JFK Assassination

OFDM

This is the classic source for conspiracy theories, especially due to Oliver Stone's highly inaccurate work of fiction "JFK" starring Kevin Costner.
Dale Meyers has proven fairly well that Kennedy was was shot from the Book Depository. Lee Harvey Owald was also a military marksman capable of making the shot.

But was LHO actually the one pulling the trigger from the 6th floor or was he set up like he said?

Kernel

OFDM wrote:

This is the classic source for conspiracy theories, especially due to Oliver Stone's highly inaccurate work of fiction "JFK" starring Kevin Costner.
Dale Meyers has proven fairly well that Kennedy was was shot from the Book Depository. Lee Harvey Owald was also a military marksman capable of making the shot.

But was LHO actually the one pulling the trigger from the 6th floor or was he set up like he said?

Well, this conspiracy is the grandaddy of all conspiracies, and books have been written detailing why LHO didn't or couldn't have done it (he was a patsy, an ideal patsy in my opinion - and he said it before he was whacked). Most people, even those that don't subscribe to conspiracy theories will have their doubts about the 'lone gunman' theory. I thought Stone's JFK was very good, what didn't you believe about it?

ronano

I thought the direction of the gun shot was explained away by jfk being on a boaster seat and that the 3 bullets in x amount of seconds as shown in the movie was incorrect?

iregk

Well the fact that Lee Harvey scored one of the lowest ranks in his firing exams in the us military doesn't really lead you to believe that he could have done it. Also the gun they found him with, fire, recock the gun and fire again, there is no way there was time to do it. He was set up.

The standard military practise for takign out a target is triangulation set up. Three gun men in a triangle and take the target out when in the center. That way you can't miss.

hawkmoon269

OFDM wrote:

This is the classic source for conspiracy theories, especially due to Oliver Stone's highly inaccurate work of fiction "JFK" starring Kevin Costner.
Dale Meyers has proven fairly well that Kennedy was was shot from the Book Depository. Lee Harvey Owald was also a military marksman capable of making the shot.

But was LHO actually the one pulling the trigger from the 6th floor or was he set up like he said?

Anything I've read about Oswald's shooting capababilities would indicate that they were quite poor. Of course, he could still have got lucky on the day.

I agree with you about the flaws in 'JFK'.

OFDM

Kernel wrote:

I thought Stone's JFK was very good, what didn't you believe about it?

iregk wrote:

Well the fact that Lee Harvey scored one of the lowest ranks in his firing exams in the us military doesn't really lead you to believe that he could have done it.

The second quote bases information on Oliver Stone's film. In fact LHO's shooting record proves the exact opposite of what the JFK film establishes. LHO was in fact a crack shot when shooting targets 200 yards away, while the Kennedy shoot would been only 50 yards away.

To answer Kernel, here's just some of the problems I have with Oliver Stone's film:

• They say that the FBI "didn't even test if the rifle had been fired that day" - no such test exists to establish whether a gun has been fired on a certain day or not
• Willie O'Keefe - this character did not exist and was an amalgamation of 4 incredible witnesses, Perry Russo, David Logan, Raymond Broshears and William Morris.
• Garrison's court-room appearance's and closing statement in Clay Shaw's trial - never happened, Garrision was not present for most of the trial and didn't even give the closing statment which was completely different to the one in the film.
• Zapruder film establishes the shots were fired in 5.6 second - it doesn't, it establishes that they were fired in 8 to 9 seconds.
• The "easiest" shot was when Kennedy was approaching the Book Depository - wrong, a shot approaching, with the angle constantly changing and becoming more acute, would be more difficult than a target moving away becoming less acute.
• Female Assistant DA working on case - there was were no women on Garrison's team.
• Changes made to motorcade route - no changes were ever made.
• Garrison's office was bugged - no evidence of bugging ever found, however Garrison did have paranoid delusions he was being bugged.
• Lee Bowers told the Warren Commision that he saw a "flash of light" and "smoke" on the grassy knoll - there is no mention of this in his Warren Commission testimony.
• Epileptic man had a seizure to cause a distraction, subsequently vanished after checking into hospital - the man was Jerry Belknap, he was unable to get medical attention because of the assaination and left hospital when he felt better.
• "From the left and to the back", establishes shot from the front - when a bullet enters the skull the point of impact does not "explode", it is when the bullet exits a skull that the blow-out occurs, thus establishing a shot from the rear.

There's numerous other works of fiction in that film, including witnesses stating things they never said, the single bullet theory court-room demonstration where the three "actors" are on the same level, and General X who spouts out nothing but complete inaccuracies too long winded to go into here.

The good thing about the JFK film is that it has the best editing I've seen in any movie, was brilliantly shot and creates a exciting atomsphere building to a finale. That why I still watch it if it's on tv today.

The two bad things about it are: 1. it has succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes everyone who sees it (including me until I researched it indepedently) with it endless list of inaccuracies and outright lies, and 2. the film has become the main source of information for people interested in conspiracy theories about JFK.

angry_fox

Where exactly was LHO arrested?

chillywilly

in a theater around the corner....or something like that wasnt it?

angry_fox

Was he just arrested after the shooting?

OFDM

angry_fox wrote:

Was he just arrested after the shooting?

The mind boggles. He was hardly arrested before hand.

I am going to assume your asking how soon after the shooting, in which case LHO was arrested at 1:51pm in the Texas Theater for the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit 37 minutes before. Kennedy had been assassinated 1 hour and 21 minutes before LHO's arrest.

angry_fox

angry_fox wrote:

Was he just arrested after the shooting?

A poorly phrased question

Have heard many stories about Oswald, bout his time in Russia, how he was 5'11" on his Department Defense card and when he was arrested he was 5'9"...... Could a Senator Thomas Dodd been involved in the assination?

trishw78

wasn't there a a documentary on National Geographic about an unknown person "Lone Gunman" on the grass knowl... they were able to find everyone except this person they was also sopposed to be a woman seen holding an 8mm video camera that they can't locate, Because on that camera there is irrfutabel evidence of who did it becasue of where she was standing

OFDM

trishw78 wrote:

wasn't there a a documentary on National Geographic about an unknown person "Lone Gunman" on the grass knowl... they were able to find everyone except this person they was also sopposed to be a woman seen holding an 8mm video camera that they can't locate, Because on that camera there is irrfutabel evidence of who did it becasue of where she was standing

Dale Meyers' computer graphics simulation convincingly proves that there were only 3 shots, that they created all the wounds on the bodies and that they came from the 6th floor of the book depository. I have yet to see anyone successfully refute his findings

All the talk of multiple gunmen from different locations distracts (possibly by design) from the real issues such as:
Did LHO actually pull the trigger?
Was he acting alone?
What was his motive?

There's other things surrounding the Zapruder film, where frames are supposed to have been removed or images altered, however I presume that most of these are based on bad pseudo-science, like the claims for faked moon-landing photos. I have to look into this further.

trishw78

mmmm... interesting it gets confusing esp. when people start sayin stuff like it was the Mafia or it was 'cause of his affair with Monroe although there still remains mystery over her death as well but thats a discussion for a different thread I think....

DublinWriter

iregk wrote:

Well the fact that Lee Harvey scored one of the lowest ranks in his firing exams in the us military doesn't really lead you to believe that he could have done it. Also the gun they found him with, fire, recock the gun and fire again, there is no way there was time to do it. He was set up.

Just a wild guess, but you got that particular 'nugget' from the film JFK didn't you?

On the Meyers documentary that the OP originally mentioned, they had an interview with a Doctor who owned Oswald's original shooting record from the US Marines.

His shooting record in the US Marines showed that Oswald was consitantly capable of shooting a 'head and shoulders' shaped target with 96% accuracy over a 200 Metre range. The fatal JFK shot was at 88 meters from the fifth floor of the book repository.

...plus, the guy also demonstrated with a stopwatch, loading, firing and aiming a rifle similar to the one used by Oswald, three times, in a time frame of 11 seconds.

I have this BBC documentry on MPG somewhere (downloaded from UK Nova) and it proves without doubt that Oswald was the lone gunman.

It also interviews a top ex-KGB man at the time who explains how Oswald got in and out of Russia. It also goes into Ruby's background and explains his background.

Oliver Stone has a lot to answer for.

OFDM

Here's some links to the Zapruder film:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neal.mccarthy/jfkvideos.htm
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/?NF=1

maquiladora

Something that doesnt get mentioned much....

The U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations was established in 1976 to investigate the John F. Kennedy assassination and the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination. The Committee investigated until 1978, and in 1979 issued its final report :

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy."

OFDM

maquiladora wrote:

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy."

The multiple gunmen theory just doesn't wash. A conspiracy is likely though given LHO had no apparent motive for shooting Kennedy. Most lone nut gunmen would be spouting off their reasons for the assassination, whereas LHO was claiming to be a patsy. This leads me to believe that there were other people behind his actions or that he was working with others but they left him high and drive come shooting time.

Maybe LHO wasn't supposed to be the only gunman?
Maybe he was supposed to meet someone before he shot Tippit, that never showed up?

I have no doubt that LHO was capable and had the opportunity to do the shooting, and that Kennedy was shot from the 6th floor of the Book Depository. I'm not convinced however that he acted alone.

miju

lee harvey oswald while in the marines WAS a crack shot and he was also thaught russian , what marine learns russian??

what if i was to say George Bush Senior was one of the main (if not the main) orchestrators of the JFK assanation and it can be proved VERY substantially and that it actually ties in a bit too scarily to 9 /11 conspiracy theorys

bonkey

miju wrote:

what if i was to say George Bush Senior was one of the main (if not the main) orchestrators of the JFK assanation and it can be proved VERY substantially and that it actually ties in a bit too scarily to 9 /11 conspiracy theorys

Then I'd say you'd be making a claim without offering substantiation but merely claiming it exists.

I'd also tend to the opinion that "proved very substantially" is a farcical claim. Either it can be proven or it can't. There's no "very substantially" to apply.

I also doubt you can prove it, but rather can make a case that may or may not be true but sounds compelling.

miju

well your wrong it can be thanks to declassified memos / documents ( for example )

i'll post the link up later on tonight that has plenty of documentary evidence and the reason it exists is because of the watergate scandal , bay of pigs and the burglar Mr.Hunt as well as bushes close business aides , Hoover and alot of CIA involvement and thats for starters before it even starts to mention skull & bones or nazis (i know sounds ridiculous doesnt it)

in work at the mo so haven't got the link handy , but google Zapata Oil or Operation Zapata to get a basic background of where this will be going to be honest i couldn't believe this when i saw this it's actually so blindingly obvious it's unbelievable

OFDM

miju wrote:

well your wrong it can be thanks to declassified memos / documents ( for example )

That is truely proof of nothing - so he overheard someone B.S. about wanting to kill the president.... how does that make him involved in Kennedy's assassination?

miju

that was just one example of a declassified memo and wasn't meant as anything in particular (first thing grabbed from wikipedia on Zapata Oil actually)

watch this video the first 20 minutes is the usual conspiracy reasoning so skip if you wish to about 25 minutes in it explains it / substantiates what i'm saying

note: if you've not heard of bohemian grove / skull & bones etc weatch the last 20 minutes for a quick synopsis of it

bonkey

miju wrote:

that was just one example of a declassified memo and wasn't meant as anything in particular (first thing grabbed from wikipedia on Zapata Oil actually)

So when you offered it as an example of the type of "proof" you believe you have, you did so knowing it wasn't actually an example of that at all.

watch this video the first 20 minutes is the usual conspiracy reasoning so skip if you wish to about 25 minutes in it explains it / substantiates what i'm saying

Is this just another case of "watch this video, because it makes the argument I'm not going to"?

I'm not interested in trying to debate against a video.

miju

it was an example of the kind of evidence (hence me saying example) offered in the documentary but of course if you've not even looked at the video and the evidence / timeline / family tree type connections then why bother post in this thread in the first place

i can make the argument perfectly well to be honest but there's no point in reiterating it with multiple links / references etc when it's all there cleanly presented and better articulated than what i could do

so if you want to watch the segment i referred to then post a constructive reply fine if you dont then thats also fine but don't come here trying to spoil a debate

have you even looked up Zapata Oil?

DublinWriter

miju wrote:

lee harvey oswald while in the marines WAS a crack shot and he was also thaught russian , what marine learns russian??

Firstly, The kind of lonely-ass Marine with too much time on his hands and who doesn't mix with his fellow Marines. Fact. Read the testimony of his fellow Marines and also LHO's own brother.

Secondly, know at least something about what you speak. The US Marines have three classes of rifleman , ranging from Sharp-Shooter to Marksman to Expert.

LHO made 2nd Class Marksman grade, meaning he could hit a "head and shoulders" target at 100 metres with over 80% accuracy. The range from the Book Depository to the Presidential Limo was 52 metres. It's amazing it even took him 3 shoots (totally concievable in the 9.2 seconds from the initital shot, through the second 'throat' shot, to the final and fatal head shot)... a Marine graded Marksman would have taken him out in one...but then again he was using a $9.95 uncalibrated mail-order Italian Manlico rifle.

tunaman

Here is a short video, including incredibly incriminating footage of the secret service stand down, just before JFK was taken out...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1596619659201820052&q=secret+service

All the lone nut theorists reckon Oswald paid them to stand down?

Diogenes

miju wrote:

it was an example of the kind of evidence (hence me saying example) offered in the documentary but of course if you've not even looked at the video and the evidence / timeline / family tree type connections then why bother post in this thread in the first place

i can make the argument perfectly well to be honest but there's no point in reiterating it with multiple links / references etc when it's all there cleanly presented and better articulated than what i could do

Why bother having an original thought or discussion then? We can just all just post links to videos instead of constructing arguments...

so if you want to watch the segment i referred to then post a constructive reply fine if you dont then thats also fine but don't come here trying to spoil a debate

have you even looked up Zapata Oil?

Its been fairly conclusively proven here that Oswald could and did make the shot. Proving that Oswald couldn't have made the shot was the corner stone of the conspiracy, more than one gunmen, therefore we have a conspiracy. Demanding we research an oil company as evidence George Bush had motive is pointless, if you don't prove opportunity or methodology first.

tunaman wrote:

Here is a short video, including incredibly incriminating footage of the secret service stand down, just before JFK was taken out...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...secret+service

All the lone nut theorists reckon Oswald paid them to stand down?

Tunaman baby, thought we'd lost you!

Thats pure speculation, we don't know who gave that order, was it JFK? Perhaps he didn't want to be seen with two agents hanging off the back of his car? Maybe one of the agents had really bad BO? I'm just speculating, just like the narrator of your video.

But there is prescident. On Nov 18th in Tampa Florida JFK ordered the secret service agents off the back of the car.

On November 18 in Tampa, the President ordered the two Secret Service agents off the back bumper of his car. The men from the Committee noted this change, which persisted at Fort Worth, San Antonio and Houston, but they maintained their original plan, which took into account the possibility of instantaneous intervention by the bodyguards.

In fact it was pretty much der rigur to not have agents on the running board of the car

Three Presidents before Kennedy had been assassinated (Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley), and four others (Jackson, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and Truman) had escaped assassination. This record, unequaled in any other stable republic, should have inspired the Secret Service to extra vigilance. Margaret Truman's overzealous bodyguards caused trouble in Sweden, which has some of the toughest policemen in the world. Eisenhower's trips abroad were meticulously organized. But since the advent of television, the protection of the President on American soil had become a difficult job. So that the public could see the President, his bodyguards were banished from the running-boards of the Presidential car.

http://www.voxfux.com/kennedy/farewell/farewell14.html*

It's only "incredibly incriminating" because the voice over tells you its supposed to be. I view it as rampant speculation.


*this is a conspiracy website, but it gives accurate details of the secret service agents activity in the run up to the assasination.

Diogenes

miju wrote:

lee harvey oswald while in the marines WAS a crack shot and he was also thaught russian , what marine learns russian??

Oswald was a sharpshooter*, but barely passed his marksmanship* exam with a score of 191. He was a decent shot by Marine standards, by ordinary people's standards he was an impecible shot.

Furthermore he taught himself rudementary Russian, he wasn't taught Russian, so that non sequitor is irrelevent.

what if i was to say George Bush Senior was one of the main (if not the main) orchestrators of the JFK assanation and it can be proved VERY substantially and that it actually ties in a bit too scarily to 9 /11 conspiracy theorys

I'd say I'd need some better evidence that a shoddily put together google video.
[edit]
Just clicked the link to your video miju, nothing makes the heart sink like the words "Alex Jones Productions".

Alex Jones believes the IRA were infiltrated by MI5. Which is true, Mi5 turned several IRA agents. But he goes further, he claims that parts of the IRA campaign were orchestraded by MI5 as part of an NWO campaign. He claims the Omagh bombing was planned and carried out by MI5.

Twenty-nine people were killed and 200 badly injured, when a 500 lb bomb
exploded in a busy shopping street in Omagh, Northern Ireland, on 15 August
1998. The bomb was planted by the dissident republican group, the Real IRA,
although at the time of writing only one individual, Colm Murphy, has been
formally charged. The tragedy claimed nine children as victims.
MI5, along with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, knew at least two days before the
attack not only that an attack would take place, but also the name of the bomb
maker and his car registration. If they had placed this terrorist under surveillance,
the horror of Omagh would have been prevented. British intelligence had a
reason for allowing the bombing to go forward. One of the terrorists in the
bombing team was a double agent. He was working for MI5.

http://www.infowars.com/pdfs/order_ch.PDF

Miju this isn't relevant to JFK but if you're going to claim Alex Jones can "cleanly present and articulate an argument", it's worthwhile presenting an example of his risible research, conclusion leaping, fact distorting behaviour, making reference to an event we all know well, and his contemptable stance on it.

Anyway back to the video, sorry Miju fifteen minutes in he's even using the courtroom scene from Oliver Stone's JFK to "demostrate" the magic bullet theory. Which is the utlimate Strawman argument. I've seen Jones at ground zero lying and shouting "Strawman" "Strawman" at a debunker, well he should know, he's a master at using them. I've seen nothing in this documentary so far that mertis wasting any more time on it.

[/edit]

*I'm using the terms sharpshooter and marksman here in the very specific terms of marine grading of soldier's ability.

Diogenes

miju wrote:

in work at the mo so haven't got the link handy , but google Zapata Oil or Operation Zapata to get a basic background of where this will be going to be honest i couldn't believe this when i saw this it's actually so blindingly obvious it's unbelievable

Finally, your fellow moderator Billy the Squid has chastised another poster on a different thread, saying it was unacceptable for posters to tell other users to "google" something as part of their argument.

miju

Diogenes wrote:

it was unacceptable for posters to tell other users to "google" something as part of their argument.

it is but READ my post correctly, next time before posting particularly the part where it says havent got the link at the moment but google it in the meantime ......... meanwhile later that day the links get posted , try to pick holes in the theories so we can have a healthy debate etc but please don't start nitpicking and going off topic

Diogenes wrote:

Alex Jones believes the IRA were infiltrated by MI5. Which is true, Mi5 turned several IRA agents. But he goes further, he claims that parts of the IRA campaign were orchestraded by MI5 as part of an NWO campaign. He claims the Omagh bombing was planned and carried out by MI5.

off topic for a moment it's not beyond the realms of plausibility given some of their previous escapades , alex jones can quite often put across a well articulated argument , i'll be one of the first to admit however that some of his "theories" are out there in the stratosphere

Diogenes wrote:

Anyway back to the video, sorry Miju fifteen minutes in he's even using the courtroom scene from Oliver Stone's JFK to "demostrate" the magic bullet theory. .........I've seen nothing in this documentary so far that mertis wasting any more time on it.

well then you didn't read my first post correctly , i said quite clearly first 30 mins or so is the usual conspiracy reasoning , it was the last 45 mins that i was referring to which spends the whole time stringing together the bush connection quite well actually with bay of pigs , zapata oil , cuban americans etc, senator connolly changing his description of events significantly , bush denying he was CIA at the time despite it being shown otherwise , etc but of course you never got to that part :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Diogenes wrote:

Why bother having an original thought or discussion then? We can just all just post links to videos instead of constructing arguments...

given the above and you couldn't even read the part i was referring to in the video my presumption of not wasting the effort typing up a big synopsis full of links was right

Diogenes wrote:

Its been fairly conclusively proven here that Oswald could and did make the shot

how has it been conclusively proven?, there is an abundance of experts who will disagree with you as well as the natural laws of physics that he was the only one

Diogenes

miju wrote:

it is but READ my post correctly, next time before posting particularly the part where it says havent got the link at the moment but google it in the meantime ......... meanwhile later that day the links get posted , try to pick holes in the theories so we can have a healthy debate etc but please don't start nitpicking and going off topic

No sorry this isn't nickpicking. You started by claiming,

miju wrote:

it can be proved VERY substantially and that it actually ties in a bit too scarily to 9 /11 conspiracy theorys

Then when challenged you post this;

miju wrote:

well your wrong it can be thanks to declassified memos / documents

When it was pointed out that the actually memo you posted didn't prove anything you back peddled;

it was an example of the kind of evidence (hence me saying example)

Miju that memo doesn't prove a single thing. If that;s an example of the "very substanatially" evidence you have, then you have nothing at all but conjecture and speculation.

off topic for a moment it's not beyond the realms of plausibility given some of their previous escapades ,

Well yeah if you say "Lets keep an open mind" nothing is beyond the realms of plausibility. But does Jones offer a shred of actuall concrete evidence to support his claims? Does he me arse. While anyone with a modicum of wit will tell you that there is no way Colm Murphy was an Mi5 stool.

alex jones can quite often put across a well articulated argument , i'll be one of the first to admit however that some of his "theories" are out there in the stratosphere

Ah the "David Icke is onto something if you ignore the Reptilian Overlords" school of reasoning. I'm sorry, I come from a world where, if it's proven to me, that a person (in this case Alex Jones) consistently mispresents facts, lies, makes claims that they cannot substantiate Then everything that person says, and their reasons for saying it, must be called into question.

Alex Jones is an incoherant bully, and you can watch him do all of the above on this link;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8820426888499996890#28m33s
Jones is the fat loud git in the sunglasses the guy he is debating with is an amateur conspiracy theorist debunker.

well then you didn't read my first post correctly , i said quite clearly first 30 mins or so is the usual conspiracy reasoning

Sorry Miju, no you didn't, you said;

Miju wrote:

watch this video the first 20 minutes is the usual conspiracy reasoning so skip if you wish to about 25 minutes in it explains it / substantiates what i'm saying

Twenty isn't thirty. And if a documentary is already spouting massive factual errors, and using a work of fiction to back up what it is saying, within the first fifteen minutes, I'm going to laugh at it, and switch it off.

, it was the last 45 mins that i was referring to which spends the whole time stringing together the bush connection quite well actually with bay of pigs , zapata oil , cuban americans etc, senator connolly changing his description of events significantly , bush denying he was CIA at the time despite it being shown otherwise , etc but of course you never got to that part :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No other users got there before me.

I'll ask you this about the above. Yeah? So? And? What? Do they above prove a CIA connection to Bush? Yes. The bloke is a former CIA director for goodness sake. Do the above prove any link to Bush and the Kennedy assasination? Not a word of it.

given the above and you couldn't even read the part i was referring to in the video my presumption of not wasting the effort typing up a big synopsis full of links was right

Other posters myself included have made the effort, I'm not wasting my time watching a documentary thats already riddled with factual inaccuracies, ten minutes in.

You've posted one of those memos before and it's been rubbished, now you're posting another equally irrelevant memo. You claim its supported by a video by someone, who you yourself admit, is "out there". This isn't anything remotely like "very substantial" evidence that you claim you have, in your first post .

You don't want to waste your time posting links and making arguments, you just want us to waste our valuable time wading through Alex Jones's work of fiction, on the promise he stops making stuff up after half an hour? And you're the one using the rolleye smiley? Really?

how has it been conclusively proven?, there is an abundance of experts who will disagree with you as well as the natural laws of physics that he was the only one

Really? Please post examples of these experts, or the laws of physics that Oswald's bullets "disagree" with. OFDM proved, very conclusively, that Oswald could have made the shots. What do you claim defies the laws of physics? Do you think Oswald couldn't have made the shot in the timeframe required? Or that you hold onto the "magic bullet" theory. The "magic bullet" theory is a strawman, no one spreads the magic bullet theory but conspiracy theorists. They claim it is the offical version of events. Its not.

I cannot believe I'm posting a youtube link, but here a piece of video where the single bullet theory is explained;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0

Don't believe the seating arrangement?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt3.jpg

So if you claim there is wealth of experts and you have the laws of physics on your side, please start posting some examples of this. Perhaps along with this "evidence" of Bush's connection with the assasination, that you've been witholding from this thread.

LuckyLloyd

This is a fascinating topic to be sure.

Oliver Stone’s film is unquestionably riddled with inaccuracies. The film hinges on the central point that it was physically implausible for LHO to do the damage he did with three bullets.

That theory has been disproved. Considering the fact that the man was a good shot, and that modern computer evidence shows that three bullets fired from that spot could do the necessary damage – it appears that the possibility of a lone shooter is there.

However, proof that LHO could have physically carried out the shooting alone is not definitive proof of the absence of any form of conspiracy.

In my mind there is a fundamental problem when approaching this subject – it doesn’t appear as if LHO would have had any particular reason to do the shooting. This for me is the interesting part of Stone’s film – the examination of a possible motivation within the military industrial base that desperately wanted an escalation to activities in Vietnam – and the presence of important political and military figures within the corridors of power that were still struggling with a hangover from the anti – communist witch hunts of the preceding decade. Of course, this stuff will never be conclusively proven – as it unrealistic to think that there is any real evidence that could pin it on an individual or group of individuals.

I will always make time to look at any new evidence or crackpot theory – but I realise that finding a conclusive answer is extremely unlikely. Nonetheless, I am enjoying the posts and debate. Good reading in work if nothing else.

Diogenes

LuckyLloyd wrote:

In my mind there is a fundamental problem when approaching this subject – it doesn’t appear as if LHO would have had any particular reason to do the shooting.

Oswald had a history of mental problems, had made several suicide attempts and had been commited to a mental institution. He had made an attempt on the life of General Walker several months before he assasination Kennedy. He was a voricious supporter of Cuba, a country Kennedy had attempted to invade. There's motive. People have tried to kill Presidents for less. John Hinckley anyone?

The flaw of the "conspiracy theory" is Oswald. Oswald had to be involved in the plot to some degree has to involve Oswald, otherwise why would he run and shoot Tibbit?

Why would a complex conspiracy to kill Kennedy include a mentally unstable 24 year old? Who had tried to defect to Russia (he was rejected at the first try) Someone who had attempted suicide, possibly twice. A Dishonourly discharged Marine who was an mediocre shot, and by the end of his tour had been demoted to private and was doing menial work. And a fanatical supporter of Cuba. Does this really sound like a man who you'd let in, on any level, on the biggest conspiracy of all time?

Diogenes

miju wrote:

what if i was to say George Bush Senior was one of the main (if not the main) orchestrators of the JFK assanation and it can be proved VERY substantially

So Miju it's been a week since you made this claim, do you want to present this very sustantial (sic) evidence any time soon?

bonkey

Is this just another case of "watch this video, because it makes the argument I'm not going to"?

miju wrote:

i can make the argument perfectly well to be honest but there's no point in reiterating it with multiple links / references etc when it's all there cleanly presented and better articulated than what i could do

So that was a yes then?

so if you want to watch the segment i referred to then post a constructive reply fine if you dont then thats also fine but don't come here trying to spoil a debate

I see no debate. I see you telling people to watch a video because you believe in some of the stuff it says. I see you making claims that evidence exists, but not backing it up.

You posted a link to a video. Great. I can almost-certainly find existing reviews of said video from critics who've gone to the trouble of pulling it apart. I could then post that link and say "this is whats wrong with your video". Sure, I could actually offer my own viewpoint, but whats the point, right? Someone else has done the work, so like you I shouldn't repeat the work, but just link to it and then wait for you to post a link to someone who's already refuted my linked-to-refutation.

We could continue on, posting link and counter-link, or we could just tell people to skip the entire thing, use google, and find both sides of the argument themselves.

I'm not trying to spoil a debate. I'm trying to encourage one.

You think your tactics are fine, but if they are all both sides used, there would be no debate. Hell, there would be little more than just a single post telling people "this has all been discussed before. Go to JREF or one of those places and read the existing threads". Now we can reduce the entire thing into a single link where both sides are succinctly embodied.

That sound good to you? Or is there some reason why I shouldn't adopt the same tactics that you think are acceptable? Do you not see the problem that arises if both sides follow that path?

So that leaves me a choice - I can let you use the lazy approach, and I can write pages and pages of refutation, or I can refuse to engage until you abandon the lazy approach and engage me on an equal-effort footing where each of us actually makes our own case.

I chose the latter, because that would actually be a debate. I'm utterly astounded that you think I'm trying to kill such a debate by asking you to actually make your own case. What do you think a debate is, if not both sides arguing their own case???

have you even looked up Zapata Oil?

You know, its funny...the very day you posted this, I had just read an article which surmised that one reason so many conspiracy theorists act the way they do is that they've finally found a topic where they can wade in believing they're experts and talk down to everyone else with this "I have the inside story, and the only reason you could possibly have for disagreeing with me is that you don't have what I think are the facts".

And right on the button, in you wade, assuming that because I am taking the well-established stance of "if you're too lazy to form the argument, I'm too lazy to refute it" that I know nothing about the subject.

Well done.

Next step should be for you to start castigating people for not keeping an open mind and for buying into the official fantasy so readily. Use the term sheeple to score extra points.

Diogenes

Still waiting Miju...

miju

half way through Diogenes as said before lots of info , references , links etc so as the get rid of that smugness you falsely have

currently on page 18 of the condensed version :-) , not that i'll expect you to read any of it but others i'm sure will be very interested

Guy:Incognito

OFDM wrote:

while the Kennedy shoot would been only 50 yards away.

DublinWriter wrote:

The fatal JFK shot was at 88 meters from the fifth floor of the book repository.

DublinWriter wrote:

The range from the Book Depository to the Presidential Limo was 52 metres.

Does anyone have a definate distance?

Diogenes

miju wrote:

half way through Diogenes as said before lots of info , references , links etc so as the get rid of that smugness you falsely have

currently on page 18 of the condensed version :-) , not that i'll expect you to read any of it but others i'm sure will be very interested

Um Muji it's been nigh on a month now. You've;

A) Failed to provide any of the "very substantial" evidence that George Bush Sr was "one of", or "the main" "orchestrators" of the JFK assasination.

Failed to give examples of the experts who disagree that Oswald could make the shot.

C) Failed to show which "natural laws of physics" Oswald or his gun, or bullets, defied to "make the shot".

Where is this 18 page condensed version? Condensed version of what, btw? If you're just going to lazily link to another tedious Alex Jones video, I'll stop holding my breath.

Please if you are going to actually debate the issue post facts, bring something to the table. Then as bonkey says

bonkey wrote:

So that leaves me a choice - I can let you use the lazy approach, and I can write pages and pages of refutation, or I can refuse to engage until you abandon the lazy approach and engage me on an equal-effort footing where each of us actually makes our own case.

I'm waiting for you to bring something "very substantial" (sic) to the table. When you present a body of evidence, I'll read and discuss it.

You snidely suggest that I won't look at what you post. Hmm. I've looked at every link you've posted your thread. I switched off you Alex Jones video when it was making massive factual errors within ten minutes (that and when it called the makers of Oliver Stone's JKF "heroes" I actually vomited in my mouth) so snidely suggesting I won't entertain information that you present is a little low. A lot low. If you have "very substantial" evidence of a conspiracy, why hide it from this forum. Hell, why hide it from the world. I'd suggest that if you don't bring something to the table by this time next month, what are you doing modding this forum?

All I'm doing is bumping this thread ever couple of weeks to remind you you've failed to do so, so far.

Stekelly wrote:

Does anyone have a definate distance?

My understanding is that it was under 88 yards, the US military still holding onto yards as a measure for years.

Mr. Presentable

miju wrote:

currently on page 18 of the condensed version :-) , not that i'll expect you to read any of it but others i'm sure will be very interested

What ever happened to this evidence? Has it been posted elsewhere and I missed it? Or do we have to wait another 40 years :rolleyes:

Diogenes

nipplenuts wrote:

What ever happened to this evidence? Has it been posted elsewhere and I missed it? Or do we have to wait another 40 years :rolleyes:

Traffic Games released JFK Reloaded a simulation to recreate the shooting of JFK. Morbid and tastless, perhaps, but it accurately maps the ballistics of the bullets.You can download it here.

DublinWriter

Diogenes wrote:

Traffic Games released JFK Reloaded a simulation to recreate the shooting of JFK. Morbid and tastless, perhaps, but it accurately maps the ballistics of the bullets.You can download it here.

I bought that a couple of years ago and it's well worth a look at from the point of view of how it roughly demonstrates how easy it was for LHO (a trained US Marine shooter) to pop off at least 4 rounds.

hshortt

I loved the whole JFK assination conspiracy theory for a long time as a teenager and even wrote about it during class essays in school. There was one documentary that I remember seeing although I can't remember the name of it, anyway it had some photography enhancement done on the gassy knoll that showed a man in a police uniform with smoke rising above his shoulder. I loved it! Of course it was later all disproven etc etc. Shame really it was such a good story and there were really so many angles on it. I'd love to belive again, but having seen and read various reports it all points to LHO as being the man who pulled the trigger.

Cheerio
Howard

Wertz

Kennedy was plugged for his spat with Ben Gurion over Israel's wish to gain nuclear capability.
Mossad were likely ordered to play a major role in the logistics of the assasination (both inside and outside the US) by the Israeli leader before he was forced to step down over the whole nuclear controversy.
A US president who wouldn't play ball with the Jewish lobby? Hell no, fix that and get someone into office who will...

Read "Final Judgement" by Michael Piper for more on this topic. Of all the conspiratorial motives for taking out JFK, this one has an awful lot of circumstantial and documentary evidence of how Israel and the the jewish lobby benefitted directly in the short period of years of LBJ's time in office, in terms of a change in US foreign policy and the provision of military aid to the region....it also ended up having the bomb and possibly long before they officially admitted to having it (one for another thread really)

Diogenes

Hmmm I just finished Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi (who, to summerise, prosecuted Manson, and then wrote the excellent "Helter Skelter") It's a massive tome, incredibly well researched, and highly regarded as the definitive book on the assassination.

I don't want to spoil the ending for, but yup you guessed it, Oswald did it.

This is a condensed summary of Bugliosi's summary of evidence against Oswald

from pgs. 955-966

1-8: 'curtain rods', guns, and uncharacteristic behavior of Oswald:

Instead of visiting his wife and kids on a Friday, as usual, O. went on Thursday, claiming he was picking up curtain rods. However, his apt. already had curtain rods. He did place a long package in the back of Frazier's car the next day, but it contained a rifle. No curtain rods were found. A rifle was found at the scene. O. typically talked about JKF, but avoided the subject the day before. The day of the murder, O. left behind his wedding ring and all the money he had. He didn't bring his lunch.
He walked ahead of Frazier instead of with him into the Book Depository.

11. Howard Brennan witnessed Oswald holding rifle in Depository window. He was 120 feet away. (ca. 12 car-lengths). He picked Oswald out in a lineup.

12. Rifle found on 6th floor of Depository.

13. Oswald first says he was on 1st floor, then later 6th floor of Dep. during interrogation, and his statements about this had other contradictions.

15. Oswald claimed he was eating lunch--not interested in JFK's visit--although he was avidly interested in JFK and politics.

16. Of all employees at the Dep., only Oswald was missing after the murder.

20. Oswald has cabdriver drive past his house instead of stopping in front.

21. There he was seen to be in a hurry.

22-23 Oswald picks up his revolver at rooming house, changes clothes.

24. Oswald murders officer J.D.Tippit, almost a mile from his rooming house. Witness Helen Markham picks him from lineup. There are other witnesses--actually ten of them.

25. Manager of shoe store sees man acting suspiciously, follows him to movie theater, calls police. Cashier at theater says Oswald ducks into theater without paying for ticket.

27,28,29. Oswald fights with police in theater, then refuses to give his name when arrested.

30,31. Oswald's triumphant demeanor after arrest, refuses to take lie-detector test.

33. Oswald's rifle found at Dep. building. Records show this rifle was shipped to O's p.o box in Dallas. Handwriting matches. Prints found. Fibers match clothing O. was wearing that day.

34. Three shells found at scene were fired from rifle.

36. a paper bag holding disassembled rifle found at scene. O's prints found on bag.

37. O's prints found on book cartons in sniper's nest at scene.

38. Revolver found on O. at arrest in theater, same evidence it was sent to his p.o. box in Dallas.

41. paraffin test on Oswald's hands were positive.

42. O. left his jacket behind on first floor of Dep.

44. O. had not performed any work at Dep. that day.

45.-53. Oswald's many proven lies during interrogation

tunaman

Diogenes wrote:

I don't want to spoil the ending for, but yup you guessed it, Oswald did it.

So you are now trying to tell people Oswald did it, based on a book?

What about the real evidence?

Nothing on that list of yours proves Oswald killed JFK. He may have wanted to kill him, but that doesn't mean he did or was able to...

Here is footage of the fatal head shot that killed Kennedy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6133163723563566557&q=jfk&total=5604&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

Now what direction are you claiming that the bullet came from?

Maybe oscar can slow it right down and we can all see once and for all where he was hit...

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

Maybe oscar can slow it right down and we can all see once and for all where he was hit...

Why would I bother? You'd only wave it off with a flippant remark.

For someone who talks a hell of a lot about evidence, you don't seem particularly interested in (a) producing any, or (b) discussing any that's presented.

You can argue (unless you're going to do another of your disappearing acts) that you provide evidence, but you don't: you post links to pictures that don't prove anything without context. You refuse point-blank to explain how those pictures demonstrate what you claim they demonstrate.

For all your snideness about my "frozen fireball" refutation, you can't deny that I've actually put some effort into it, and I'm prepared to stand over what I've posted and answer questions about it.

Why won't you do the same?

Diogenes

tunaman wrote:

So you are now trying to tell people Oswald did it, based on a book?

What about the real evidence?

No based on the evidence presented in the book.

Out of curiousity what evidence would satisfy you as to Oswald's guilt?

Nothing on that list of yours proves Oswald killed JFK. He may have wanted to kill him, but that doesn't mean he did or was able to...

Okay if I have this clear, you agree Oswald wanted to kill Kennedy. Worked in a place that overlooked the parade. Was armed with a rifle of the same calibre as the bullets that killed Kennedy. And that Oswald was a trained Marine marksman.

Do you agree on that?

Here is footage of the fatal head shot that killed Kennedy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6133163723563566557&q=jfk&total=5604&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

Now what direction are you claiming that the bullet came from?

Maybe oscar can slow it right down and we can all see once and for all where he was hit...

This is the House Select commits autopshy photograph



Here is a list of witnesses who agree the top of his exploded not the front.

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

I agree with your analysis of the fireball...

Thank you.

tunaman wrote:

...so what's your problem?

No problem now that you've clarified.

tunaman wrote:

I just find it strange that you would go to all that trouble on something which was ridiculous to start with, yet fail to closely examine meaningful evidence.

But who defines what's "ridiculous"?

I agree that the hypothesis of realtime TV fakery was just bizarre, but the visual evidence seemed compelling at first glance. I demonstrated that it didn't actually demonstrate what it claimed to demonstrate, which reinforces the general principle that just because something looks like something at first glance, doesn't mean that it is.

The same is true of the stills you've posted of a collapsing WTC tower. You claim it shows an exploding building, but refuse to explain how the pictures are inconsistent with a collapsing building.

tunaman wrote:

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I have better things to do than waste my time in circular arguements with you and your mates. :rolleyes:

Me too, but I'm waiting for you to actually answer some questions. You're the one claiming that a picture shows something, but refusing to explain how it shows that.

tunaman wrote:

Why do you want me to tell you what to think?

I don't, and I don't know why you think I do.

tunaman wrote:

Footage of JFK getting his head blown off is not evidence, and proves nothing as it's not in context?

So it should be ignored then, and definitely not examined closely?

If you can examine this evidence and still (want to) believe the official conspiracy theory, then it's a waste of my time trying to talk to you.

OK, let's take a still from the video you posted:



Now take a closeup detail from it:



You can clearly see the cloud of blood and brain tissue exploding from the exit wound and appearing in front of Kennedy. Therefore he was shot from behind, which is consistent with the official story.

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

Why would I bother? You'd only wave it off with a flippant remark.

For someone who talks a hell of a lot about evidence, you don't seem particularly interested in (a) producing any, or (b) discussing any that's presented.

You can argue (unless you're going to do another of your disappearing acts) that you provide evidence, but you don't: you post links to pictures that don't prove anything without context. You refuse point-blank to explain how those pictures demonstrate what you claim they demonstrate.

For all your snideness about my "frozen fireball" refutation, you can't deny that I've actually put some effort into it, and I'm prepared to stand over what I've posted and answer questions about it.

Why won't you do the same?

You are making assumptions based on what, I don't know.

I agree with your analysis of the fireball, so what's your problem?

I just find it strange that you would go to all that trouble on something which was ridiculous to start with, yet fail to closely examine meaningful evidence.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I have better things to do than waste my time in circular arguements with you and your mates. :rolleyes:

Why do you want me to tell you what to think?

Footage of JFK getting his head blown off is not evidence, and proves nothing as it's not in context?

So it should be ignored then, and definitely not examined closely?

If you can examine this evidence and still (want to) believe the official conspiracy theory, then it's a waste of my time trying to talk to you.