[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The Discovery/History Channel(s) have had a series of really good examinations of the Kennedy assassination this week thus far.

One documentary I saw last night even made the case for no less than Lyndon Johnson himself and his Texas cronies being behind the assassination. There�s little doubt that LBJ was one of the most crooked US politicians ever to achieve such a high office, but was he actually behind the assassination of Kennedy? It�s always occurred to me that such was possible- even the location of the assassination being Texas where Johnson had tremendous sway seems very suspect- but I�d never really seriously considered it, nor ever saw anyone actually dare make the charge in any official way.

According to the documentary, Johnson had plenty of motive, opportunity and as the US V.P, plenty of clout to pull it off. He would have had unique access to the Secret Service (that no doubt played a role in the assassination through sheer �purposeful?- bungling) unique and close ties to Hoover�s FBI (a complete book on corruption all by itself) and close ties to incredibly powerful Texas political cronies, including the Governor, etc.

Anyway, my general question is: dispite no one knowing for certain what truly happened, are there any people that buy the official state explanation of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone gunman?

It seems to me, no matter which of dozens of alternate theories one chooses to believe as more likely, or even if one has no preference of alternate theories, there�s such a preponderance of evidence that the lone gunman idea is just pure and utter horse-hockey, and indeed the government has been engaged in a cover up all these years.

If one believes there was more than one gunman, it becomes impossible to dismiss as just �coincidence� and it automatically becomes a conspiracy of more than just Oswald. Therefore one has to factor in that it�s highly likely we had a true violent coup takeover of the United States forty years ago in late 1963.

I find it pretty amazing to consider- especially the idea that LBJ himself could have been behind it.

What are other people�s most-likely theories of what really happened, and the key players behind it?

Does anyone buy the official �lone gunman� version of events, and if so, why?

[MacGorilla]

Glory, Glory paranoia!

There is certainly circumstantial evidence that there was more than one gunman and/or conspiracy but evidence is lacking.

[thunderous_funker]

Why is my spidey sense tingling? Is this an ambush?

No offense, CRASH, but I've gotten the impression you had litle or no regard for conspiracy theories in general. Are you baiting here?

As for myself, I've never really given it much thought. Honestly. For whatever reason, the Kennedy assassination just never piqued my curiosity. I'm only vaguely aware of the "alternate" explanations.

So did the documentaries reveal anything startling about second or third gunmen? Is there something remarkable about the fatal shots (angles, probabilities, etc..)? Is there something curious in how easily Oswald got in the building, knew the route, etc?

Famous guy in an open car. Empty building. Hunting rifle. Seems easy enough for a lone gunman to me. Or am I just ignorant of the nuances and inconsistencies?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Glory, Glory paranoia!

There is certainly circumstantial evidence that there was more than one gunman and/or conspiracy but evidence is lacking.

True, evidence is lacking, but a lot of evidence in the case in general seems to be lacking due to blatant, even blundering cover up efforts.

It's hard to deny that there's all sorts of government chicanery surrounding subjects like the original autopsy of Kennedy, doctored photos, 'magic' bullet paths presented as plausible, huge pieces of key evidence (like the motorcade limo for pete's sake) either being tampered with, or simply vanishing.

It's true, it's one of those subjects that gets treated like a UFO abduction story or something- but one had to admit, there's just so much that STINKS and is botched about the 'official' investigation that the government seems hell bent on sticking by, that one almost HAS to wonder what the hell really happened.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
....there's just so much that STINKS and is botched about the 'official' investigation that the government seems hell bent on sticking by, that one almost HAS to wonder what the hell really happened.

Not unlike, in that respect, the case against OJ.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
[B]

Why is my spidey sense tingling? Is this an ambush?

No offense, CRASH, but I've gotten the impression you had litle or no regard for conspiracy theories in general. Are you baiting here?

LOL! Darnit you found me out thunderous!

No, seriously I find this subject is more complex than the individual conspiracy theories surrounding it. While it's true I've no real like for 'conspiracy theories' that lack substance, and usually advanced by people in no position to have more information on a subject than anyone else- many individual stupid theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination fit that same bill- that doesn't mean that I buy the state's official explanation. Granted, I have no idea what the hell *really* happened, I don't think anyone but the actual perps do.

So did the documentaries reveal anything startling about second or third gunmen? Is there something remarkable about the fatal shots (angles, probabilities, etc..)? Is there something curious in how easily Oswald got in the building, knew the route, etc?

Famous guy in an open car. Empty building. Hunting rifle. Seems easy enough for a lone gunman to me. Or am I just ignorant of the nuances and inconsistencies?

This latest round of documentaries that I've seen thus far (I think they're running a series all this week) have focused more on the 'larger' idea of who would have hired the actual gunmen, and taken steps to make sure security was a woeful as it was.

But I have seen a lot of evidence presented that there was more than one gunman- MANY eyewitnesses, accounts of bullet holes in the limo that showed shots from in front (impossible for Oswald) and the aforementioned 'magic' bullet theories- IE: from forensic examinations of the known bullet wounds to Kennedy and others in the car, a limited number of shots fired by Oswald would have had bullets traveling in utterly ridiculous 'magic' paths, even halting in mid air and changing directions- things of that nature.

To me, a reasonable person, for lack of other evidence counter to any of the disturbing facts of the case- has to at some level wonder what the hell really happened, who was behind it, and why.

I'd be more of a 'conspiracy nut' if I was swearing up and down that I knew what happened, based on some ludicrous theory of my own. I have no theories however, just disbelief in the official explanation, and an interest in the more plausible theories presented by others.

[thunderous_funker]

Gotcha.

I always thought the Jack Ruby thing was very odd. Didn't he claim his justification was to spare Jackie a court appearance?



Whatever happened to him anyway?

[zigzag]

I believe the Oswald-as-lone-gunman theory. I was a conspiracy buff from the beginning but gradually came to see that the conspiracy theorists were mostly cherry-picking - and in some cases completely fabricating - evidence that supported their pet theories. One half-baked theory (e.g. that Oswald couldn't have pulled the shots off) gets piggy-backed onto another and through repetition attains the patina of fact. These people have rarely if ever actually read the Warren Report, which is surprisingly thorough. Indeed, I have found that the actual Oswald story is more interesting than the alternatives.

Look at how something as straightforward as the O.J. Simpson case got twisted, and multiply it by 1,000,000. That's the JFK assassination. The simple, straightforward explanation gets lost in all the arcana, the forest is lost for the trees, Occam's Razor and all that. There's money in it.

If the conspiracy theories are valid, how come they can't be reconciled with each other, and how come none of them have been proven? It's mostly speculation, while the Oswald theory is supported by both physical and circumstantial evidence.

The number of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy and remain silent for 40 years renders a government cover-up extremely unlikely. How could they be such fvck-ups on the one hand and such masterful co-conspirators on the other?

I think that if there was a conspiracy, the Mob was behind it, but I nonetheless think Oswald was a nut who acted alone, as was Ruby. But it's fun to speculate.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
number of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy and remain silent for 40 years renders a government cover-up extremely unlikely. How could they be such fvck-ups on the one hand and such masterful co-conspirators on the other?

I think that if there was a conspiracy, the Mob was behind it, but I nonetheless think Oswald was a nut who acted alone, as was Ruby. But it's fun to speculate.

its indeed fun to speculate. I have no 10 dollar chip on any particular theory, I only have a valid question...
Why was the warren commission findings judged to be held secret until all principles involved passed away? What difference would that make to the investigation or its findings? Its a puzzlement, and I can think of some possibilities, but even those seem farfetched. I find it hard to consider that a warren commission member was directly involved (?) but nothing else I can think of warrants sealing the findings until all members are deceased.
Anyone out there have a thought on that?

[xi_hyperon]

I've speculated, but can't say I ever found it to be fun in doing so. It's always been troubling to me that a President died, and the government's conclusions left more questions in the wake of its report than answers. There are numerous books out there with an equal number of conspiracy theories. Interesting in and of themselves, but what has left me troubled for many years now are the following questions:

- Why did so many witnesses report seeing one or two figures behind the fence and a puff of smoke when Kennedy's head was hit?

- Why did numerous people on the embankment claim to have heard a shot or shots directly behind them, close enough that some dove to the ground?

- If Kennedy was shot from behind, why did his head jerk backward and to the side toward Jackie Kennedy when it exploded?

And of course the infamous magic bullet, the centerpiece of physical evidence presented by the Warren Commission in support of Arlen Specter's single-bullet theory. Found laying on Connally's stretcher at Parkland, the bullet was pristine and without deformation, even though it was the bullet which supposedly hit both Kennedy and him.

I don't have any conclusions or theories myself other than it doesn't add up. The questions above are legitimate and as yet unanswered, and I think it is a bit na�ve to take the Warren Commission's report at face value in light of them.

As far as the LBJ angle, I saw the History Channel special last night and was startled by it. In the two biographies I've read on LBJ, neither one was particularly flattering, but neither ever broached the possibility that he was ever involved in anyone's murder, least of all JFK's.

[The Mick]

In my mind it's clear there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. The magic bullet theory is the most ridiculous bit of forensic evidence I could imagine. The bullet was found outside of Connally's body, since when did bullets just fall out of people? The bullet was completely unscathed and obviously had not been fired from a weapon. It had no marks of damage even though it was supposed to have broken Connally's arm. I won't even begin to discuss how ludicrous it is for a bullet to change directions of over 90 degrees in mid air.

What I am not clear on at all is who actually organized the assassination. Mafia? Maybe. Cubans? Perhaps. LBJ? I doubt that.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
its indeed fun to speculate. I have no 10 dollar chip on any particular theory, I only have a valid question...
Why was the warren commission findings judged to be held secret until all principles involved passed away? What difference would that make to the investigation or its findings? Its a puzzlement, and I can think of some possibilities, but even those seem farfetched. I find it hard to consider that a warren commission member was directly involved (?) but nothing else I can think of warrants sealing the findings until all members are deceased.
Anyone out there have a thought on that?

That's certainly a valid question, and I don't know the answer. Neither would I suggest that anyone should accept the official version without skepticism - it was certainly flawed in certain respects. However, I think that before anyone dismisses the Warren Report, they should read it. It's actually quite fascinating (I haven't read the whole thing by any means but it's not true, as some would suggest, that the commission overlooked the most important leads - it was a massive and very detailed investigation).

No one has had a greater fascination with the case than I - I've even been to Oswald's grave (I'd post photos if I could find them). However, the older I get, the more I'm inclined to accept the fact that Oswald was a crackpot loner and that the rest is mere conjecture. Oswald's story is fascinating enough. Most people aren't aware that this wasn't even his first assassination attempt - it's generally believed that he tried to shoot General Edwin Walker, a notorious anti-Communist, in April 1963.

There's a brilliant work of historical fiction by Don Delillo called "Libra" - it's not a straight biography, but a depiction of Oswald's life that draws from the actual record. A fascinating, albeit insane, journey. The opening passage is one of my favorite passages in any work of literature. Highly recommended to anyone even remotely interested in the subject.

Another book I like is Gerald Posner's Case Closed. Posner has a vested interest (he worked for the Warren Commission), but even if one disagrees with his conclusions, he offers a useful perspective on the conspiracy theories.

[eklipse]

Way, way, way too much information and analysis here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Some of these guys even fired bullets into watermelons to calculate splatter trajectories for explosive brain matter.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by zigzag:
...
I think that if there was a conspiracy, the Mob was behind it, but I nonetheless think Oswald was a nut who acted alone, as was Ruby. But it's fun to speculate.

- You do know there has been a official senate/congressional(?) commission long after the Warren one, that stated clearly, the murder has been planned by a conspiracy and that further investigations were necessary? ---> Politics in charge never did it.

- why have none of the Kennedy files been disclosed? In fact they pushed the publication date forward to 202x!

- questions that clearly come when you analyze the Zapruder (now Times) 8mm film (see also in the movie JFK!)

- Check all reports from the former attorney about how he was hindered with his questions/interrogations... check those with the CIA when they finally admitted Ruby _was_ their agent!!!

- added: read about the coroner's remarks about the gun wounds of Kennedy!

This case is a shame for all the american values but for me is even more shocking that the american public did and does not demand its clarification!

PB.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
This case is a shame for all the american values but for me is even more shocking that the american public did and does not demand its clarification!

PB.

oh, I don't fault the public. You have to view things in context. in 1964, both the press and the public were not accustomed to questioning statements from the government. If the govt. said "A" they had no inclination to think "B".
Its only later, after things were made difficult to unearth, that a surgence of skepticism and therefore investigation took place...and by then it was too late because the powers that be had already sealed or confuscated the details.

I tend to think in general terms that *IF* there were a conspiracy, a list of suspect organizations/persons seems unlikely at first glance:
1. If it were the mob, I can't see the warren commission sealing the evidence. There would be a great deal of glory in hunting down those guys in that situation.
(though the mob did have an axe to grind with bobby pushing investigations into organized crime....although ironic considering who the kennedy patriach was....)
2. If it were a foreign power, I likewise see no reason for the sealing of data....that would be a prelude to war and I can't see the commission covering that over.
3. If it was LBJ, it would have been easy enough to hang him out to dry and replace him. I can't see LBJ having THAT much cachet into the commission.

I keep coming back to the highly implausible notion that members of the warren commission either KNEW something and didn't wish to be implicated by full disclosure, or were somehow involved. Not that I think that's true, but *IF* there were a conspiracy, that's what makes the most sense when you factor in the sealing of data for such a long period of time.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
2. If it were a foreign power, I likewise see no reason for the sealing of data....that would be a prelude to war and I can't see the commission covering that over.

Actually, there is a transcript from one of LBJ's phone conversations with Earl Warren, in which he states that he doesn't want anything in the report implying possible Soviet or Cuban involvement, because it could mean just that - war.

[davesimondotcom]

The butler did it...

Seriously, though, that pic of Oswald holding the newspaper took some serious photoshop skillz... oh, wait, Pshop didn't exist yet...

[zigzag]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Way, way, way too much information and analysis here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Some of these guys even fired bullets into watermelons to calculate splatter trajectories for explosive brain matter.

That's a great site, thanks. Demonstrates just how insane some of the theories can get ("The umbrella man shot JFK with poison darts . . . ."). Also demonstrates that even the more plausible conspiracy theories usually get that way by cherry-picking the evidence.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
- You do know there has been a official senate/congressional(?) commission long after the Warren one, that stated clearly, the murder has been planned by a conspiracy and that further investigations were necessary? ---> Politics in charge never did it.

- why have none of the Kennedy files been disclosed? In fact they pushed the publication date forward to 202x!

- questions that clearly come when you analyze the Zapruder (now Times) 8mm film (see also in the movie JFK!)

- Check all reports from the former attorney about how he was hindered with his questions/interrogations... check those with the CIA when they finally admitted Ruby _was_ their agent!!!

- added: read about the coroner's remarks about the gun wounds of Kennedy!

This case is a shame for all the american values but for me is even more shocking that the american public did and does not demand its clarification!

PB.

- The House Assassinations Committee's conclusions were largely based on acoustic evidence that has since been discredited by the National Academy of Sciences, among others. You can read their conclusions here:

http://www.jfk-online.com/nas00.html

This will also be demonstrated by a number of TV specials coming up this week.

- It's not at all true that "none of the Kennedy files have been disclosed." Massive amounts of information has been released, none of which has supported the various conspiracy theories. There's even an independent committee overseeing the release of the documentation:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/index.html

- Nothing in the Zapruder film contradicts the Oswald theory. It is only interpreted differently by conspiracy theorists, who remain unable to prove their various and usually contradictory theories. The film "JFK" was nothing more than a grab bag of speculation.

Etc. The web site mentioned above addresses all of your questions better than I can.

The old adage "Don't believe everything you read" applies with equal force to conspiracy theories and government reports.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
- Why did so many witnesses report seeing one or two figures behind the fence and a puff of smoke when Kennedy's head was hit?

- Why did numerous people on the embankment claim to have heard a shot or shots directly behind them, close enough that some dove to the ground?

- If Kennedy was shot from behind, why did his head jerk backward and to the side toward Jackie Kennedy when it exploded?

And of course the infamous magic bullet, the centerpiece of physical evidence presented by the Warren Commission in support of Arlen Specter's single-bullet theory. Found laying on Connally's stretcher at Parkland, the bullet was pristine and without deformation, even though it was the bullet which supposedly hit both Kennedy and him.

- Modern rifles do not emit smoke.

- It's not surprising that in a scene like that, you'd get conflicting reports, but the vast majority of people heard the shots come from the Book Depository, not the fence (which is quite a bit closer, so one would expect a lot more people to report it). Also, if people were shooting rifles from the fence, one would also also expect someone to specifically see, hear, and chase after them - Dealey Plaza is pretty small. As for diving to the ground, one would expect people dive to the ground after hearing gunshots, whether they came from the fence, the Book Depository, or anywhere else.

- Scientists have demonstrated time and time again that there was nothing unusual about the reaction of Kennedy's head.

- The bullet was not pristine. This is another one of those myths that, through repetition, acquires the patina of fact.

I understand the temptation to buy into these theories - I did it myself many years ago. But they don't bear up to close scrutiny. The evidence pointing to Oswald, on the other hand, is very solid.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

You make some good points zigzag. There are still too many unanswered questions for me to totally buy the Warren Commission report though.

Let�s not forget, the idea of a possible conspiracy isn�t just for lone nuts- no less than the US House of Reps Assassination Committee stated that it: ��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�

And that:
�Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President.�


Personally, I can buy that Oswald was a shooter, but I still think it's highly likely there were others. The known damage inflicted to the car, and the occupants, evidence of missed shots (impossible to have been fired by Oswald, since the known timeline requires perfect, almost superhuman marksmanship on his part, with 3 shots from a crappy bolt-action rifle, with no misses) and eyewitness testimony seems to point to the higher probability of more than one shooter.

It's a good question, how could so many people cover up such a conspiracy for so long- but I don't believe that needs to be as complicated as it's made out. Most of the participants (secret service people, police, FBI agents, doctors and pathologists) were merely following orders and none would have needed to be privy to any conspiracy. So much of the evidence (the body, the car, etc.) was whisked away from the scene and back to Washington, out of the examination of qualified forensics experts, pathologists, and other investigators, and into the hands of cherry-picked officials, often of questionable credentials. Again, people being in on any larger conspiracy or cover up are barely needed- once so much of the key evidence was removed from Dallas, an environment of total control, with people used to following orders took over.

I don't believe many in law enforcement or the government were privy to any conspiracy, certainly not the Warren Commission or others, merely that there was a wish to get the investigation over with as quickly as possible, without turning up too many messy, hard to answer avenues whenever something led away from the official foregone conclusion (lone gunman, Oswald guilt.) Of course the Warren Commission report is very thorough- in what it covers. But it seems any time something contradictory cropped up (and in many cases incredible stuff like every single doctor that saw Kennedy's body at Parkland Hospital not recognizing the 'official' autopsy photos later presented by the govt.) the Warren Commission merely ignored it, or misrepresented it in the report.

Just the absence of a proper post-mortem on Kennedy that would be done in even routine murders, let alone the President of the US- should send up flags for people that the govt�s investigation was ridiculously bungled. Again, I don't think any of it's part of any larger conspiracy, I just think the government doesn't want the embarrassment associated with the bungling that took place in their investigation, and that they took the expedient route to quickly indict Lee Harvey Oswald, rather than a more thorough one that might have exposed the fact that there were others involved.

At any rate, I don�t think anyone will know the truth during any of our lifetimes.

[typoon]

There is a new book out about this.

"The Triangle of Death"

They build a case that leads to a stunning, but convincing conclusion: President John F. Kennedy was killed Nov. 22, 1963, as the result of a massive conspiracy between the CIA-installed government of South Vietnam, the French global heroin syndicate and the New Orleans Mafia.
The book � which includes details of a first-time-ever crime scene re-creation at Dealey Plaza � shows how Kennedy planned and developed a coup d'�tat that resulted in the political murders of Ngo Dinh Diem, the Catholic president of South Vietnam, and his two brothers just 22 days before his death. The U.S. State Department suppressed this information for more than 30 years.

Evidence includes an exclusive new interview with one of the primary players and federal documents that only recently have been declassified or released � exclusively to the authors.

But more important than any of that, the authors say, this book reveals an official CIA document "that may well be the most shocking piece of evidence ever to arise from the enigma surrounding Kennedy's murder."

Read the rest of the article about the book here http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=34711

[AutoJC]

A year ago last summer my wife, an NEA delegate, visited the site of the assassination and even was at the window at the Book Depository to see how Oswald could have gotten off the shot.

She concluded that it was practically point-blank range. Oswald could have very well been the lone gunman.

About the only theory I could understand is that Oswald could have been a hired assassin. Subsequent events, such as Jack Ruby killing Oswald, seem to aim the conspiracy theory right at organized crime.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Let�s not forget, the idea of a possible conspiracy isn�t just for lone nuts- no less than the US House of Reps Assassination Committee stated that it: ��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�

And that:
�Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President.�

Right, but as I said earlier, that acoustic evidence has been thoroughly discredited.

I think the most revealing statement there is "The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy." Despite vast resources and 40 years of time, no one has ever been able to substantiate an alternative theory, while there remains ample direct and circumstantial evidence that Oswald acted alone.

Personally, I can buy that Oswald was a shooter, but I still think it's highly likely there were others. The known damage inflicted to the car, and the occupants, evidence of missed shots (impossible to have been fired by Oswald, since the known timeline requires perfect, almost superhuman marksmanship on his part, with 3 shots from a crappy bolt-action rifle, with no misses) and eyewitness testimony seems to point to the higher probability of more than one shooter.

I think all of these theories are addressed in the website linked above and other places. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that there was nothing superhuman about Oswald getting the shots off.

It's a good question, how could so many people cover up such a conspiracy for so long- but I don't believe that needs to be as complicated as it's made out. Most of the participants (secret service people, police, FBI agents, doctors and pathologists) were merely following orders and none would have needed to be privy to any conspiracy. So much of the evidence (the body, the car, etc.) was whisked away from the scene and back to Washington, out of the examination of qualified forensics experts, pathologists, and other investigators, and into the hands of cherry-picked officials, often of questionable credentials. Again, people being in on any larger conspiracy or cover up are barely needed- once so much of the key evidence was removed from Dallas, an environment of total control, with people used to following orders took over.

I don't believe many in law enforcement or the government were privy to any conspiracy, certainly not the Warren Commission or others, merely that there was a wish to get the investigation over with as quickly as possible, without turning up too many messy, hard to answer avenues whenever something led away from the official foregone conclusion (lone gunman, Oswald guilt.) Of course the Warren Commission report is very thorough- in what it covers. But it seems any time something contradictory cropped up (and in many cases incredible stuff like every single doctor that saw Kennedy's body at Parkland Hospital not recognizing the 'official' autopsy photos later presented by the govt.) the Warren Commission merely ignored it, or misrepresented it in the report.

Just the absence of a proper post-mortem on Kennedy that would be done in even routine murders, let alone the President of the US- should send up flags for people that the govt�s investigation was ridiculously bungled. Again, I don't think any of it's part of any larger conspiracy, I just think the government doesn't want the embarrassment associated with the bungling that took place in their investigation, and that they took the expedient route to quickly indict Lee Harvey Oswald, rather than a more thorough one that might have exposed the fact that there were others involved.

I don't doubt that aspects of the assassination were bungled and covered up, but that's to be expected - it was sensitive stuff, and thousands of people were involved in one way or another. Among other things, the powers-that-be did not want to show what really happened to JFK's head - it was too gruesome. That's how things were in 1963. It's important to know but it still doesn't prove a murder conspiracy.

Look at it this way: Oswald was a confirmed nut, a loser. The Feds knew about him - he had defected to Russia and was trying to get into Cuba, among other things. He was captured running around Oak Cliff with a gun, he shot a cop, he had no money and didn't even own a car. What professional assassins in their right minds would team up with him? And if they weren't professionals, why would the government need to protect them?

The conspiracy theorists prosper by focusing on a disparate set of anomalies and ignoring the great weight of the evidence, which can be done in any criminal case, O.J. being a good example. I don't expect to persuade anyone, but I encourage people to actually read the Warren Report and weigh its evidence, which is real and substantial, against that of the conspiracy theorists, which is mostly myth and speculation. IMO, the real story is more interesting than the conspiracy theories.

[xi_hyperon]

Just lost my reply as someone came in and I closed the window instead of minimizing it ...damn user interface. Briefly, I'll try to remember what I just wrote. First, all good points zigzag. However, for every scientist who has come to one conclusion, whether regarding acoustical evidence, the trajectory of the bullet based on the JFK's head movement, or the number of shots, there's another scientist who has concluded otherwise. In light of that, I'd say it's pretty inconclusive. With regards to where the head shot came from based on acoustical evidence, I don't think that reverberations bouncing off the structures in the vicinity completely negates the recountings of those who were there, especially those standing directly in front of the fence on the knoll. The decibel level from a reverberation and that of a shot just feet behind one would be great enough to distinguish between the two. Remember, people near the fence actually dove to the ground when that shot rang out. In light of the lack of agreement amongst those who can best determine the source of the shot, I'll defer to the accounts of those who were standing there.

Magic bullet: I'm not sure where you are coming from when you say it wasn't unscathed. The bullet presented in the report is. At the very least, it should have been blunted, and given the testimony of experts recorded in the report itself, it should have been fragmented (fragments indeed were found in Connally). So is there a different bullet from what is shown as "the" bullet in the report? Not being a weisenheimer, just trying to figure out what I missed.

Granted, I haven't read the entire report. I'd need a year off from work and a lot of coffee to do that. But the chunks I have read, although thorough, don't add up, or at the very least, don't agree with the conclusion of independent studies. That, coupled with my natural skepticsm of government in general, tempts me not to "buy in" to any one theory; rather it just leaves me with a lot of questions. Questions to which no one seems to agree on any one answer. I think there is a cottage industry made from this one incident, and a lot of people get caught up in the hype generated by the plethora of theories presented. This would be on the other end of the spectrum from completely buying into the Warren Reports conclusions. I'm somewhere in the middle, not completely satisfied by either. So there you have it. Without all the facts, and without a consensus on even the basic elements of the evidence, conclusions can't be drawn in my mind. I just don't know.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
. . . I think there is a cottage industry made from this one incident, and a lot of people get caught up in the hype generated by the plethora of theories presented. This would be on the other end of the spectrum from completely buying into the Warren Reports conclusions. I'm somewhere in the middle, not completely satisfied by either. So there you have it. Without all the facts, and without a consensus on even the basic elements of the evidence, conclusions can't be drawn in my mind. I just don't know.

Well-said. We can never know the whole story, it's a weighing process. I would simply encourage people to apply the same degree of scrutiny to the conspiracy theories that they so eagerly apply to the official version. That's how I came full-circle on the question.

[finboy]

Originally posted by zigzag:

If the conspiracy theories are valid, how come they can't be reconciled with each other, and how come none of them have been proven? It's mostly speculation, while the Oswald theory is supported by both physical and circumstantial evidence.

Yep, I've gradually come around to the lone gunman theory too, although there are plenty of suspicious things that happened surrounding the case. The most suspicious, I think, is Oswald's motive.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by finboy:
Yep, I've gradually come around to the lone gunman theory too, although there are plenty of suspicious things that happened surrounding the case. The most suspicious, I think, is Oswald's motive.

I think it was a simple obsession with Kennedy's anti-Castro/anti-Communist stance, accompanied by a drifter's desire to make his mark on history. This is a guy who defected to Russia, tried to commit suicide, couldn't make it here or there, handed out pro-Castro leaflets on the street, tried to assassinate General Walker, etc. The guy was not balanced.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that he thought it would be his ticket to Cuba, that he might be treated as a hero there. He had tried to defect to Cuba from Mexico but apparently he was too unbalanced even for the Cubans.

The great irony is that JFK was killed by an extreme left-winger in a city feared for its extreme right-wingers.

[zigzag]

Beating A Dead Horse Dept.:

I just watched the 2-hour ABC special on the assassination, which employed the most sophisticated re-enactment yet. Once again, it's confirmed that there were 3 shots and all came from the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. Connolly was in exactly the right position to be struck by the second shot after it passed straight through Kennedy's body - there was nothing magic about it. This is the bullet that was found on the stretcher. It was not pristine but was flattened at the top and had rifling marks that exactly matched Oswald's rifle.

The House Committee had concluded that the Warren Commission was correct when, at the very end of the hearings, some scientists claimed to have an audiotape showing a fourth shot from the grassy knoll. This served as the basis for their conclusion that there may have been a conspiracy. The tape was subsequently discredited and the ABC study further discredits it. Even the cop whose microphone generated the recording says he was a block away from where the original scientists claimed he was. Not surprisingly, those scientists declined to be interviewed for the show.

JFK was assassinated by a pathetic loser who was in turn murdered by another pathetic loser. This is hard for people to accept, but it's the sad truth.

Next to Oswald, the most shameful aspect of the case is probably Oliver Stone's movie, which is virtually a complete lie that caused an entire generation to think there was a vast conspiracy. It attempts to make a hero out of Jim Garrison, a political hack who tried an innocent man on trumped-up evidence. Even Garrison's movie speeches were fabricated. Stone is an irresponsible sh*thead. Even sadder is the fact that, true or false, it's a lousy movie!

[einmakom]

On a mildly different note, the Stone movie almost never got distributed.

Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA, threatened to keep it from being released with his stamp of approval.

Why? Because Jack Valenti got his start in the LBJ White House and didn't like how he was portrayed in Stone's movie.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Beating A Dead Horse Dept.:

I just watched the 2-hour ABC special on the assassination, which employed the most sophisticated re-enactment yet.

I just watched it too- great piece of work. The 3D animation demonstrating how the single bullet theory could have happened was pretty convincing- that's the best explanation of it I've ever seen. I wish they would have gone even further and used it to disprove that any of the shots could have come from the grassy knoll or anywhere else. It made me want to get my hands on that 3D mock up and play around with angles and trajectories myself. The guy who came up with that should release it in some commercial form: "Sim Assassination?"

I still thought they waxed over the 'back and to the left' movement of Kennedy's head a bit, and they made no attempt to explain that many qualified eye-witnesses recalled a gaping rear exit wound to the head, not a neat rear entry wound that the animation seemed to show.

That's the confounding thing about the entire subject- if all those on the 'conspiracy' side were total loose cannon nuts, it'd be easy to accept that everyone is lying. But I still find it hard to discount eye witnesses, medical experts, doctors, police officers and people whom one wouldn't normally expect to all be lying, and all be lying about the same things.

Still, maybe I've been had by the conspiracy theorists. I'm still undecided- chalking it up to having no clue for certain one way or another.

Have to say, that special did make Oliver Stone look like a complete jackass for touting up Jim Garrison. Dammit- I refuse to burn my copy of JFK though!

[xi_hyperon]

I am really glad I got to see the ABC presentation last night. The computer simulation alone was a great way to illustrate what happened. It went a long way in explaining the bullets' trajectory angle, and positions of both JFK and Connally in the car, something the Stone movie apparently totally distorts (I saw it a long time ago but don't remember details from it). Speaking of which, I never understood Stone's motivation for putting Garrison on a pedestal. The guy was crazy. All Stone did was end up discrediting himself and trivializing the whole incident.

Overall, the presentation helped resolve some questions in my mind. Still, others bother me but perhaps not as deeply. I've come to accept as many people have, that some questions just won't be answered, at least not to everyone's satisfaction. Life goes on.

P.S. I've always wondered why JFK and Connally, realizing they'd been shot, did not hunker down in the car seats. Perhaps Kennedy was not lucid enough, after all he'd been shot through the throat; but Connally was very aware of what was happening, even yelling "they're going to kill us both" to Kennedy. You'd think the first instinct would be to try to get out of harm's way, but then I've never been shot - so I can only speculate.