 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 22, 2013 - 7:16 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
jackfu
(Member)
|
I believe it was Oswald. He certainly had shown his propensity with his attempted assassination of General Walker in April of that year and then him killing Officer Tippit before he was captured. With Ruby killing Oswald on the 24th, it certainly could give the impression of a conspiracy. JFK had enemies – Castro, the Mafia, etc. I’m open to the idea that Oswald could have been acting for the mob, hence Ruby killing him to shut him up, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Sadly, I figure ~99% of the American public nowadays bases their beliefs on Oliver Stone’s version of events, distortions (to put it mildly) and all. The thing that frustrates me is rarely can one find truly objective, evidenced-based theories, especially on TV. Too much opportunity for sensationalism. The infamous “magic bullet” is typically touted as being barely damaged, even pristine but almost always ever shown in profile. Viewed from the cartridge end, it is more “D” shaped than round, typical of one that passed thru soft tissue, then being damaged by striking bone. It has become legend now, so I doubt we’ll ever know the whole truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oswald killed JFK.
Years ago I wrote a thesis on Stone's manipulative film, and as part of the research, I went to the library to read parts of the Warren Report. Not the whole thing, obviously. Whatever shortcomings that report might have (political pressure, potential rush to conclusions) is more than compensated by the sheer detail of documentation, countless witness reports. A few years before that I caught an enactment on British TV of the Oswald trial as it would have taken place had he not been killed by Ruby. The D.A. of that "television trial" was, btw., Vincent T. Bugliosi, the D.A. in the Sharon Tate killings. The trial, which included many of the original witnesses, found Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Years later, Bugliosi, equally convincingly, would argue that O.J. killed his wife because, as I recall, "no innocent man in the world would have acted like O.J. did".
Oswald had the means, the motive, and the opportunity. He was good enough a marksman to place those shots. There was no other gunman on a grassy noll, nor anywhere else. Whether he acted independently is a mystery that will probably never be resolved to everybody's satisfaction, but the fact that NONE of the other potential conspirators (including the ones named in Stone's film) EVER confessed to a conspiracy, not even on their deathbeds (And, frankly, that's what deathbeds are for!), is a clear pointer that there was no such conspiracy, and that Oswald acted alone.
It's a psychological phenomenon that people find it hard to accept that such heinous and "momentous" crimes are being committed by a lone looney. But they are. It's much easier to get close enough to your target if nobody else knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JFK was shot in the front of his throat, just above his necktie knot.
JFK was shot in the skull by a bullet that entered at his temple, left a loose flap of skin covering the entrance wound into the skull, and blasted out the right/occipital area at the back of the head.
If you can square these facts with a shooter from above and behind, I've got some gold bullion from a 2:45 a.m. Fox News infomercial I'd like to sell you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 22, 2013 - 11:57 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Bob DiMucci
(Member)
|
I caught an enactment on British TV of the Oswald trial as it would have taken place had he not been killed by Ruby. The D.A. of that "television trial" was, btw., Vincent T. Bugliosi, the D.A. in the Sharon Tate killings. The trial, which included many of the original witnesses, found Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Over the past 50 years, the various conspiracy theorists have suggested that nearly 30 countries, groups or organizations, and more than 80 individuals, were involved in the assassination--all without a fragment of the evidence that points to Oswald. Most conspiracy theorists believe that if you can't prove them wrong--that they are right. And that if you can prove them wrong, then that is just further evidence of the vast scope of the conspiracy. Mark Lane has made a career out of his baseless theories. In 2007, Vincent Bugliosi published a 1600-page book (Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy) laying out all of the facts of the case and debunking every widely held conspiracy theory. I commend that book to BornOfAJackal.
Back in 1964, after the Warren Commission Report was issued, Popular Library published a 600-page paperback summary of the report which was sold on newstands and in drug stores. I still have it. (It cost 75 cents!). I was in junior high school at the time, and pretty much read that paperback cover to cover. I was convinced by it then, as I am by it now, although there was a time in the intervening 50 years when I felt like I was the last person in America to believe that Oswald acted alone. So I was pleasantly surprised to find that all of the news specials that I've seen this month on the case concluded that Oswald was the single shooter, despite the fact that the reports usually had some comments from Lane or other conspiracy theorists to add "balance." And although 62% of the public continues to believe in some conspiracy (see the chart below), the tide has turned from where it was 30 years ago. Perhaps the younger generation, who didn't live through the assassination, is more amenable to facts. I hope to see the day when more people believe the truth than disbelieve it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Lane has made a career out of his baseless theories. In 2007, Vincent Bugliosi published a 1600-page book (Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy) laying out all of the facts of the case and debunking every widely held conspiracy theory. I commend that book to BornOfAJackal.
Bob, I will certainly check out Bugliosi's book. Though, at present, I don't give a greater preponderance of consideration to either pro-or-anti conspiracists.
I agree with your assertion that the pro-conspiracists belief that the inability to refute their assumptions amounts to confirmation is in error. I also give little credence to the assumptions about Oswald being a duplicitous intelligence operative.
My current conclusion comes from the evidence of JFK's corpse, and the irrefutable images of Abraham Zapruder's camera. A thin basis, but probably the strongest set of facts around which to base a partial conclusion. In my opinion, the visual and physical evidence argue against a rear shooter for the significant Kennedy wounds.
As for Kennedy's back wound, I consider it unlikely that a human being could be shot through the upper back shoulder from a downward trajectory, with the bullet emerging from the front of their throat. I find it much more likely the bullet would emerge from the mid-torso, or not at all. A downward trajectory shot into the back, then emerging from just underneath the adam's apple, I consider virtually impossible. (Perhaps a pathologist experienced in combat wounds would care to disagree?).
I find a soft-bullet wound to the throat, to stun and immobilize Kennedy for the headshot a more likely possibility.
That is what the physical evidence and the Zapruder film suggest to me.
As for the truth, I don't ever expect that to become fully known.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 22, 2013 - 2:19 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Bob DiMucci
(Member)
|
On one of the televised documentaries this week, Bugliosi commented on the Zapruder film and the frame showing the moment of impact of the head shot. One frame shows Kennedy prior to impact, the next frame -- one-eighteenth of a second later -- shows the massive blood spray caused by the head wound. That frame also shows that Kennedy's head has moved forward, not backward, from its position in the previous frame. Bugliosi, and the laws of physics, conclude that when a object (in this case, a skull) is struck by a projectile traveling with the force of a bullet, the object will immediately upon impact move in the same direction as that impact, not opposite to the direction of impact, regardless of what may happen in the subsequent seconds as a result of neuro-muscular reactions. That, says Buglisosi--that exact moment of impact--tells you all you need to know about which direction the head shot came from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mine is the most frightening theory of all, I think, with the most disturbing implications:
One crazy moron and one lucky shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll admit: I've most probabably been brainwashed by the seeing of Oliver's film and by the reading of them books that the film is based on.
Thus I find it shocking that folks in 2013 still believe in the Oswald theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lone gunman, 3 shots, from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Every known bit of modern forensics supports this. There is no evidence to support any other theory. Everything else is conjecture with nothing to substantiate it. No matter how many silly specials the BBC does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The question isn't the number of shooters or bullets: The question is why Oswald wasn't stopped in advance. Either the dots weren't connected or Oswald's actions were allowed to happen. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on the FBI/CIA.
Well, that would be nothing new for the FBI or CIA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
