kinematics. The best analogy I can think of (though not a perfect one) is hitting a golf ball - the ball doesn't travel at the speed of the club-head but at the speed of the club-head plus a percentage of the speed of the club-head as determined by its and the ball's elasticity. So that explosive exit wound is carrying more momentum than you might think - and it is carrying momentum away from the head. So action-reaction: the head moves in the opposite direction.

It has been said that Kennedy's head jerking back was a muscle reflex. If you watch the Zapruder film you will notice a split second delay between the hit and the motion of the head. Again, a 6.5mm FMJ bullet will not impart much momentum to the target.

I have also seen the experiment I mentioned earlier that the expelled mass of the exit wound would have more momentum than the bullet can impart, causing a reaction in the other direction.

Most people, who know most of what they think they know about firearms get their information form movies. I can tell you that if you saw something about firearms in a movie it is 99% likely to be wrong. I saw a guy get hit with a .50BMG round. It did not knock him down, he just dropped in place. Given that, I do not think any conventional firearm would knock someone across the room like they do in the movies. It is simple physics. When you fire a gun you are launching the bullet and the propellant. Lets say a .30-06. That would be a 150 grain bullet and about 60 grains of propellant. Launching all of this out of the barrel at about 2900 fps generates about 4000 ft/lbs of energy, but since some of this is the propellant gasses (which by the way will come out faster than the bullet once it clears the bore, but I ant to keep this simple) the bullet is carying less than 3000 ft/lbs. Depending on range, the bullet will have imparted some of its energy to the air by the time it hits. Now, even a soft point bullet from a .30-06 will not impart all of its energy to a person's body at less than extreme range. The bottom line is that the firer is taking a lot more kinetic energy than the target. The mass of the rifle will absorb some of that, but 10 lbs of mass would not make much difference. The firer could easily have 10 lbs less body mass.

OK I have gone on long enough.

[ExpErdMann]

It seems like most of the discussion is centred on whether Oswald was the sole shooter. But is this the most relevant consideration? The mere facts that Ruby killed Oswald afterwards and that Ruby was a mob figure almost demand the conclusion that the mob was involved. Therefore a conspiracy by definition.

[kucharek]

It seems like most of the discussion is centred on whether Oswald was the sole shooter. But is this the most relevant consideration? The mere facts that Ruby killed Oswald afterwards and that Ruby was a mob figure almost demand the conclusion that the mob was involved. Therefore a conspiracy by definition.
I think, one kook just saw that another kook got his fame by shooting someone and so decided to shoot the other kook to get some fame, too.
When bad things happen, it often inspires other people to do the same.

Harald

[xochitl]

Typical conspiracy believer behavior. If you can't argue on the facts, use personal attacks and insults. JFK conspiracy believers usually do this after being backed into a corner - something they have in common with the Moon Hoax Believers.

I directed you to an extensive resource with all the arguments that you need to realize that Posner is intellectually dishonest. I never used personal attacks and insults.

I said:Gerald Poser is as intellectually dishonest as the Moon Hoaxers and anyone who parrots his fraudent ideas is hardly committed to the truth.

I think most people would agree that if somone swallows and unquestions such garbage as manufactured evidence, manufactured testimony, quote splicing (Posner often takes the words of individuals and splices them together ignoring the fact that they were said years apart), and plainly ignoring contrary evidence when they do not fit his theories is "not committed to the truth" and is guilty of being a parrot. No?

I said:Here is resource concerning Posner. I suggest ya'll interface and learn about the methods of this sensational psuedo-investigative journalist.

I suggested a resource that demonstrates how fraudent the man is. Insults and personal attacks? Nowhere to be found, brother.

[xochitl]

Here is another response to Posner: http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id81.htm

Here is a partial response the the sham ABC special.

1. Oswald was presented as a disgruntled Marxist who fled to Russia.

ABC did not even examine Oswald's military records in regards to his involvement with Naval Intelligence and their linguistic operations. They did not note the discrepancies between Oswald's pay status and the pay status of lower-ranking soldiers (as Oswald was inaccurately painted). Oswald may have have studied Marxist literature in high school (he was an intelligent individual who accelled in political theory), but there is no evidence whatsoever that he maintained such a leaning into his military career. ABC did not examine the amount of money Oswald mysteriously received when returning to the United States after his supposed-defection.

2. Oswald was presented as a excellent marksman.

Only partially true. Right after training, Oswald did excel at sharp-shooting and scored high on his first examination. However, all of the subsequent examinations showed his skill level continually dropped as his military direction went further into language and communications. Oswald failed his last examinations; see his military files. Furthermore, Oswald was never trained to shoot a bolt-action rifle; firearms of that kind had become quite obselete following their miserable failure during World War II. The rifles that Oswald used were much higher quality and much more user-friendly.

3. The old man demonstrated that he could fire a bolt-action rifle three times in less than seven seconds.

A flawed depiction on the part of ABC and the old man. As anyone who has used a scope on a rifle knows, it takes time to line up a target in the cross-hairs. The old man simply picked up the rifle, loaded the chamber, briefly looked into the scope, and then fired and repeated three times. Anyone can do that in seven seconds. The real test would be using the exact same MC rifle that Oswald supposedly used (as well as the defective bullets and scope) loading the chamber, lining up the target in the scope, and firing at a moving target and then repeating this three times in less than seven seconds (and hitting at the very least two of the three shots). Such an exact reproduction has never been achieved. The House-Senate Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s also demonstrated the inferior quality of the bullets supposedly used by Oswald - on average, they failed to fire over 50% of the time.

4. ABC showed a well-known film footage of a Kennedy associate officially anouncing his death. The full-length footage shows the associate saying that "Kennedy was shot in the brain." He then firmly pointed to his right temple as to indicate where he had seen the where Kennedy was shot. ABC edited this out to help mold their case.

5. Oswald was presented as a crazed and desparate individual who wanted to make a mark on history. Oswald supposedly wanted to be a hero. If that is so, then why did Oswald 100% deny that he killed Kennedy? If he was so hellbent on being a historical hero, then why didnt he stand up and proclaim his good deed?

6. ABC presented the Tippett shooting as being from the gun of Oswald. Eye witness reports show that there were two men who shot the officer. The forensic evidence fits in with that - two different types of shells made by two different manufacturers were found on the scene. ABC said Oswald probably dropped the shells on purpose to throw off the investigation. But how likely is that? The murder of the officer seems highly spontaneous - how would have Oswald known to bring with him several spent revolver shells (especially of a type of gun that he never owned)?

7. The backyard photos of Oswald were showed over and over by ABC, but they never questioned nor reviewed their history. ABC presented these photos as soft evidence that Oswald was a crazed militant, but they never let us know that the HSCA proved these photos to be doctored. Here is the exact report: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt

8. ABC presented the supposed-autopsy photos as evidence that the exit wounds were not in the back of the head. These are the same photos that have been demonstrated to be either doctored or pictures of a touched up corpse using morticians wax and makeup. These photographs were taken after the body had been violently kidnapped by the Federal authorities at gun-point and taken to Maryland. The doctors and nurses and administration associates at Parkland Hospital in Dallas all describe the back of the head as being totally blown out and an entrance wound in the front. Why the discrepancy between the two reports?

9. ABC said that Oswald's prints had been found on the MC rifle. Only partially true. Two finger print tests had been performed; the first, conducted by Dallas authorities, there were no finger prints. The second test performed the FBI found prints. Note, that the second tests were taken after Oswald had been killed and his body was in the morgue.

10. ABC left out the fact that no gun powder residue had been found on Oswald's face. Whenever an individual fires a gun (especially a scope-sighted rifle), there is always residue on the face.

11. ABC presented Stone's film JFK as the eptiome of all those who question the Warren Report. Most assassination researchers totally discredit the film as nothing more than the creation of dramatic license; only passive theorists put any stock into that garbage. ABC built up JFK as the sum of theorists ideas and research and then quickly ripped it apart. Classic strawman.

[Musashi]

Furthermore, Oswald was never trained to shoot a bolt-action rifle; firearms of that kind had become quite obselete following their miserable failure during World War II.

Interesting perspective. I wonder, if bolt action rifles are such miserable failures, why does the Marine Sniper Unit, argueably one of the top long range shooting units in the wrold, still use bolt-action rifles?

[Ripper 2.0]

Suffice it to say that whatever the merits of your other arguments here, your rifle related arguments are way off. Bolt action rifles are in fact quite easy to use, and would require no special training. They are highly reliable, and inherently accurate. In the early 60s most of the major powers had just gone over to SLRs. There are still applications where the bolt action is preferred over auto-loaders, mainly for snipers. Even a mediocre rifleman could have made the shot.

[xochitl]

So the Marine Sniper Units use Mannlicher-Carcano rifles that were used in WWII but then later abandoned because of their utter unreliability and sold wholesale for $3 a piece during the 1950s and 1960s? Dont think so. My apologies if I made it seem like all bolt-action rifles are inferior firearms; I was speaking specifically of the Mannlicher-Carcano that was found in the TSBD - the supposed murder weapon.

[Archer17]

I used to think the Mafia was behind the assassination based on a book I read about Sam Giancana and how JFK's dad screwed them but I never really came across supporting evidence. Unless the government is somehow involved (which I seriously doubt) there's no reason for them to cover-up anything .. I voted "no conspiracy"

[Ripper 2.0]

So the Marine Sniper Units use Mannlicher-Carcano rifles that were used in WWII but then later abandoned because of their utter unreliability and sold wholesale for $3 a piece during the 1950s and 1960s? Dont think so. My apologies if I made it seem like all bolt-action rifles are inferior firearms; I was speaking specifically of the Mannlicher-Carcano that was found in the TSBD - the supposed murder weapon.

Your sarcasm is appriciated. The Mannlicher-Carcano was a perfectly servicable rifle and was considered good enough for the Italian army from 1891 until the end of WWII. The action was essentially a copy of the Mauser, and the Magazine system was copied frim the Austrian Mannlicher rifle. The 6.5mm round was considered a bit underpowered compared to the 8mm Mauser and .30-06, but had more than enough power to ruin your day. It was also noted to have good accuracy, though that was hardly an issue at less than 100 yards. The fact that Oswald was not trained on that particular rifle in the military is not an issue either. That is like saying that someone would not know how to drive a Honda Civic because they used Ford Escorts at the driving school. None of this proves or disproves a conspiricy, but Oswald could have easily made that shot

[xochitl]

The Mannlicher-Carcano was a perfectly servicable rifle and was considered good enough for the Italian army from 1891 until the end of WWII. The action was essentially a copy of the Mauser, and the Magazine system was copied frim the Austrian Mannlicher rifle. It was also noted to have good accuracy, though that was hardly an issue at less than 100 yards.

There are many reports of their failure during WWII - hence their discontinued status. Furthermore, the particular rifle that was found at the TSBD was not in good shape itself; the scope was totally out of alignment and shims had to be installed under the scope by the FBI and other investigators in order to even begin to test the rifle. Also interesting to note, the sling found on the rifle was not a standard rifle sling - it was for a camera or some sort of musical instrument and was too short to be used correctly. The ammunition used was also junk - check out the HSCA report; they were a miserable failure.

Parafin tests for residue were taken - none were found on Oswald's face. Prints were only found after Oswald's death and after he was left in the morgue.

None of this proves or disproves a conspiricy, but Oswald could have easily made that shot

Nope.

Even if the shots came from that location, that does not mean that Oswald was the shooter. If Oswald was the lone shooter, then explain the presence of Mac Wallace's fingerprint in the sniper's nest.

[Ripper 2.0]

I can not speak of the condition of that particular rifle. But even if it were old and warn out it could have made the shot. The type of scope mount on Oswald's rifle allowed the use of the iron sights, which would have been preferable for such a close range shot anyway.

I think the most significant thing about the rifle is that it would not have been admissable as evidence anyway. There were several breaks in the chain of custody of the rifle, and the pistol that was alledged to be used in the Tippet shooting. Possible conspiricies aside, a lot of legal experts have stated that they would not have been able to get a conviction on Oswald.

Has anyone even proposed the possibility that Oswald acted alone but that the government formed a conspiricy to kill him using a low lever mob figure (who was dying of cancer anyway) so that they would not have to deal with the embarrasment of seeing Oswald walk?

[Normandy6644]

I doubt it. Most conspiracy evidence is nto really evidence at all once you look more closely at it. It has been tested and proven many times that not only could Oswald have easily made that shot, he in fact did. Also, and eyewitness saying that Kennedy was shot in the right temple means nothing, since often eyewitness accounts are incorrect. Not to mention that it would be difficult to distinguish where a man was shot when half his head is blown off.

[Stuart]

There are many reports of their failure during WWII - hence their discontinued status.

All bolt-action rifles were "discontinued" after WW2. That was because they were obsolete, replaced by semi-automatic rifles such as the M-1 Garand and (increasingly) by the new generation of "assault rifles". (the SKS, AK-47 and M-16). Even the British Short Model Lee-Enfield (SMLE), universally regarded as the finest bolt-action rifle ever made was dropped after WW2. That didn't change the fact that the rifle had served extraordinarily well throughout WW1 and WW2. Suggesting that bolt-action rifles were miserable failures is just plain ludicrous.

As to the Mannlicher-Caracano, I would point out that its 6.5 x 52 millimeter round is comparable with most modern military rifle rounds. At 100 meters, it has an impact energy of 2,160 joules as opposed to 1,367 joules for the 5.56 x 45 as used by the M-16, 1,592 joules for the 7.62 x 39 used by the AK-47, 1,292 joules for the Soviet 5.45 x 39 and 2,920 joules for the 7.62 x 51. Thus, although less powerful than the full-powered 7.62 NATO, its actually got more ooommmpph than any other modern military rifle cartidge.

Interestingly, the 6.5 x 52 is still in production whereas most rounds of its era are not. That suggests there is a lot of demand for it - ie a lot of the old Mannlicher Caracano rifles are still being fired regularly. Not bad for a weapon 60 years after it was withdrawn.

On accuracy. You don't seem to understand that 88 yards is point blank range for a rifle. Its doable for a handgun but easy for a rifle. I took an English friend of mine onto a range not long ago and within an afternoon he was getting head-sized groups on the target using both an SKS and an AR-15 using iron sights. Lee Harvey Oswald didn't have to be a good shot to do the job, he had to be better than utterly incompetent.

Oh, and operating the bolt in the time frame? Tried it last night with a Mannlicher action rifle. No problem.

[Gmann]

Time for the Gmann to weigh in.

2. Oswald was presented as a excellent marksman.

Only partially true. Right after training, Oswald did excel at sharp-shooting and scored high on his first examination. However, all of the subsequent examinations showed his skill level continually dropped as his military direction went further into language and communications

Oswald was shooting at a target less than 100 yards away. Not really a challenge for anyone who has any rifle training.

3. The old man demonstrated that he could fire a bolt-action rifle three times in less than seven seconds.


The seven seconds start when the trigger is pulled for the first shot. This would only be repeated twice since the first shot starts the time clock. 3 1/2 seconds for the each of the next two is not too difficult, especially when aiming at something that is less than 100 yards away.

4. ABC showed a well-known film footage of a Kennedy associate officially anouncing his death. The full-length footage shows the associate saying that "Kennedy was shot in the brain." He then firmly pointed to his right temple as to indicate where he had seen the where Kennedy was shot. ABC edited this out to help mold their case.


This may be percieved as "nitpicking" but most people when refering to the brain do not usually point to the back of their heads, their finger goes up to the temple area because it is easier to reach.

6. ABC presented the Tippett shooting as being from the gun of Oswald. Eye witness reports show that there were two men who shot the officer.

The History Channel recently ran the documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" they talked to a man who saw the Ofc. Tibbets killing, and he identified Oswald as the shooter. He did not mention that there was more person involved, only Lee H.

8. ABC presented the supposed-autopsy photos as evidence that the exit wounds were not in the back of the head. These are the same photos that have been demonstrated to be either doctored or pictures of a touched up corpse using morticians wax and makeup. These photographs were taken after the body had been violently kidnapped by the Federal authorities at gun-point and taken to Maryland. The doctors and nurses and administration associates at Parkland Hospital in Dallas all describe the back of the head as being totally blown out and an entrance wound in the front. Why the discrepancy between the two reports?


Watch the Zapruder film. The front of JFK's head is the part that flies apart, not the back. Gunshot wounds that involve rifles usually have entry and exit wounds. The exit wound is much larger than the entrance wound, so unless JFK was shot with a funnel...

11. ABC presented Stone's film JFK as the eptiome of all those who question the Warren Report. Most assassination researchers totally discredit the film as nothing more than the creation of dramatic license; only passive theorists put any stock into that garbage. ABC built up JFK as the sum of theorists ideas and research and then quickly ripped it apart. Classic strawman.

Oliver Stone is a movie maker. He makes a living telling stories. JFK was not a documentary. The main flaw in a FBI/CIA/Mafia/Soviet/Cuban/ God knows who else conspiricy is simply this: If you have too many people involved, someone is going to squeal. So far, not even a credible oink. As far as I'm concerned, Oswald did the shooting. Did he have help? Good question. Answer! :-k

[Ripper 2.0]

Thanks Stuart. I do not think there was a conspiricy. Maybe there was, but I have not seen any solid proof, just a lot of speculation. the argument that Oswald could not have made the shot is bogus, so if you want to prove a conspiricy you have to look elsewhere.

[Iain Lambert]

Has anyone even proposed the possibility that Oswald acted alone but that the government formed a conspiricy to kill him using a low lever mob figure (who was dying of cancer anyway) so that they would not have to deal with the embarrasment of seeing Oswald walk?

Possible. Certainly, if you're going to posit that Ruby was sent to kill Oswald as part of a conspiracy you have to deal with the fact that he was late. His transfer was delayed by something like 4 minutes (if I remember from the documentary; this ABC one sounds the same as the one we had on BBC2 in the UK on Sunday), and Ruby only had to wait less than a minute to get his shot in. The documentary claims that this was Oswald stalling; any conspiracy then requires the complicity of the people doing the transfer in delaying while Ruby got there, and then shifting the reasons for the delay to avoid suspicion.

I say coincidence, however.

[Ripper 2.0]

Just a thought. Occom's razor would have me accept that he was a dying loser that decided he wanted his 15 minutes of fame.

Is there anyone out there who does not agree that the investigation was a disaster?

[Stuart]

Thanks Stuart. I do not think there was a conspiricy. Maybe there was, but I have not seen any solid proof, just a lot of speculation. the argument that Oswald could not have made the shot is bogus, so if you want to prove a conspiricy you have to look elsewhere.

No problem - its useful having the ballistic data of every type of cartridge ever made sitting on my desk - even down to the 2.7 x 6 millimeter Lilliput. Now, if somebody had claimed LHO had used that, we'd have a problem.

By the way, I made a mistake in my extemporized test last. I started from bolt-closed, three rounds in magazine. So the 7-second cycle went workbolt-acquire-fire-workbolt-acquire-fire-workbolt-acquire-fire-. Seven seconds, all three shots in the head. Range was only 60 yards not 88 though - but I was using 8 millimeter Lebel, not 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano (the 8 millimeter Frnech round is only just over 2,400 joules at 100 meters - again, making the M-C round look a lot less shabby.

If anybody wants to do some "testing" themselves on a local range, the 6.5 x 52 ammunition is available from Cascade at US$38.50 for 20 rounds. The going cost for an M-C rifle is around US$740.

[Gmann]

Is there anyone out there who does not agree that the investigation was a disaster?


I believe that the sloppieness of the Warren Commission report is what fed the woo-woo's in the first place. Imagine the pressure put on these people. They had to investigate the biggest crime in years. Couple that with the fact that forensics was not the science that it is today. George Noory talked with a pair of folks who put together a Court TV production based on todays forensics applied to the evidence that is availiable, and it showed that Oswald was the shooter, did he have help? They did not rule it out, but they had also had no reasonto believe that there was anyone helping him. I did not see the ABC production, but it sounds a lot like the one these guys were talking about. There are a lot stories from "witnesses", but I wonder how many of these people are really telling the truth. Conspiricy Theories do have a beginning, but no discernable end.

[Ripper 2.0]

The Warren commision did not have a lot of good evidence to work from. When I was taught how to conduct an investigation one of the first things I was told was to secure all evidence and maintain a chain of custody. I was also instructed that one person form one agence needed to be put in charge and any help from outside agencies had to be properly coordinated. I remember one of the witnesses saying that it had to be a conspiricy because they would not let her talk to her husband until after she had given her statment. this is normal. The husband was also a witness. You never interview two witnesses at the same time, they tend to contaminate each other. So at least hey did that right. An experienced investigator would not get suspicious if witness testimony was all different on details. They get suspicious if all of the details are exactly the same. People's memories and perceptions are faliable. If they all tell the exact same story, then you can start thinking about a conspiricy.

[SollyLama]

Like any conspiracy, you can get bogged down in 'evidence'. I don't think anyone would argue that the Warren Commission conducted a complete or even credible investigation.
However, like most conspiracy theories, they lack a reasonable impetus to even drive it. What would be the point of killing Kennedy?
In reality, he did very little in office. The Cuba thing is propaganda, we removed missiles from Turkey, so it's not that we 'backed down' the Ruskies like they tried to spin it. Not to mention the debacle at the Bay of Pigs.
JFK didn't really accomplish much. The moon speech was nice and all, but the space race was largely a propaganda tool during his tour. Civil rights were championed far more by Johnson and Nixon than Kennedy (rich elitist clan, hmmm go figure).
So my question, even before getting into the details of the investigation, is WHY would there be a conspiracy to kill JFK? Foreign powers obviously might have a reason, but that's awful risky. Anything less than a perfect crime may lead back to the host nations...and nuclear retaliation at a time when it seemed like everyone had a hand on the button.
Conspiracy from within? Again, why? Who is going to benefit? Oliver Stone made it out to be war mongering powers like Johnson looking to expand Vietnam to a full scale war. But that's dumb. Johnson himself had no love for the war, and showed it by off again/on again bombing. "Vietnamization" came about under Johnson. In fact, Lyndon seemed much more eager for talks to end the war than inflaming it.
So I've yet to see a case as to WHY there would be a conspiracy and assassination.

Besides that, having grown up in New England, I've heard more than enough about this self righteous, elitist (the only blacks near Kennedys are carrying golf clubs for them) clan. I watched the Kennedy worship in Mass nearly destroy the state. Heard all about this legendary president that got killed- but yet can't find much that he actually accomplished. Frankly, I'm less than impressed with the family name, don't see much value from JFK, and don't see any reason for a conspiracy.
OT, I know, but I fear anyone from Mass running for president. Growing up on the border of NH/MA, I can tell you it just made me all that more happy to be from NH!

[Ripper 2.0]

Ah yes, Mass. A states that has never fained to elect a Kennedy no matter how many people he kills or how drunk he gets.

[Raz]

Must admit I'm a fan of "JFK" as a movie, and I've been interested to learn how factual it is since first seeing it. This documentary was an interesting counterpoint.

7. The backyard photos of Oswald were showed over and over by ABC, [...] but they never let us know that the HSCA proved these photos to be doctored. Here is the exact report: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
I've just read through that report and it seems to me that their overwhelming conclusion is that the photos weren't doctored. Can you point out the paragraph(s) that support your interpretation?

The main questions I have are:

1. Is it true that wound on the back of JFK's head was larger than that on the forehead? If so, does this not suggest that the former was an exit wound?

2. The 'non-conspiratorial' explanations for each of the three bullets fired, as I understand it, are: shot 1 missed; shot 2 passed through Kennedy's back and neck and through Connely's torso, and shot 3 caused Kennedy's head wounds. I can't recall the documentary linking shot 2 with Connelly's wrist and neck wound, am I mistaken? And, either way, the JFK movie alleged that a man some distance from the car was hit by shrapnel from a stray shot (distinct from shot 1) - was this pure fabrication?

[Darkwing]

Speaking as someone who has lived in Massachusetts his whole life, I'd appreciate it if you didn't consider all of us blind Kennedy-worshippers. We're not.

(edited to correct typo)

[Wolverine]

Must admit I'm a fan of "JFK" as a movie, and I've been interested to learn how factual it is since first seeing it.

You might find this (http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html) helpful.

[Stuart]

The backyard photos of Oswald were showed over and over by ABC, but they never questioned nor reviewed their history. ABC presented these photos as soft evidence that Oswald was a crazed militant, but they never let us know that the HSCA proved these photos to be doctored. Here is the exact report: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt

The conclusion of which is (and I quote exactly via the wonderful world of cut-and-paste).

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials."

It appears that Xochitl's alleged "source" flatly contradicts the statements he made. It would be interesting to hear his explanation. Or is he just another conspiracy woo-woo

[Eroica]

WHY would there be a conspiracy to kill JFK? So I've yet to see a case as to WHY there would be a conspiracy and assassination.
Clearly, there WAS an assassination. You're not disputing that, are you?

If Oswald discussed his plan to assassinate Kennedy with his wife and she took no action to prevent him from carrying it out, then that's a conspiracy. It takes just two people to make a conspiracy.

Clearly Oswald (if he was the killer) had some reason to kill Kennedy. Whatever that reason was, it may have been one he shared with some other nut. A conspiracy need not involve the Mafia, the government, the CIA, the FBI or whatever.

[Eroica]

As for the Vietnam thing, I don't think anyone would argue that there could have been a conspiracy - there may have been a plot to kill JFK....
A plot to kill JFK is a conspiracy if there are two or more plotters.

PERHAPS there even were assassins on the grassy knoll waiting for a clear shot, but Oswald did it first.
So there may after all have been a conspiracy - just, Oswald wasn't part of it!

[Eroica]

Just out of curiosity, did the intelligence services have any intelligence or prior warning that Kennedy's life might be at risk if he took part in an open-topped cavalcade in Dallas?

[Stuart]

So there may after all have been a conspiracy - just, Oswald wasn't part of it!

A friend of mine had an interesting theory along those lines. He believed there was a Mob conspiracy to whack JFK and a killer was hired to do it. He was lining up for his shot when Oswald got in first. This, of course, meant he wouldn't get paid so he told his bosses that he'd done it but set that loser LHO up to take the fall. Of course, this meant that LHO couldn't go on trial because the case against him was fairly weak - so the killer did a deal with Ruby (who already knew he was dying of cancer) by which Ruby whacked LHO and the Mob looked after Ruby's family.

Why did the Mob want JFK dead? The idea that the top people (the Commission) were involved doesn't hold water - there is no hint that anybody who would have known, did (chief amongst whom was Meyer Lansky - if Meyer Lansky didn't approve of it, it didn't happen). But how about the second Tier? People like Sam Giancana and Carlos Marcello? They wanted up but the Commission blocked the way. Its known that there was a meeting between Joseph P Kennedy and his Mob pals - suppose there was a failure to communicate? Joseph P walks away thinking "my old pals are going to help my boy" and the Mob guys walk away thinking "He promised that if we got his boy in, he'll use the justice Department to take down the Commission and let us take over."

They hand Chicago (and thus Illinois) over to the Democrats, JFK gets in, the Second Tier Mob call to collect and get shown the door. So they whack JFK.

Weird and contorted but no worse than any of the other conspiracy theories.

[Normandy6644]

The main flaw in a FBI/CIA/Mafia/Soviet/Cuban/ God knows who else conspiricy is simply this: If you have too many people involved, someone is going to squeal. So far, not even a credible oink.

Exactly! This has always been more or less my contention.


As for the Vietnam thing, I don't think anyone would argue that there could have been a conspiracy - there may have been a plot to kill JFK....
A plot to kill JFK is a conspiracy if there are two or more plotters.

PERHAPS there even were assassins on the grassy knoll waiting for a clear shot, but Oswald did it first.
So there may after all have been a conspiracy - just, Oswald wasn't part of it!

I agree with what you said, in fact that was more or less what I was trying to say. What my main point was, it was not a conspirator's bullet that killed him.

[Jason Thompson]

What I found amusing about the documentary (which aired on BBC2 last week) was the part where someone mentioned the shot from the grassy knoll. "Two shooters at the scene equals a conspiracy."

Well, I admit to knowing very little about the subject, but doesn't that seem like a REALLY good reason for any conspirators to only use ONE gunman?!

[Ripper 2.0]

One of the CT questions is why were the Secret Service told to stay clear of the car. The answer is simple. Because that is what Kennedy wanted. It had been an ongoing thing that the SS wanted JFK to be more careful, while he wanted to be more accessable to the public. Mind you, at that point there had not been an assasination since McKinley, and there is a lot of annecdotal evedence that JFK did not take the threat seriously.

Good point about the single shooter. If there were a conspiricy it was a poorly planned one. A good shooter could have done it and gotten away clean.

[Rich]

Clearly Oswald (if he was the killer) had some reason to kill Kennedy. Whatever that reason was, it may have been one he shared with some other nut. A conspiracy need not involve the Mafia, the government, the CIA, the FBI or whatever.

I actually read a very interesting hypothesis from two historians who were investigating Oswald's motivations for assassination. They came to an interesting conclusion that his target was not JFK but Governor Connelly.

Oswald had been trying to get back into the military for sometime and had been frequently denied due to concerns about his fitness following his trip to the USSR and supposed suicide attempt. His final efforts involved trying to gain admittance to the Texas National Guard. The week before the shooting he received a letter denying his final appeal. That final appeal authority was Governor Connelly of Texas.

They surmised that Oswald had great motivation for killing Connelly and none for killing Kennedy. He was a mediocre shot, in fact missing once, failing to kill his intended target and killing the President in the process. JFK was simply in the way of a poor rifleman with an axe to grind against the governor of Texas. It may also explain why Oswald reportedly vehemently denied killing JFK... he never intended to do so, and may have actually been disturbed that he had done so, to the point of serious psychological denial.

Anyway, I got a talk from one of the authors of this hypothesis years ago in college (and he was quite adamant that theirs was just a hypothesis based on the best available information), though the names completely escape me. Though it seems rather anti-climatic I think it best explains what happened that day. In fact, the sad irony that Kennedy may not have even been the target is so striking a possibility that it makes perfect sense. The investigators (and most everyone else) would automatically assume the shooter was trying to kill the President. But, what if this first, very basic, assumption was wrong? Nothing that followed would seem to make much sense if you get the identity of the intended victim wrong.

That's my two cents on this subject.

[Rich]

Clearly Oswald (if he was the killer) had some reason to kill Kennedy. Whatever that reason was, it may have been one he shared with some other nut. A conspiracy need not involve the Mafia, the government, the CIA, the FBI or whatever.

I actually read a very interesting hypothesis from two historians who were investigating Oswald's motivations for assassination. They came to an interesting conclusion that his target was not JFK but Governor Connelly.

Oswald had been trying to get back into the military for sometime and had been frequently denied due to concerns about his fitness following his trip to the USSR and supposed suicide attempt. His final efforts involved trying to gain admittance to the Texas National Guard. The week before the shooting he received a letter denying his final appeal. That final appeal authority was Governor Connelly of Texas.

They surmised that Oswald had great motivation for killing Connelly and none for killing Kennedy. He was a mediocre shot, in fact missing once, failing to kill his intended target and killing the President in the process. JFK was simply in the way of a poor rifleman with an axe to grind against the governor of Texas. It may also explain why Oswald reportedly vehemently denied killing JFK... he never intended to do so, and may have actually been disturbed that he had done so, to the point of serious psychological denial.

Anyway, I got a talk from one of the authors of this hypothesis years ago in college (and he was quite adamant that theirs was just a hypothesis based on the best available information), though the names completely escape me. Though it seems rather anti-climatic I think it best explains what happened that day. In fact, the sad irony that Kennedy may not have even been the target is so striking a possibility that it makes perfect sense. The investigators (and most everyone else) would automatically assume the shooter was trying to kill the President. But, what if this first, very basic, assumption was wrong? Nothing that followed would seem to make much sense if you get the identity of the intended victim wrong.

That's my two cents on this subject.

[HAVOC451]

I'd like to recomend a reading of http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/USO/chp1_p3.html#pgfId=4877
and
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/USO/chp3_p1.html

This is part of an interview of Col. L Fletcher Prouty who was a USAF liason officer 1963. It's an interesting read.[/url]

[Wolverine]

This is part of an interview of Col. L Fletcher Prouty who was a USAF liason officer 1963. It's an interesting read.

[-(

Only if you enjoy fiction.

All evidence demonstrates that Prouty was a kook. It'd be worth checking to see if he and Nancy Lieder share any relation.
Lengthy presentation here (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty.htm) detailing Prouty's credibility (or lack thereof), and this page (http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100whox.html) explores similar Prouty absurdity, as well as his loose depiction in Oliver Stone's JFK.

Just to recap, here's some Prouty wisdom as detailed by David Reitzes:

1) The forces behind the death of John F. Kennedy included not only the CIA and the military-industrial complex, but also the Federal Reserve Board.

2) Flying saucers are a reality, and the Air Force has two "bodies" or extraterrestrial objects in storage at one of its bases.

3) It was an "enormous privilege" to have his book, The Secret Team, reprinted by the Institute for Historical Review, a group Prouty claims keeps people "from revising history," and whose Web site says, "What proof exists that the Nazis killed six million Jews? None."

4) The Jonestown tragedy was not a suicide, but a mass murder committed by US intelligence and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

5) The high price of oil is artificially maintained by a cabal that shuts down oil pipelines in the Middle East: "Because of the Israelis. That is their business on behalf of the oil companies. That's why they get $3 billion a year from the US taxpayer."

6) Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not die a natural death: Winston Churchill had him poisoned.

7) It "would not surprise" Prouty if Princess Diana and Princess Grace of Monaco were assassinated by the "Secret Team" that killed JFK and countless others.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :^o

[Reacher]

The teacher who issued this assignment stated today that he is very interested in the whole JFK thing, so I think I might print this page out and give it to him to read over... Or give him the URL. I don't know which. I'm allowed to print this stuff out, right? I mean, I know that I almost certainly can, and it's a pretty stupid question, but I can, right?

[Normandy6644]

Just keep in mind that this is really only a discussion, and no matter how much any of us claim to know about the subject, none of us could be truly considered "experts." If you just want the discussion of ideas, then you're golden!

[Gmann]

Rich brings up an interesting point about someone else being the target. I recall a recent guest (I don't remember which one, or what radio show since they all talked to "JFK experts" last week) who contended that Oswald had intended to get a former Governor of Texas. He missed in his attempt (a contention supposedly supported by notes found in his apartment) and was looking for another way to get to this man. When news of JFK's upcoming visit was published, he (Oswald) decided to go down in history as "the man who killed Kennedy" instead of the "the man who killed whatshisface". Either way, there are more rumors and theories than you could shake a stick at. This is one of those mysteries that will probably not be solved anytime soon.

[Sam5]

That's my two cents on this subject.

Do you recall the incident in which Adlai Stevenson was heckled by the JBS members in Dallas and hit over the head with some of their posters and the sticks the posters were on?

[pinkywafflehead]

:exclaim: how is it possible that JFK got shot from the front if his head leens forward befor going to the back and left.its impossible to be shot from the grassy knoll then because he would have then been driving his head into the bullet if you look closely to the zepruder film nix film and others you can see that he head goes forward then back and to the left therefore he had to be shot from behind and not from the grassy knoll. If you believe that LHO shot JFK from the book depository and from the grassy knoll the you are sadly mistaken i believe. it is unhuman to be able to go from the book depository to the grassy knoll in a matter of seconds.

[Lonewulf]

You're using big text. That convinced me. Yeap.

[Vermonter]

Welcome to the board....but why did you choose to comment on a two-year old thread?

[antoniseb]

Welcome to the board....but why did you choose to comment on a two-year old thread?

As a first time poster, how did you find it? This thread was pretty well buried under many layers of civilization that have come and gone since the last post.

[Vermonter]

Perhaps he used the search function to find the JFK thread.

[R.A.F.]

As a first time poster, how did you find it?

Is Jkm running a "school" for old thread bumping??? :)

[LurchGS]

a new carreer calling - web board archaeology...

[Launch window]

It seems like most of the discussion is centred on whether Oswald was the sole shooter. But is this the most relevant consideration? The mere facts that Ruby killed Oswald afterwards and that Ruby was a mob figure almost demand the conclusion that the mob was involved. Therefore a conspiracy by definition.

I'm not a conspiracy freak but the fact that Bobby Kennedy was killed added to it, Jacqueline always said the Kennedys were being 'targeted' and believed it so much that she even left the States to protect herself and children

[Gruesome]

I voted yes, and while I wasn't born when it happened I have a tough time buying the 'magic bullet' theory.

[jkmccrann]

Is Jkm running a "school" for old thread bumping??? :)

Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery you know. ;) And is capital lettering required for shouting - because I felt deaf just reading that post.

[turbonium]

It seems like most of the discussion is centred on whether Oswald was the sole shooter. But is this the most relevant consideration? The mere facts that Ruby killed Oswald afterwards and that Ruby was a mob figure almost demand the conclusion that the mob was involved. Therefore a conspiracy by definition.

I won't go into the many issues about this event, as that is best left for discussion in the Conspiracy section. But I thought I'd comment on the point about Ruby. Watching the film of the shooting is incredible: The police basically stand still holding Oswald as they watch Ruby come out of the crowd with a gun, and not move an inch as Ruby is able to practically poke the gun barrel into Oswald's stomach and shoot him.

It is ridiculous, watching the "stunned" expressions of the police officers, holding Oswald's arms and just acting like stooges as they watch a man walk up to them while pointing out his gun!

Oswald's shooting doesn't prove there was a conspiracy in itself, but it sure helps to make it a more than reasonable possibility, in my view.

[jt-3d]

I won't go into the many issues about this event, as that is best left for discussion in the Conspiracy section. But I thought I'd comment on the point about Ruby. Watching the film of the shooting is incredible: The police basically stand still holding Oswald as they watch Ruby come out of the crowd with a gun, and not move an inch as Ruby is able to practically poke the gun barrel into Oswald's stomach and shoot him.

It is ridiculous, watching the "stunned" expressions of the police officers, holding Oswald's arms and just acting like stooges as they watch a man walk up to them while pointing out his gun!

Oswald's shooting doesn't prove there was a conspiracy in itself, but it sure helps to make it a more than reasonable possibility, in my view.

Oh yeah, it was like 10-20 seconds that they 'just stood there'. Oh wait, no, it was about 1 second and it was a noisy crowd, close in, with flashbulbs going off. Yeah the 'stooges' just stood there. Ever notice the sheriff's hand on Oswald's belt? He was trying to pull Oswald out of the way. Have you even seen the footage? Doesn't seem like it to me.

[Sam5]

I voted yes, and while I wasn't born when it happened I have a tough time buying the 'magic bullet' theory.

Here’s a video of Connally talking about the shooting and what he remembered. This is an audio-video file, about 1 min 24 sec., a couple of megs.

----
edit: Opps, that website says direct linking not allowed. I'll try to find a cut and paste link.
--------

Ok, ok, now I get it. Direct linking to the video media player is not allowed, but linking to the page where the video and media player are located is allowed here:

http://media.putfile.com/connally_edit_md/320

[Sam5]

Oswald's shooting doesn't prove there was a conspiracy in itself, but it sure helps to make it a more than reasonable possibility, in my view.

Back in those days, local police departments didn’t quite know what to do about the national media. The national media kept hounding the police department for more film and live video of Oswald. They kept implying that the police department was mistreating Oswald (this is a typical media ruse, in an attempt to get the cops to allow more live coverage of a suspected killer). So Police Chief Curry decided to let the media cover the transfer on live TV. The PD had an armored car just outside the side door, prepared to take Oswald to the County Jail, where he would be more secure.

Ruby had been wandering around the PD hallways for the last day and night, and dressed in a suit and hat, he looked like either a reporter or a government agent. He just walked into an open garage door of the basement, acting as if he belonged there, and he mingled among the reporters before Oswald was brought out. I don’t think he made the final decision to shoot Oswald until the last few seconds. It became a compulsion for him, and he thought he would be seen as a “hero” for doing it.

Today, cops and feds make sure that high-profile suspects are protected from such assassinations, and they usually move them outside the view of the press and they make them wear bullet-proof vests. But that’s today. Nobody thought anybody would be crazy enough to forfeit their own life and freedom by shooting Oswald in front of all those cameras and cops. But that was back then.

What Curry probably should have done was allow just three journalists view the transfer, in what is known as a “media pool”: One reporter, one film cameraman, and one still photographer, and they all should have been definitely identified by their newspapers and TV networks. Then they could have shared their reports, film, and stills with all other media. That way Curry could have backed the armored car into the garage, closed all garage doors, inspected the garage for people hiding among the cars, and then they should have moved Oswald into the armored car, with just the three media men in the “pool” covering the move.

[farmerjumperdon]

I won't go into the many issues about this event, as that is best left for discussion in the Conspiracy section. But I thought I'd comment on the point about Ruby. Watching the film of the shooting is incredible: The police basically stand still holding Oswald as they watch Ruby come out of the crowd with a gun, and not move an inch as Ruby is able to practically poke the gun barrel into Oswald's stomach and shoot him.

It is ridiculous, watching the "stunned" expressions of the police officers, holding Oswald's arms and just acting like stooges as they watch a man walk up to them while pointing out his gun!

Oswald's shooting doesn't prove there was a conspiracy in itself, but it sure helps to make it a more than reasonable possibility, in my view.

I like Dennis Miller's line on this. In one of his early shows, he was poking fun at Denny Terio and Dance Fever. (Anybody remember that show - kind of like American Idol wrapped in spandex, with both shows being proof in themselves of how badly the world needs another disco dancer, or another pop singer).

Anyway, his line about Dance Fever:

"I haven't seen correography that stiff since Lee Harvey Oswald prison transfer."

[ggremlin]

Why are people fascinated by the Kennedy assassination?

We have had four presidents killed and about two dozen attempts. Of those only two were conspiracies; Lincoln and the attempt on Truman. Conspiracy being defined as a criminal act by two or more people.

In every other case, it has been a lone gunman or woman.

Only two questions need to be asked:

1. Could Oswald have done it alone? Answer yes without any doubt.
2. Is there any evidence that someone else involved? Answer No, after forty years there has not been one piece of evidence that has stand up to testing.

[WHarris]

I voted yes, and while I wasn't born when it happened I have a tough time buying the 'magic bullet' theory.

The so called 'magic bullet', wasn't. It was a straight line from the window Oswald shot from through Kennedy's neck and into Connally.

[Launch window]

I won't go into the many issues about this event, as that is best left for discussion in the Conspiracy section. But I thought I'd comment on the point about Ruby. Watching the film of the shooting is incredible: The police basically stand still holding Oswald as they watch Ruby come out of the crowd with a gun, and not move an inch as Ruby is able to practically poke the gun barrel into Oswald's stomach and shoot him.

It is ridiculous, watching the "stunned" expressions of the police officers, holding Oswald's arms and just acting like stooges as they watch a man walk up to them while pointing out his gun!

Oswald's shooting doesn't prove there was a conspiracy in itself, but it sure helps to make it a more than reasonable possibility, in my view.


there is no doubt Oswald was in a bit of a Jam that day !
http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~aleks/oswald.jpg
If you're looking for the real 'stooges' try checking out those useless bodygaurds that were suposed be to protecting the President and First Lady, and the bodyguards that were meant to save JFK's brother
Conspiracy isn't the word but 'Incompetency' is the correct word, ancient Praetorian-guards or MR-T would have done a better job

[Gillianren]

Why are people fascinated by the Kennedy assassination?

We have had four presidents killed and about two dozen attempts. Of those only two were conspiracies; Lincoln and the attempt on Truman. Conspiracy being defined as a criminal act by two or more people.

In every other case, it has been a lone gunman or woman.

Only two questions need to be asked:

1. Could Oswald have done it alone? Answer yes without any doubt.
2. Is there any evidence that someone else involved? Answer No, after forty years there has not been one piece of evidence that has stand up to testing.

Exactly. I mean, heck, two people tried to assassinate Gerald Ford within, what, a month of each other--and the assassination attempts weren't connected. (I think, however, that good ol' Squeaky's attempt does actually count as a conspiracy, but she's from a rather famous group of conspirators in other crimes, and I believe had already served prison time for conspiracy to commit murder.)

I'm not old enough to remember Kennedy's death--either Kennedy assassination, come to that--but I have no problem accepting that the weight of evidence is behind Oswald being the lone gunman, and Jack Ruby is equally likely to have been yet another crazed lone gunman. American history's full of them.

Oh, and as for the gunshot residue tests--the ones used on Oswald were known to be unreliable in 1963. They were primarily used to intimidate suspects who didn't know that.

[Wolverine]

Moved from BABBling to Conspiracy Theories.

[PhantomWolf]

The main problem with assuming that Ruby's actions was all part of some big conspriacy is that he was late getting to the police statuion. At the time that Oswald was supposed to be being transfered, Ruby was standing in line at the Post Office. This means that either Oswald had the ability to know when Ruby would get there and so delayed his transfer so as to allow himself to be shot, or that Ruby could predict that Oswald was going to delay the transfer and until he got there. Either way, one of them had to be able to somehow have information that was impossible to know (Oswald knowing how long it would take for Ruby to finish at the Post Office and get to the Police Station, or Ruby knowing how long Oswald was going to take to get changed.)

[Sam5]

The main problem with assuming that Ruby's actions was all part of some big conspriacy is that he was late getting to the police statuion. At the time that Oswald was supposed to be being transfered, Ruby was standing in line at the Post Office. This means that either Oswald had the ability to know when Ruby would get there and so delayed his transfer so as to allow himself to be shot, or that Ruby could predict that Oswald was going to delay the transfer and until he got there. Either way, one of them had to be able to somehow have information that was impossible to know (Oswald knowing how long it would take for Ruby to finish at the Post Office and get to the Police Station, or Ruby knowing how long Oswald was going to take to get changed.)

Ruby told Earl Warren and Gerald Ford exactly why he did it, but his testimony is always overlooked by conspiracy buffs. The simple fact is, Ruby was already going nuts before the assassination. The killing of Kennedy pushed him over the edge. Ruby was terrified of the John Birch Society and he was afraid they were going to take over the country and become the new Nazis of America.

By the time of the motorcade, he was mentally ill and in the process of having a nervous breakdown before the assassination. He was taking a “diet pill” that contained Preludin. This type of drug used to cause some people to develop paranoia, and they had to stop using it as a diet pill. This medication made his mental condition much worse, as he noted in his testimony.

Here is some of his testimony, from jail, to Earl Warren:
-------
Mr. Ruby: I am in a tough spot, and I don't know what the solution can be to save me.
And I know our wonderful President, Lyndon Johnson, as soon as he was the President of his country, he appointed you as head of this group. But through certain falsehoods that have been said about me to other people, the John Birch Society, I am as good as guilty as the accused assassin of President Kennedy.
How can you remedy that, Mr. Warren? Do any of you men have any ways of remedying that?
Mr. Bill Decker said be a man and speak up. I am making a statement now that I may not live the next hour when I walk out of this room.
Now it is the most fantastic story you have ever heard in a lifetime. I did something out of the goodness of my heart. Unfortunately, Chief Earl Warren, had you been around 5 or 6 months ago, and I know your hands were tied, you couldn't do it, and immediately the President would have gotten ahold of my true story, or whatever would have been said about me, a certain organization wouldn't have so completely formed now, so powerfully, to use me because I am of the Jewish extraction, Jewish faith, to commit the most dastardly crime that has ever been committed.
Can you understand now in visualizing what happened, what powers, what momentum has been carried on to create this feeling of mass feeling against my people, against certain people that were against them prior to their power?

That goes over your head, doesn't it?

Chief Justice Warren: Well, I don't quite get the full significance of it, Mr. Ruby. I know what you feel about the John Birch Society.

Mr. Ruby: Very powerful.

Chief Justice Warren: I think it is powerful, yes I do. Of course, I don't have all the information that you feel you have on that subject.

Mr. Ruby: Unfortunately, you don't have, because it is too late. And I wish that our beloved President, Lyndon Johnson, would have delved deeper into the situation, hear me, not to accept just circumstantial facts about my guilt or innocence, and would have questioned to find out the truth about me before he relinquished certain powers to these certain people.

Chief Justice Warren: Well, I am afraid I don't know what power you believe he relinquished to them. I think that it is difficult to understand what you have to say.

Mr. Ruby: I want to say this to you. The Jewish people are being exterminated at this moment. Consequently, a whole new form of government is going to take over our country, and I know I won't live to see you another time. Do I sound sort of screwy--in telling you these things?

Chief Justice Warren: No; I think that is what you believe, or you wouldn't tell it under your oath.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Jack_Ruby/Ruby_WCR_testimony_1.html

[SpitfireIX]

We have had four presidents killed and about two dozen attempts. Of those only two were conspiracies; Lincoln and the attempt on Truman.

Have there really been two dozen unsuccessful attempts? I can only think of about half that many, and three of those are questionable.

Jackson (attacked by deranged individual whose flintlock pistols misfired)
Lincoln (questionable--alleged plot during his journey to Washington as President-elect)
Lincoln (questionable--near miss from unidentified shooter while riding in 1862--unknown whether actual attempt or accident)
FDR (questionable--occurred while president-elect; actual target may have been Chicago mayor Anton Cermak, who was fatally wounded)
Truman (two Puerto Rican nationalists--Secret Service officer killed)
Nixon (deranged individual attempted to hijack airliner and crash into White House)
Ford (deranged individual)
Ford (deranged individual)
Reagan (deranged individual)
Clinton (deranged individual--opened fire on White House with automatic weapon)

The actual number may partly depend on one's definition of "assassination attempt"--many more than two dozen people have made plans to kill a President, but few have gotten close enough to be an actual threat.

[edit: I should have also mentioned Theodore Roosevelt, who survived being shot as an ex-President while campaigning for election in 1912. Although one could argue that this should be classified as an attempted assassination of a Presidential candidate, the deranged individual claimed that he had acted because he had dreamed that McKinley had identified TR as complicit in McKinley's assassination.]

[edit: I also didn't include Saddam Hussein's plot to assassinate George Bush the Elder. Whether this should be classified as an "attempt" is debatable, as the agents were all rounded up well before they could carry out their plan.]

[edit: Spelling of "Cermak"]

[Lonewulf]

Wow. A powerful political figure, target of deranged individuals? Who knew?

I mean, sure, if they're target of lobbyists, all the major corporations, and the majority of the population isn't amazing... one deranged individual is! </sarcasm>

[JimTKirk]

The so called 'magic bullet', wasn't. It was a straight line from the window Oswald shot from through Kennedy's neck and into Connally.

Yep. The CTs like to show a graphic of Connelly and the President sitting looking forward like mannequins when they were both moving and turned in their seats. The Zappruder film shows that clearly.

[ggremlin]

Have there really been two dozen unsuccessful attempts? I can only think of about half that many, and three of those are questionable.


Good post, SpitfireIX

I stand corrected; I recalled a discussion we had in Constitutional Law. We were discussing the 25th Amendment, presidential succession, and we got side tracked into presidential assassinations. I recall the professor saying that they had been four successful and about twenty attempts. We went through some of the more famous ones. This was back in the 80's, but it was one of my favorite classes.

After your post, I did some more research, and come up with seventeen cases. There were two additional attempts on Clinton, one was a handgun, unloaded and another with an airplane crash on the front lawn of the White House. One attempt on the current president, George Bush, when someone threw a hand grenade at him on a foreign visit.

Here is the main link I found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidential_assassination_attempts

BTW, the discussion on the FDR attempt was very spirited. If successful, it would have thrown the country into a constitutional crisis. Would the Vice President Elect have become President-Elect, would new elections have to be held, would it be determined in Congress? The only point everyone agreed on was that the constitution still does not address it.

[SpitfireIX]

After your post, I did some more research, and come up with seventeen cases. There were two additional attempts on Clinton, one was a handgun, unloaded and another with an airplane crash on the front lawn of the White House. One attempt on the current president, George Bush, when someone threw a hand grenade at him on a foreign visit.

I knew about the airplane but I left it out, as it was never established that the pilot was actually trying to kill Clinton, IIRC.

The unloaded gun I'd say is questionable--either an attempted suicide by cop, or else the most incompetent would-be assassin ever.

I'm not sure the one with Carter should be counted, either.

I'd forgotten about the attempt on Bush the Younger--indicates my brain is fried, I think.

BTW, the discussion on the FDR attempt was very spirited. If successful, it would have thrown the country into a constitutional crisis. Would the Vice President Elect have become President-Elect, would new elections have to be held, would it be determined in Congress? The only point everyone agreed on was that the constitution still does not address it.

Actually, the latter is only partly true--the 20th Amendment (adopted during FDR's administration) provides that the VP-elect would succeed--however, there is no VP-elect until after the Electoral College votes. When Reagan ran in 1980, because of his age, there was some discussion of what would happen if he died after the election but before the EC voted. The consensus was that the Republican Party would have been allowed to nominate a new candidate.

[turbonium]

"I haven't seen correography that stiff since Lee Harvey Oswald prison transfer."

LOL! A Dennis Miller line I hadn't heard before. Good one, farmer.

Oh yeah, it was like 10-20 seconds that they 'just stood there'. Oh wait, no, it was about 1 second and it was a noisy crowd, close in, with flashbulbs going off. Yeah the 'stooges' just stood there. Ever notice the sheriff's hand on Oswald's belt? He was trying to pull Oswald out of the way. Have you even seen the footage? Doesn't seem like it to me.

Of course I've seen the footage, countless times. I've always thought the shooting was totally contrived. And looking at frames from the video has only confirmed my belief that it was all staged.

Some frames that are perfect examples of how unnatural the reactions of the police were....

Ruby holding his gun, with his outstretched arm practically nudged up to the beltline of an utterly oblivious officer....
http://scribblguy.50megs.com/basement.jpg

http://www.big13.net/rubyshot.jpg

And the sheriff you claim was trying to pull Oswald out of the way? The only thing he is doing in the image below is bend back out of the way!

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3988.jpg

And not once does he even look down at the gun, nor make any effort to subdue Ruby - he just keeps looking at Ruby's face as he comes in and shoots Oswald....

http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=sm6c20

Exceptional protection offered by the Dallas police that day - almost as outstanding as their security efforts two days earlier for JFK...

[Tolls]

Yep. The CTs like to show a graphic of Connelly and the President sitting looking forward like mannequins when they were both moving and turned in their seats. The Zappruder film shows that clearly.

They also tend to have them at the same height, when Connelly was lower than Kennedy, sat in a jump seat as he was.

[captain swoop]

OK Turbonium you are saying all the cops there were in on it as well?

Another conspiracy that grows!

[Tolls]

Here's the shooting from another angle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ruby-shooting-oswald.jpg

See the hand coming over?
That's the other bloke trying to grab Ruby.
Not exactly simply standing around doing nothing.

Edit:
While I'm here, the phenix video shows quite clearly how quickly Ruby charges Oswald and fires.
http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/?ArID=90111

[SHAKESPHERE]

Oh yes, despite the JCS, CIA, FBI, Anti Castro Cubans, pro Castro Cubans, JBS, Mafia, Texas Oil,and the Federal reserve, all having cracker-jack reasons for wanting JFK to shuffle off this mortal coil Oswald, for reasons no one can fathom, saves them all the trouble.Truth is though, unlikely as it sounds, its probably what happened.

[PhantomWolf]

I've always thought the shooting was totally contrived. And looking at frames from the video has only confirmed my belief that it was all staged.

The problem is however, Turbonuim, for it to have been staged, regardless of how it looked, the principle players had to have foreknowledge of each others actions in a way that was impossible. If it truely was a setup and staged, why wasn't Ruby waiting for Oswald at the original time of the transfer? Why was he standing in line at the Post Office? How did he know that he would be able to complete his business at the Post Office and still get to Oswald before the Transfer occured? How did Oswald know how long he had to spend getting changed so that Ruby would could get into position? For that he had to know how long Ruby was going to be standing in line at the Post Office. And assuming that he somehow knew this impossible knowledge, why would he have been complicit in his own assassination?

Until you can explain this omniscience on the part of the principles, you can't explain how they were in place at the right time (which was really the wrong time) to do a staged action, that should have taken place about 15 minutes eariler.

Quite simply, had Oswald not decided to get changed, the Tranfer would have occured before Ruby arrived and had just one person in the Post Office line taken a minute longer, Ruby would have arrived too late. Are you going to claim that every person in the Post Office and Oswald himself was in on the shooting?

[Gillianren]

Oh yes, despite the JCS, CIA, FBI, Anti Castro Cubans, pro Castro Cubans, JBS, Mafia, Texas Oil,and the Federal reserve, all having cracker-jack reasons for wanting JFK to shuffle off this mortal coil Oswald, for reasons no one can fathom, saves them all the trouble.Truth is though, unlikely as it sounds, its probably what happened.

Actually, very few of those groups had as good reasons for wanting Kennedy dead as the CTs want you to believe--and Oswald had very good ones.

In some ways, I can feel very sorry for Lee Harvey Oswald. It seems, looking over his life history, that what he wanted more than anything else was to be important. This caused him to make most of his major life decisions--like the whole defecting to the Soviet Union thing, for one. What's more, Oswald himself was a passionately-devoted pro-Castro Marxist. While Castro himself has gone on the record saying that he would've had to've been insane to've had Kennedy assassinated, Oswald apparently believed that he would've been welcomed into Cuba with open arms for killing Kennedy--after the Soviet Union kicked him out.

[turbonium]

Quite simply, had Oswald not decided to get changed, the Tranfer would have occured before Ruby arrived and had just one person in the Post Office line taken a minute longer, Ruby would have arrived too late. Are you going to claim that every person in the Post Office and Oswald himself was in on the shooting?

No, of course I don't think that the Posties and Oswald were in on it. There are many details in the link below about the incident, including how witnesses saw Ruby at the police staion between 8 and 10 am that morning. I don't buy into the story that Ruby loved JFK and wanted only to kill Oswald to save Jackie from having to return to Dallas and testify. The fact is that Ruby was buddies with most of the Dallas policemen at that precinct. He would have been recognized by the police in the basement - the notion that he obtained a fake media pass doesn't wash. He had front row access to Oswald's basement transfer by the police - pretty "lucky" for someone who barely arrived in time, whereas the media throngs had been waiting in the basement for over an hour. For a supposedly well-secured area, Ruby was even "luckier" to be able to pack his gun and bring it right in to the police station basement.

http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/Dr%20Tony%20Austin.htm

I'm not at all convinced in the official account of Ruby making a "spontaneous decision" to kill Oswald, for these and other reasons. It's all too convenient to eliminate the pre-ordained "lone nut assassin" before he had a chance to say anything that might blow the lid off of the cover story....

[Yodaluver28]

I don't buy into the story that Ruby loved JFK and wanted only to kill Oswald to save Jackie from having to return to Dallas and testify.

Many people who knew Ruby for a long time have stated many times that he did love and admire Kennedy and was devastated by his assassination, including the employee that who saw him that morning who said that he was extremely distraught. Many also describe him as a volatile and extremely emotional man who some even thought was insane before he shot Oswald. I think his desire to "spare Mrs. Kennedy the ordeal of testfying" is but one reason for what he did. His mental state was another, along with wanting for vengeance against Kennedy's killer and his desire to be a "hero" for taking Oswald out.

The fact is that Ruby was buddies with most of the Dallas policemen at that precinct. He would have been recognized by the police in the basement - the notion that he obtained a fake media pass doesn't wash. He had front row access to Oswald's basement transfer by the police - pretty "lucky" for someone who barely arrived in time, whereas the media throngs had been waiting in the basement for over an hour.

I don't think that Ruby pretended to be press, he didn't have to. Ruby did know dozens of people in the department, several of which he payed to look the other way over indiscretions at his nightclub. His buddies on the force let him in because this was a big event, they knew that Ruby always liked to feel like he was at the center of things, and they knew how much he liked Kennedy.

For a supposedly well-secured area, Ruby was even "luckier" to be able to pack his gun and bring it right in to the police station basement.

Ruby wasn't lucky, he was connected. He had friends in all the right places. Ruby also frequently carried a gun in his jacket pocket and that was common knowledge amongst his friends on the force.


I'm not at all convinced in the official account of Ruby making a "spontaneous decision" to kill Oswald, for these and other reasons. It's all too convenient to eliminate the pre-ordained "lone nut assassin" before he had a chance to say anything that might blow the lid off of the cover story....

Yeah, but using Ruby to eliminate Oswald for fear that Oswald might talk just creates another potential problem...Ruby. Then somebody has to kill Ruby to keep his mouth shut. And everyone who knew Jack Ruby knew that he had a big mouth and used it frequently. So he was a bad choice to be the one who would survive to go to jail and be interrogated. Then whoever killed Ruby has to die and then someone has to kill Ruby's killer and so on and so on. It makes no sense. If someone were actually going to perpetrate such a huge conspiracy in the first place, and there's no evidence that they did, why would they use two mentally unstable and highly unreliable kooks in any capacity, even as patsies? It's just too big a risk.

[jscotti]

The only conspiracy in the JFK assassination is the one involved the conspiracy theorists themselves. It's amazing how far these nuts have run with their wacko ideas.... I haven't seen a JFK conspiracy theory yet that didn't have more holes in it than the victims and the perp combined after Jack Ruby got done with him.

[Lonewulf]

Conspiracies are just a conspiracy to get people to conspire to do something.

[SHAKESPHERE]

[QUOTE=Gillianren]Actually, very few of those groups had as good reasons for wanting Kennedy dead

This statement is a joke, right? As I said I accept that in all probability LHO pulled the trigger, but to pretend that Kennedy had not made many, powerful enemies in his short time as president flies in the face of accepted historical accounts. The BOP, the sacking of Walker Dulles and bissell, Refusing to act on the Northwoods recomendations, sidelining of Ly Lemnitzer, who do you think paid for the anti kennedy ads in the Dallas papers, Oswald? There were, and remain, many reasons for doubting many of the findings of the W/C, and to crudely label anyone who questions this as a "C/T" simply wont do.

[Eroica]

... no gun powder residue had been found on Oswald's face. Whenever an individual fires a gun (especially a scope-sighted rifle), there is always residue on the face.
Is this true? And if so, what are the implications?

[Joe Durnavich]

The implications are not what the conspiracists claim:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

[Gillianren]

This statement is a joke, right? As I said I accept that in all probability LHO pulled the trigger, but to pretend that Kennedy had not made many, powerful enemies in his short time as president flies in the face of accepted historical accounts. The BOP, the sacking of Walker Dulles and bissell, Refusing to act on the Northwoods recomendations, sidelining of Ly Lemnitzer, who do you think paid for the anti kennedy ads in the Dallas papers, Oswald? There were, and remain, many reasons for doubting many of the findings of the W/C, and to crudely label anyone who questions this as a "C/T" simply wont do.

Okay, first off, I don't know what half of your alphabet soup references mean, so I can't rebut them all. (BOP, I take it, is Bay of Pigs, but I'm not sure to whom it would be offensive in your scenario. What are JCS and JBS?) What possible reason would the Federal Reserve have to want to kill Kennedy? As I recall, the supposed reasons are bunk, though I don't remember exactly where I read the details of it. As for the CIA, they were relatively happy with Kennedy as President, and certainly they had no reason to assume that they'd be happier under LBJ.

See, that's the thing you have to remember--it's not actually enough for the enemies to want Kennedy dead for them to have assassinated him, especially when personality assassination would've been as easy as it would've been with Kennedy. They would have had to have done better with Lyndon Johnson as President. Johnson wasn't going to miraculously change all of Kennedy's policies, after all, and so could be considered no real improvement to most people who might allegedly have a reason to kill Kennedy. Here's where the lone nut is more plausible than Big Interests--Oswald didn't have to think about what would've been different with LBJ as President. It was enough for him to get the notoriety and kill an enemy of Cuba and the Marxist state.

[SpitfireIX]

The implications are not what the conspiracists claim:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

This is a great web site--almost as good as Clavius, though Jay is a better writer and has more first-hand knowlege of the subject being debunked. It's where I always refer people who claim that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

Here (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm) is a link to to the home page.

[andyschlei]

If you're looking for the real 'stooges' try checking out those useless bodygaurds that were suposed be to protecting the President and First Lady, and the bodyguards that were meant to save JFK's brother
Conspiracy isn't the word but 'Incompetency' is the correct word, ancient Praetorian-guards or MR-T would have done a better job

JFK's brother chose to move away from the exit planned for him, away from the bodyguards so he could work the crowd. An enthusiastic, friendly crowd. Hindsight is 20/20 -- IMHO I think it is a bit harsh to call this incompetency.

[Donnie B.]

See, that's the thing you have to remember--it's not actually enough for the enemies to want Kennedy dead for them to have assassinated him, especially when personality assassination would've been as easy as it would've been with Kennedy. They would have had to have done better with Lyndon Johnson as President.Which has led some CTists to suggest that Johnson himself was behind the assassination -- an idea I find despicable.

[turbonium]

Yeah, but using Ruby to eliminate Oswald for fear that Oswald might talk just creates another potential problem...Ruby. Then somebody has to kill Ruby to keep his mouth shut. And everyone who knew Jack Ruby knew that he had a big mouth and used it frequently. So he was a bad choice to be the one who would survive to go to jail and be interrogated. Then whoever killed Ruby has to die and then someone has to kill Ruby's killer and so on and so on. It makes no sense. If someone were actually going to perpetrate such a huge conspiracy in the first place, and there's no evidence that they did, why would they use two mentally unstable and highly unreliable kooks in any capacity, even as patsies? It's just too big a risk.

But who else could they get but a mentally unstable kook like Ruby to shoot someone in a police station? And Ruby did talk - to Dorothy Kilgallen, who died soon afterwards - along with the disappearance of all her notes and the article on which she had been working to "blow the JFK assassination wide open". Ruby claimed he was injected by an unknown "agent" with something that caused him to quicky develop fatal cancer. That would put an end to any chain of "murdering the murderers".

Two other things that don't make sense:

- Ruby fired only one shot from his Colt Cobra .38 Special, which holds six rounds. He easily had time to fire off a couple more rounds before being apprehended.

- Ruby deliberately fired the single bullet directly into Oswald's abdomen, from mere inches away. Ruby, with years of experience as a gangster, would certainly have known that gunshot wounds to the abdomen are very likely to be non-fatal. That is also supported by statistics calculated from hospital records during the early 1960's: only a ~15-25% mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the abdomen. Ruby also knew that Oswald would be able to get immediate assistance for the wound, with policemen everywhere, and an ambulance readily available.

If Ruby was so intent on murdering Oswald, why didn't he shoot him in the head, or even the heart? Ruby approached from Oswald's left, and easily could have shot him in the heart (or head).

Why did Ruby only fire a single shot from his double-action .38? If he wanted to make sure Oswald would not live, he should have fired off as many rounds as he could, not just a single shot to the stomach.

[Halcyon Dayz]

Maybe he was as stunned as anybody else about what had happened.
He acted out of impulse, not deliberation.

[SpitfireIX]

But who else could they get but a mentally unstable kook like Ruby to shoot someone in a police station?

You are assuming that "they" expected Oswald to be arrested before "they" could get to him. If he hadn't shot a police officer and then started acting suspiciously, he likely wouldn't have been arrested until the serial number of the rifle had been traced to the company that sold it to him. If "they" wanted to eliminate Oswald, "they" could simply have told him to be at some location for further instructions, transport to Cuba, etc., and killed him (making it look like a suicide). Come to that, Oswald either was part of a conspiracy, or he was not. If he was, why did he shoot Officer Tippett? How could that possibly have furthered the conspiracy? If Oswald was not, and he was merely a "patsy," why did "they" make it look like he shot Officer Tippett, so that Oswald would be quickly arrested and possibly talk. Again, why not eliminate Oswald instead? Or, even better, make it look like Tippett and Oswald killed each other. Then, when the rifle was traced to Oswald, it would be assumed that Tippett stopped Oswald because he was acting suspicious, and Oswald panicked and started shooting.

And Ruby did talk - to Dorothy Kilgallen, who died soon afterwards - along with the disappearance of all her notes and the article on which she had been working to "blow the JFK assassination wide open".

You have no way of knowing what Ruby told her, a