John Kennedy - lone gunman or more conspirators? (1 Viewer)

[Hooper31]

Actually there are still people alive that dispute the lone gunman theory and had a view that gave them good visibility of the other people.

Eye witness testimony in a chaotic panic-filled environment isn't going to hold water when compared to the available physical evidence.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You need to add one more option.

Hickey accidentally blew Kennedy's head off with the AR-15. There's no conspiracy, there's no magic bullet. There's simply a tragic accident due to incompetent service agents trying to protect the president.

Yeah, it's doesn't have the mystery of the other options but it's what really happened.

Right, Oswald was shooting birds and squirrels for dinner and JFK's head got in the way.

Out of the "theories" this one seems at least plausible to me. This happened in Louisiana when Huey Long was assassinated. There was a guy with a grudge with a gun there to shoot Long at the Capitol; however over time it appears that one of Long's own multiple brownshirt guards accidentally shot him in the melee that ensued.

 

[talongrey]

The evidence pointing to a conspiracy is overwhelming. People just do not want to believe they could be betrayed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The evidence pointing to a conspiracy is overwhelming. People just do not want to believe they could be betrayed.

Or people don't want to believe that a crime like this could happen without betrayal.

A maladjusted loser just hauled off and shot possibly one of the greatest presidents ever?

Yeah. See, Garfield, Reagan, Ford, FDR, Teddy R., and McKinley. All shot by maladjusted losers.

 

[Sarnoff]

It's one of those things that people say to stifle debate; I think it portrays a lack of confidence in one's position that they they try to bully people into accepting it.

I'm very confident in my opinion that Oswald killed Kennedy. I think people that cling to the notion of a conspiracy do so because it fills some need. That need likely differs for different people.

Actually there are still people alive that dispute the lone gunman theory and had a view that gave them good visibility of the other people. They may be wrong but they were muted because ti didn't fit the narrative the government felt it had to sell. Which was lone gunman. Everything else was too scary.

Release the records.

And make sure they're the long form records.

 

[NCCommish]

It's one of those things that people say to stifle debate; I think it portrays a lack of confidence in one's position that they they try to bully people into accepting it.

I'm very confident in my opinion that Oswald killed Kennedy. I think people that cling to the notion of a conspiracy do so because it fills some need. That need likely differs for different people.

Actually there are still people alive that dispute the lone gunman theory and had a view that gave them good visibility of the other people. They may be wrong but they were muted because ti didn't fit the narrative the government felt it had to sell. Which was lone gunman. Everything else was too scary.

Release the records.

And make sure they're the long form records.

I agree with all this in principle, the government (and public officials running for office) should generally not be holding records at all. That's why we have FOIA which is a wonderful thing. In this situation there are definitely concerns about protecting information, people and informants.

However Pres. Obama himself just extended the release date until he is out of office, 2017. First of all I don't think Obama is trying to cover up for anyone (much less say Clinton, who idolizes JFK, he could have released the records), secondly the remaining records will be released in a few more years. Nearly everything has already been produced.

There are literally thousands of pages that haven't been produced that the CIA is hanging on to.

 

[NCCommish]

Actually there are still people alive that dispute the lone gunman theory and had a view that gave them good visibility of the other people.

Eye witness testimony in a chaotic panic-filled environment isn't going to hold water when compared to the available physical evidence.

Available physical evidence is what they let be available. I'm sorry I simply don't trust the CIA, the DIA, the FBI, any of them. They have all been shown to be liars who served interests other than what citizens of this country want. Glad it works for you but I have been there done that and have very good reasons for my lack of faith.

 

[lod01]

You need to add one more option.

Hickey accidentally blew Kennedy's head off with the AR-15. There's no conspiracy, there's no magic bullet. There's simply a tragic accident due to incompetent service agents trying to protect the president.

Yeah, it's doesn't have the mystery of the other options but it's what really happened.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Shooting_holes_in_theory_that_a_Secret_Service_agent_killed_President_Kennedy.html

Here's how weak that article is. One of his reasons is: Accidents don’t get any freakier.

Sure they do. This is way down on the scale of freaky accidents. In fact in my opinion, it doesn't even register as freaky.

I shouldn't even have to go into the Secret Service reasons to change the story. It's that obvious. Who wants to tell the country that your own SS agents were such bumbling idiots that they accidentally blew the presidents head off.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Great doc. Worthwhile watch. Thanks, Hooper31.

You bet. I won't deny that we will never know if others were involved, but Oswald did the shooting by himself. There are other docs, papers, and books that reveal the same story, but they're not so popular. The conspiracy stuff just sells.

Does it say why Kennedy's brain went missing?

 

[lod01]

You need to add one more option.

Hickey accidentally blew Kennedy's head off with the AR-15. There's no conspiracy, there's no magic bullet. There's simply a tragic accident due to incompetent service agents trying to protect the president.

Yeah, it's doesn't have the mystery of the other options but it's what really happened.

Right, Oswald was shooting birds and squirrels for dinner and JFK's head got in the way.

Dude, get a clue. Oswald fired that POS rifle and missed with the 1st shot (wasn't even close) and hit the neck with the 2nd. By that time, Hickey was preparing to fire back with the AR-15. The exploding head shot came from it.

 

[UniAlias]

Good lord.

I always assumed people were joking with that theory. It's about as likely as Jackie pulling a revolver from underneath her hat and firing the fatal shot.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Actually there are still people alive that dispute the lone gunman theory and had a view that gave them good visibility of the other people.

Eye witness testimony in a chaotic panic-filled environment isn't going to hold water when compared to the available physical evidence.

Available physical evidence is what they let be available. I'm sorry I simply don't trust the CIA, the DIA, the FBI, any of them. They have all been shown to be liars who served interests other than what citizens of this country want. Glad it works for you but I have been there done that and have very good reasons for my lack of faith.

I am just curious, WADR, aren't you generally trustful of big government otherwise? Why the dichotomy there? Thanks.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Good lord.

I always assumed people were joking with that theory. It's about as likely as Jackie pulling a revolver from underneath her hat and firing the fatal shot.

Why is that harder to believe then Oswald making the shot of improbability.

 

[Josie Maran]

The evidence pointing to a conspiracy is overwhelming. People just do not want to believe they could be betrayed.

Or people don't want to believe that a crime like this could happen without betrayal.

A maladjusted loser just hauled off and shot possibly one of the greatest presidents ever?

Yeah. See, Garfield, Reagan, Ford, FDR, Teddy R., and McKinley. All shot by maladjusted losers.

Someone shot FDR?

 

[NCCommish]

The evidence pointing to a conspiracy is overwhelming. People just do not want to believe they could be betrayed.

Or people don't want to believe that a crime like this could happen without betrayal.

A maladjusted loser just hauled off and shot possibly one of the greatest presidents ever?

Yeah. See, Garfield, Reagan, Ford, FDR, Teddy R., and McKinley. All shot by maladjusted losers.

Someone shot FDR?

Who shot Teddy? Here I was thinking he died in his sleep, man what a cover up that was.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The evidence pointing to a conspiracy is overwhelming. People just do not want to believe they could be betrayed.

Or people don't want to believe that a crime like this could happen without betrayal.

A maladjusted loser just hauled off and shot possibly one of the greatest presidents ever?

Yeah. See, Garfield, Reagan, Ford, FDR, Teddy R., and McKinley. All shot by maladjusted losers.

Someone shot FDR?

To be clear, shot at. The mayor of Chicago was actually killed.

Roosevelt escaped injury, but five people were shot including Cermak.

Zangara like Oswald was a radical, though maybe a good bit crazier besides just a dysfunctional sociopathic loser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zangara

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The evidence pointing to a conspiracy is overwhelming. People just do not want to believe they could be betrayed.

Or people don't want to believe that a crime like this could happen without betrayal.

A maladjusted loser just hauled off and shot possibly one of the greatest presidents ever?

Yeah. See, Garfield, Reagan, Ford, FDR, Teddy R., and McKinley. All shot by maladjusted losers.

Someone shot FDR?

Who shot Teddy? Here I was thinking he died in his sleep, man what a cover up that was.

Yes, he was actually shot but not killed.

John Flamming Schrank tried to kill TR, and it's a fairly famous story because supposedly one of Teddy's massive speeches rolled up in his pocket saved him.

Teddy took a bullet and finished his damn speech. Howya like that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Flammang_Schrank

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Personally, though there are some obvious differences, I think the presidential assassin Oswald most closely resembled was Leon Czolgosz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Czolgosz

Two differences include:

• Oswald's was a crime of opportunity. The presidential motorcade route was published the day before (or the day before that) in the Dallas Morning News.... showing it would go right where Oswald worked. Czolgosz sought McKinley out.
• Oswald was married to a fairly nice looking Byelorussian wife, with a child. That was an exception in his life as generally he was more like Czolgosz socially. Marina was more of an anomaly in his existence, he more or less fell into being with her in Minsk due to his notoriety. Once back in the USA he did everything in his power to keep her under his control. He was a loner, like Czolgosz, besides this.

 

[Sarnoff]

Learned something new today, some crazy dude tried to shoot Jimmy Carter, and his name was Raymond Lee Harvey. What are the odds?

 

[Sarnoff]

The evidence pointing to a conspiracy is overwhelming. People just do not want to believe they could be betrayed.

Or people don't want to believe that a crime like this could happen without betrayal.

A maladjusted loser just hauled off and shot possibly one of the greatest presidents ever?

Yeah. See, Garfield, Reagan, Ford, FDR, Teddy R., and McKinley. All shot by maladjusted losers.

Someone shot FDR?

Who shot Teddy? Here I was thinking he died in his sleep, man what a cover up that was.

Surprised you've never heard the "takes more than one shot to kill a bull moose" story.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Learned something new today, some crazy dude tried to shoot Jimmy Carter, and his name was Raymond Lee Harvey. What are the odds?

Yes, and there are nuts who think that was tied to the Kennedy murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Lee_Harvey

Look, someone tried to kill Ford, someone got Garfield, and like Carter no "greatness" in the president or big motive or grand plot is ascribed to these guys or their assassins.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

We can't release the CIA files! HW told congress he had never worked for the CIA before being made the director in '76.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Every single specific conspiracy theory in this thread is totally analyzed and deconstructed in Vince Bugliosi's recent book "Reclaiming History." I know some people just like to see huge plots everywhere, but anyone truly serious about learning more to inform his/her opinion should read it. "Case Closed" by Posner does a pretty good job too but is older, not even close to as comprehensive, and set back by a few flaws.

 

[Sinrman]

I've watched/read a lot of stuff on the assassination, but still undecided. The more I think on it though, I just find it hard to believe that only one "lone wolf" was involved.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

People who voted conspirators may think Oswald is the only one who killed Kennedy too, but if others were involved in the planning that means there were conspirators, and Oswald didn't act alone.

I don't disagree with this, but for me that just sounds like dreaming up random possibilities.

Wait ...what? Its not plausible that there are conspirators that didn't pull a trigger?

I am enjoying the absolute confidence in your speculation.

 

[talongrey]

Every single specific conspiracy theory in this thread is totally analyzed and deconstructed in Vince Bugliosi's recent book "Reclaiming History." I know some people just like to see huge plots everywhere, but anyone truly serious about learning more to inform his/her opinion should read it. "Case Closed" by Posner does a pretty good job too but is older, not even close to as comprehensive, and set back by a few flaws.

Bugliosi is still spouting the same lame rhetoric from the Warren Commission.

 

[Frostillicus]

I guess I don't understand the people who are convinced it has to be a big conspiracy. Security back then is nothing like it is now. It just wouldn't be that hard for Oswald (and Ruby) to do what they did - leaving the debate about how tough Oswald's shots would have been aside. I've read one book that conclused conspiracy and one that concluded lone shooter with no conspiracy behind him and I find the lone shooter more realistic.

 

[Hooper31]

People who voted conspirators may think Oswald is the only one who killed Kennedy too, but if others were involved in the planning that means there were conspirators, and Oswald didn't act alone.

I don't disagree with this, but for me that just sounds like dreaming up random possibilities.

Wait ...what? Its not plausible that there are conspirators that didn't pull a trigger?

I am enjoying the absolute confidence in your speculation.

Absolute confidence? Sure. I'm confident that the ballistics experts in that NOVA documentary provided convincing evidence that Kennedy was shot and killed from a bullet that was shot from the window in the book depository. Was I there to see it happen? Of course not. Could it have been someone else? Sure, but the evidence that it was Oswald is overwhelming.

Why do I care? Why post in this thread multiple times? I have a serious problem with filmmakers rewriting history. I think Oliver Stone is a the worst sort of hack. He lied. I believed him. I've since learned more credible information.

EDIT: I see you took the time to watch the NOVA documentary.

 

[rockaction]

I guess I don't understand the people who are convinced it has to be a big conspiracy. Security back then is nothing like it is now. It just wouldn't be that hard for Oswald (and Ruby) to do what they did - leaving the debate about how tough Oswald's shots would have been aside. I've read one book that conclused conspiracy and one that concluded lone shooter with no conspiracy behind him and I find the lone shooter more realistic.

So true. Been thinking this the whole time.

Still think it's a conspiracy, but that includes your point.

 

[rockaction]

People who voted conspirators may think Oswald is the only one who killed Kennedy too, but if others were involved in the planning that means there were conspirators, and Oswald didn't act alone.

I don't disagree with this, but for me that just sounds like dreaming up random possibilities.

Wait ...what? Its not plausible that there are conspirators that didn't pull a trigger?

I am enjoying the absolute confidence in your speculation.

Absolute confidence? Sure. I'm confident that the ballistics experts in that NOVA documentary provided convincing evidence that Kennedy was shot and killed from a bullet that was shot from the window in the book depository. Was I there to see it happen? Of course not. Could it have been someone else? Sure, but the evidence that it was Oswald is overwhelming.

Why do I care? Why post in this thread multiple times? I have a serious problem with filmmakers rewriting history. I think Oliver Stone is a the worst sort of hack. He lied. I believed him. I've since learned more credible information.

EDIT: I see you took the time to watch the NOVA documentary.

This is a guy who went on TV with Jesse Ventura, defended Chavez as a liberator, and then backed a chicken hawk argument -- all in the same segment. You had Ventura bullying the moderator about being a former military man, Stone defending Chavez...it was so ugly. The worst sort of advocacy.

Disgusting.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Every single specific conspiracy theory in this thread is totally analyzed and deconstructed in Vince Bugliosi's recent book "Reclaiming History." I know some people just like to see huge plots everywhere, but anyone truly serious about learning more to inform his/her opinion should read it. "Case Closed" by Posner does a pretty good job too but is older, not even close to as comprehensive, and set back by a few flaws.

Bugliosi is still spouting the same lame rhetoric from the Warren Commission.

Have you actually looked at the book?

Conspiracy advocates actually probably should or even do buy the book because of the detail. It's one thing to attack the conclusions but the detail is excellent and goes way beyond TWC.

Some years before the book, Bugliosi actually took part in a trial for the BBC, with a live picked jury, the whole 9 yards, a full defense was put on, the entire legal process.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's one of those things that people say to stifle debate; I think it portrays a lack of confidence in one's position that they they try to bully people into accepting it.

I'm very confident in my opinion that Oswald killed Kennedy. I think people that cling to the notion of a conspiracy do so because it fills some need. That need likely differs for different people.

Actually there are still people alive that dispute the lone gunman theory and had a view that gave them good visibility of the other people. They may be wrong but they were muted because ti didn't fit the narrative the government felt it had to sell. Which was lone gunman. Everything else was too scary.

Release the records.

And make sure they're the long form records.

I agree with all this in principle, the government (and public officials running for office) should generally not be holding records at all. That's why we have FOIA which is a wonderful thing. In this situation there are definitely concerns about protecting information, people and informants.

However Pres. Obama himself just extended the release date until he is out of office, 2017. First of all I don't think Obama is trying to cover up for anyone (much less say Clinton, who idolizes JFK, he could have released the records), secondly the remaining records will be released in a few more years. Nearly everything has already been produced.

There are literally thousands of pages that haven't been produced that the CIA is hanging on to.

The number is actually about 50,000 pages.

http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/05/30/is-the-government-holding-back-crucial-documents/

If the rule of thumb is about 10 pages per document, then that's 5000 documents. Which seems like a lot, but it's not. Bugliosi's book alone has over 10,000 references by itself.

If you get 5 people to read at 50 documents per hour, that would take 5 people about 3 8-hour days to get through.

I do think that all of it should be produced, eventually, and Pres. Obama was the last one to extend the delay in releasing the documents, which were due in 2013. I'd really like to hear a motive on the part of Presidents Obama or Clinton for withholding these records. Are they part of this grand cabal?

 

[Da Guru]

We need more options in this pole.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Every single specific conspiracy theory in this thread is totally analyzed and deconstructed in Vince Bugliosi's recent book "Reclaiming History." I know some people just like to see huge plots everywhere, but anyone truly serious about learning more to inform his/her opinion should read it. "Case Closed" by Posner does a pretty good job too but is older, not even close to as comprehensive, and set back by a few flaws.

Bugliosi is still spouting the same lame rhetoric from the Warren Commission.

It's clear that you haven't read any of "Reclaiming History." Bugliosi is an extremely harsh critic of the Commission's work and begins by showing, in exhaustive detail, how deeply it was flawed. Then he starts over from scratch, using the same exhibits and materials available to the Commission, and shows why the various conspiracy theories are impossible.