there's an old saying... "fact is stranger than fiction"
and there are quite a number of odd chance alignments with respect to the assassination... Oswald getting a job at the book repository, Oswald's visa request being rejected by both Russia & Cuba in Mexico, Ruby's impulsive shooting of Oswald, etc, etc
but that's the way things often go... a strange sequence of tragic events and circumstances that, especially with respect to Oswald, if things had not gone a certain way may well have changed the outcome
however, they did go that way and resulted in a 24 year old with a lot of issues to commit the crime... followed by a club owner with a gun to commit yet another crime
but conspiracy? no, just chance and very bad luck
Example: "On October 14, a neighbor told Ruth Paine that there was a job opening at the Texas School Book Depository. Mrs. Paine informed Oswald, who was interviewed at the Depository and was hired there on October 16"
Were they part of a conspiracy? No way. The stars just aligned badly, so to speak.
Were they part of a conspiracy? No way. The stars just aligned badly, so to speak.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but the fact that Oswald was killed so soon afterwards means that there will forever be unanswered questions. So neither you nor I can ever definitively know one way or the other. Lots of threads were ignored by the Warren Commission, and neither LBJ nor RFK trusted its findings.
The JFK incident has never struck the same chords before as has happened on this reflective occasion. The film is incredibly disturbing to watch. Kennedy reacts to being shot in the back in agonised poise which he holds, as if frozen. Jackie seems to be unsure of what exactly has happened. Seconds go by as the weapon is primed for the next shot, which, when it comes causes sufficient alarm that she clambers onto the back of the vehicle in shocked reaction.
The completely senseless act of a demented rat caught in the maze.
My guess is the first shot was set up for alignment. The second was intended to be conclusive.
Did Kennedys head wound come from the result of being shot from the back or from the side?
From the back. Here is the definitive modern forensics statement (sans blown up photo of frame 313) which cannot be disproved.
At frame 312, the president’s head is okay. At frame 313, which is 1/18 of a second later, you see the president struck in the head, the explosion to the head. (There are 18.3 frames per second in the Zapruder film.) In frame 313, the President’s head [is] not pushed backwards, but it’s pushed slightly forward, 2.3 inches forward, indicating a shot from the rear, where Oswald was. This all-important moment of impact is much more important than what you see on the film: [in frame 313] the president’s head is pushed forward, indicating a shot from the rear. A high-contrast photo of frame 313 [shows] this terrible spray of blood and tissue all to the front, indicating a shot from the rear.
The head snap to the rear [was from] nerve damage caused by the bullet entering the President’s brain causing his back muscles to tighten, which in turn caused the head to snap to the rear.
It's so hard to believe because while conspiracies are COMFORTING (because they suggest a plot, a structure, a meaning behind it), the image of a single killer is unsettling (as it means any such looney can strike at any time, without having a huge "conspiracy machine" behind him).
People want to be comforted, what they don't want is a crime without apparent meaning.
The reason why the conspiracy theories came to birth was because the Warren Commission did not do a proper analysis and many questions were not answered to properly. The Zapruder footage was also not analysed and explained in terms of the ballistic effects which led to conspiracy theories to take momentum of its own. A very good documentary called Cold Case program Nova from PBS scientifically corroborates that the fatal shot came from behind and NOT the front as people suggest came from the grassy knoll. The myth has to go. Sometimes the obvious truth is just blown out of proportion and distorted to such an extent that it becomes difficult to accept. Majority of the American people in surveys have come to actually believe their was a second killer and the Oswald was not the loner killer. The fact that he was a trained marksman and an ex Marine and that he took out Kennedy in a lucky shot is not just easily absorbed as a result.
It's so hard to believe because while conspiracies are COMFORTING (because they suggest a plot, a structure, a meaning behind it), the image of a single killer is unsettling (as it means any such looney can strike at any time, without having a huge "conspiracy machine" behind him).
People want to be comforted, what they don't want is a crime without apparent meaning.
I get that, but we now live in a world where random killings happen, virtually daily, by some looney without apparent meaning. I should think it wouldn't be so difficult to accept.
I get that, but we now live in a world where random killings happen, virtually daily, by some looney without apparent meaning. I should think it wouldn't be so difficult to accept.
True, but J.F.K. is a special case because he's still considered a "beacon of light" by many (whether correctly or falsely), and his death marks the end of an era of rejuvenation of US politics (after the intellectual stasis of the Eisenhower years, and before the Vietnam war profoundly shattered America's self-confidence). He cannot possibly have been killed by a single, anti-social "madman".
The murders of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, both also attributed to lone looneys, were also controversial in their day, with conspiracy theories sprouting like mushrooms - but these do not have the same significance, for one reason or another, thus they aren't being brought up again every other day.
All these shootings that occur every day in the US (and have very much become part of American folklore) involve "regular people" as victims. The iconic, symbolic dimension is missing.
It is brought up over and over again because like a myth or legend it's roots are based on so many naïve lies and misconceptions of the players involved.
It's so hard to believe because while conspiracies are COMFORTING (because they suggest a plot, a structure, a meaning behind it), the image of a single killer is unsettling (as it means any such looney can strike at any time, without having a huge "conspiracy machine" behind him).
People want to be comforted, what they don't want is a crime without apparent meaning.
I get that, but we now live in a world where random killings happen, virtually daily, by some looney without apparent meaning. I should think it wouldn't be so difficult to accept.
True, it's not like John Wilkes Booth had a real plan. There was a conspiracy on that one, but it was just a small gang of fools/nobody's performing acts of evil. No larger grand conspiracy... although I'll bet some people have written books to the opposite.
Something I told my wife is that "there are no perfect conspiracies". By general tendencies of human nature, conspiracies tend to fall apart very rapidly. People like to blab, save their own ass, etc.
I agree there is no perfect conspiracies because in life there are no perfect plans we like to think there is but there are none. Sure we do set things in our lives in certain directions[moral sense good or evil] but in the quiet subtle moments of our lives, we will often question ourselves why do we really do what we do in life. Even the plans that take up thousands of hours of our lives. I always like the line spoken in that Science Fiction film FOOD OF THE GODS by Marjoe Gortner. -quote- You know what life is all about. Finding something to do until we die and we fight like hell to prevent it. It's a partially gut level truth, that when in life we enter life threatening situations we really see how true that is.I believe every thing we do will have a purpose in our future, but sometimes our motives are not that clear, For sure the simple minded people of the world.
