Why is it so important for some people that the Kennedy assassination

[Seeking Serenity]

HAD to be a conspiracy?

I've never understood why it's so hard to accept that a great man like Kennedy was killed by an insignificant loser like Oswald.

I've heard so many of the theories. But I've never understood why it's so important for some to believe it.

[DURHAM D]

1. Your framing is weird but

this is Democratic Underground, it was an important political event, and we are Democrats so discussion is normal.

Do you have a problem with that?

[Seeking Serenity]

5. No, no, not with the discussion.

Not at all. But I've had personal discussions with people and seen TV documentaries featuring people that absolutely refuse to accept even the possibility of Oswald acting alone.

And I always ask myself, "Why?"

[rurallib]

2. The Onion sums it all up

?4067

[ScreamingMeemie]

11. I know this Onion piece has been posted over and over again, and I believe Oswald acted alone,

but I find it utterly unfunny, tacky, and sick.

Making fun of some things will just never be funny.

[eqfan592]

14. You do understand the article isn't making fun of the assassination, but of conspiracy believers...

...right?

[reddread]

17. do you believe actual Democrats find Kennedy's murder a joking matter?

I have to doubt the bona fides of laughing jackasses when it comes to things like this.

[CFLDem]

32. It's funny

because the title is so ridiculous. Everyone deals with tragedy in their own ways.

[el_bryanto]

44. +1 I totally agree

Humor is subjective.

Bryant

[whathehell]

73. The Onion is written by people too young to remember or care

They're opinion on this matter means nothing to me.

[grasswire]

3. may I ask how old you are?

If you are a young person, you may not understand that the Kennedy assassination was the beginning of the loss of innocence for what was then the youthful generation, and the introduction of bitter skepticism about the veracity of those who should have had the best interests of the country at heart.

We were robbed, at that time, in that generation. The awakening to skepticism was brutal, and it will never go away.

[Seeking Serenity]

7. I'm 46.

I understand the loss of innocence and all, but that can be taken away just as easily by one man with a rifle as much as by a government conspiracy.

[grasswire]

12. a government conspiracy?

Respectfully, I don't think those who question the official story suspect a government conspiracy.

Some do suspect that some people within the government could have been involved. But it would have been on their own initiative in concert with other disaffected people. Not a government conspiracy.

Honestly, we were radicalized within a few years. "Question authority" became the norm. Why should we trust "leaders" who lie to us?

[grasswire]

16. And no.

It was not the assassination that took away our innocence.

It was the lies. Many lies.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. You weren't there, you don't understand.

First, the Warren Commission Report was crap. Start from there. Second, the assassination of Oswald by Ruby, in the basement of the Dallas Police Department, removing the prime suspect from any further direct investigation, on national fucking television, remains incomprehensible. Third, within five years Bobby and Martin were shot dead as well as we plunged into the maelstrom end of the 60's. What would be astonishing would be that nothing other than a lone gunman was involved in the assassinations of two Kennedy's and one King.

[arcane1]

52. Ruby still remains a puzzle to me.

As a kid, born in 1967, the conventional wisdom was that Ruby killed Oswald because he was just so damned angry at him for killing Kennedy. It was gospel, just like George Washington's cherry tree incident.

Needless to say, that view faded over time, for me at least.

Today, I still have no idea WTF happened, or who was involved.

[questionseverything]

53. twas the loss of

TRUTH

[BlueStreak]

58. Not to mention that the only bullet that was found and subjected to ballistics tests

wasn't found in a body or in any logical place around the assassination scene. It was found in a gurney at Parkland Hospital. I'm not a doctor, but I don't expect it would be so common for bullets to fall out of bodies like that. Journalist Seth Kantor knew Jack Ruby well and testified that he saw Ruby at Parkland Hospital. Ruby denies that and the commission evidently made no real effort to find out the truth. If Ruby was at the hospital and then at the police station, that would seem more than a little peculiar.

That doesn't prove Ruby planted that bullet. Anybody at the hospital could have done that, and one could imagine that the site was quite chaotic, so dropping a bullet near the action would be pretty easy for anybody to do.

[pangaia]

45. Very well put. Thank you.

[BlueStreak]

56. Same reason that some people cringe whenever they hear that mindless "American exceptionalism" crap

Hell, most of these Warren Commission cheerleaders probably don't even know that the first director of the FBI held that position from 1924 until he died in 1972 -- 48 freaking years, and in many respects was more powerful that most of the SEVEN Presidents who held the nominally top position during his reign.

This country has been a crooked, corrupt place its entire history. It doesn't take any imagination at all to think that there might be powerful interests that would be willing to knock off a brash, young, charismatic, but "unreliable if you know what I mean" President if that was the best way to retain their control over power and wealth.

The burden of proof was on the Government. They did not made their case. Simple as that. 62% of the people today disbelieve the Warren report, which is remarkable considering that half the country wasn't even alive then. The Warren story is utterly implausible on any level. That doesn't get us any closer to knowing the whole truth, but it is preposterous to start with the assumption that the Warren Commission was anything more than a show. Even many of those who had good reason to believe that there was much more to the story than met the eye feared for what could happen if America's dark underbelly were exposed. It was the ultimate "You can't handle the truth" moment.

And with regard to the various other theories, no doubt some of them were planted by the government in order to discredit "conspiracy theories" in a blanket way. Disinformation has been S.O.P. for a long time.

[whathehell]

76. Thank you for educating those too young to remember it. n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

4. We want truth.

Truth is important. Very important. And the official narratives left gaping holes.

You are insinuating that the official narrative is unassailable. It's not.

[eqfan592]

15. The "conspiracy of the gaps" argument. nt

[Cooley Hurd]

70. Riddle me this: Kennedy didn't invade Cuba during Bay of Pigs OR the Cuban Missile Crisis...

...yet Oswald was in favor of "Fair Play for Cuba".

Riddle me this?

[eqfan592]

71. Yeah, because people, especially those that are very mentally ill...

...are always rational

[sabrina 1]

80. No, but they make great tools for people who don't want to their own dirty work, for obvious

reasons.

Would you even try to hire a rational person to murder the POTUS? Your argument makes no sense.

[eqfan592]

84. Are you joking?

I was asked rationalize the actions of an irrational person, and by highlighting his irrationality, my argument "makes no sense" in your book.

Seriously, I couldn't make that shit up if I tried.

[sabrina 1]

86. No, I'm not joking. If you wanted to hire a hitman, would you be looking for someone rational

who is clearly someone who thinks through in a rational manner, or would you be more likely to seek out someone who is obviously not rational, even delusional and could be persuaded they will go down in history as a great hero, eg if they carry out a 'heroic' act?

I sure would be afraid to approach a rational person who might decide I am up to no good and report me as any rational person would, to law enforcement.

Otoh, someone with Oswald's character would suit me just fine, easily influenced as he was by certain 'beliefs'. Of course I would worry that if he were caught afterwards he might spill the beans. Irrational people can be useful, (name any hit man you consider to be rational. I can't think of one) but they also can't be depended on not to spill the beans once in the hands of law enforcement.

All of this is just speculation of course, as is everything YOU have presented.

The bottom line is that apparently the Government did not make its case which is why a majority of people do not believe their 'findings'.

[eqfan592]

88. Everything i presented? Literally NOTHING i presented was speculation!

In fact, I've presented exactly ONE thing, which was the verified fact that he was mentally ill.

You're either confusing me for someone else, or you're reading comprehension is completely lacking.

[sabrina 1]

90. Do you have a link to that fact? I agree he did not act rationally but I have never seen

a clinical verification of the state of his mental health. Not saying he wasn't subjected to testing but I have never seen it.

I believe he had mental issues that as far as I know, were never treated.

[eqfan592]

93. Here's one.

This one when he was a child.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr16.html

Lee has to be diagnosed as personality pattern disturbance with schizoid features and passive--aggressive. Lee has to be seen as an emotionally, quite disturbed youngster who suffers under the impact of really existing emotional isolation and deprivation; lack of affection, absence of family life and rejection by a self-involved and conflicted mother.

There was another from his adulthood as well. Once I track that one down again, I'll let you know.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Did you know that the United States House Select Committee concluded that there was a conspiracy?

The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Committee investigated until 1978 and issued its final report, and concluded that Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

However, the Committee noted that it believed that the conspiracy did not include the governments of the Soviet Union or Cuba.

The Committee also stated it did not believe the conspiracy was organized by any organized crime group, nor any anti-Castro group, but that it could not rule out individual members of any of these two groups acting together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations#General_conclusions

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Did you know that the only evidence they had to make that conclusion turned out to be non-credible?

The HSCA conspiracy conclusion is not the trump card you think it is.

[reddread]

13. nobody knows that, because it ISNT TRUE

whole cloth fabrications, are they the latest style?
pathetic.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. I haven't said anything that isn't true.

The Dictabelt recorded a police motorcycle that was two miles away from Dealey Plaza. It's useless as evidence of what went on there. That's the only evidence that compelled the HSCA to conclude conspiracy. In all other major areas, they confirmed the Warren Commission's conclusions.

That's the truth. Deal with it.

[NYC_SKP]

18. I never called it a trump card. I offer it for to the author of this OP for it's context.

Over the years there have been plenty of inquiries and plenty of reasons that people still doubt the findings of the Warren Report.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. I called it a trump card because that's how you're using it.

The context is no longer operative.

[reddread]

10. the actual conclusion of an investigation hobbled by CIA intransigence and supervised by Joannides

"The Committee also stated it did not believe the conspiracy was organized by any organized crime group, nor any anti-Castro group, but that it could not rule out individual members of any of these two groups acting together"

It certainly could not rule that out.
maybe if the CIA had assisted rather than stonewalled,
and Joannides had been subpoenaed to answer questions
rather than placed in a position to assist GHWB who was running the CIA.
all this BS falls apart when you examine the HSCA's actual history.

a slight taste of it here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024074265

[Scuba]

9. Put your faith in one who seeks the truth. Doubt anyone who claims to have found it.

[eqfan592]

19. Question anyone who only communicates through quotes...

...that they must feel are incredibly profound.

[Scuba]

20. Question everyone.

[scarletwoman]

24. Above all, question authority.

[ZombieHorde]

68. I think the first questions we should ask of authority are

1. What is authority?
2. Where does authority come from?
3. How is authority transferred?
4. How does authority end?

Basically, I think we should question the nature of authority.

[eqfan592]

25. Question some, get beer and party with others.

[Upward]

51. Keeping the Party Going Is Way More Important Than Truth

[BlueStreak]

60. That's a great quote.

Question anyone who only communicates through quotes...
...that they must feel are incredibly profound.

Mind if I use it?

[eqfan592]

61. lol be my guest. :)

[noise]

21. If all roads led

to a lone assassin then so be it. The idea isn't hard to accept at all. Today I skimmed the TIME magazine article on the never ending JFK assassination conspiracy theories. The author of the article theorizes that people just aren't satisfied with the notion that a nobody like Oswald murdered JFK.

The problem is that the more you look at the case the less credible the lone nut theory becomes. So it turns out that people aren't satisfied with media that are more concerned with protecting the powerful than anything else.

[Seeking Serenity]

22. I have heard that. The lack of balance

The asymmetry. The most powerful man in the free world being killed by a loner nobody? It doesn't balance. Thus, the need to add some heft to Oswald's side of the equation to make it balance?

[ZombieHorde]

69. I think this view comes from a misunderstanding of

the nature of power.

[Spider Jerusalem]

48. I found the opposite to be true, personally.

I saw "JFK" in the cinema when it came out. Then I read Jim Garrison's "On the Trail of the Assassins". And Groden and Livingstone's "High Treason". And a few other books that dealt with the case from the POV of conspiracy. I believed there was a conspiracy for years. Then I read the Warren Report and Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" and discovered all sorts of things that were left out of those conspiracy-oriented books, or deliberately distorted and misrepresented. For instance, conspiracy authors claim a majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza heard shots from the grassy knoll. That's just not true, on the basis of witness testimony and interviews; the majority of witnesses heard shots from the area of the TSBD. Witnesses saw a rifle in the sixth-floor window. Some of those witnesses saw the man holding it, not just the barrel protruding from the window. Conspiracy authors never mention that. Or the fact that Oswald left his wedding ring and nearly every penny he had in the world on Marina's nightstand. All the evidence omitted from the standard conspiracy versions of the assassination points to Oswald.

[Schema Thing]

65. actually the more you look at the case, the more credible

the lone nut theory becomes.

[scarletwoman]

23. Why is it so important for some people

that others stop questioning the official story?

I've already seen that you didn't live through that time. If you weren't alive then, and old enough to be aware, then I don't think you can possibly understand the perceptions and thoughts and feelings of those of who WERE alive and aware on 11-22-63.

Let us be. We'll die off soon enough, and you'll be able to lay claim to the official story that seems so important to you when there's no one left who questions it.

I was 14 when JFK was shot. No one gets to tell me not to think what I think about an event I lived through.

If you are truly "seeking serenity", then you can start by not trying to change what cannot be changed.

[Seeking Serenity]

26. I merely asked why some people are so committed to the conspiracy idea.

Not trying to change what you or anyone else believe.

[MindMover]

31. Committed to learning the truth ...

It is not a theory that this Dr. witnessed JFK's lifeless body ...

http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html

[scarletwoman]

38. In your OP you ask, why it is "so hard to accept that a great man like Kennedy was killed by an...

insignificant loser like Oswald."

Which implies, to me, that you would prefer that those folks would just get with the program and accept the "truth" as you see it.

Otherwise, why even ask the question? You wonder why there are people who won't accept the official story. Why would you wonder about it unless it bothered you?

[cynatnite]

36. I think what I hate worse is being told "you weren't alive so you don't know"...

Maybe because you lived through it and the turmoil afterwards means that you're too close to it to think clearly about it.

Maybe those of us who weren't alive and didn't have that emotional connection that you and others do can look at it objectively.

Our perception of an event that happened before we were born is no less valid than those who witnessed it.

[scarletwoman]

39. So, history should only be recounted by those who did not live through it

because they're more objective?

[cynatnite]

40. I never said that...

I'm saying don't invalidate our opinions because we weren't alive to witness it.

Besides, plenty of history has been written by those who weren't alive to witness it.

[scarletwoman]

47. I'm not trying to invalidate YOUR opinion, I'm just fighting back against those

who would invalidate MY opinion.

It doesn't bother me that people believe the Warrent Commission, I really don't care.

But it seems that those folks who believe the Warren Commission ARE bothered by people like me who don't hold it as the end-all-be-all of the "truth".

[DesertFlower]

27. i'm 72 years old. the warren commission report

never felt right to me. call it a gut feeling. there was an interesting documentary on Reelz tv today called "JFK - the smoking gun". it was interesting and made a lot of sense.

[shraby]

67. I'm 71 and it never felt right to me then either, and nothing in government has been

right since.
That Democrat assassinated; the next one was a very good man but vilified by the press and right wing; the next was Clinton who they tried to accuse him of everything under the sun and finally attempted to impeach him; this one they talk impeachment about even tho he's done nothing wrong and try their best to not let him govern.
It all started with that assassination that was done by a lone nut? Give me a break. The media and right wing have been lying to us from that day on.

[MindMover]

28. And the Dr. who witnessed Kennedy's lifeless body ...

http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html

[Warren DeMontague]

29. What is the definition of a conspiracy?

It means, at its core, more than one person was involved.

Funny lots of people think they're scoring points today going "JFK conspiracy? Thats just as ludicrous as a 9-11 conspiracy, hyuk yuk!"

Except, 9-11 WAS a conspiracy. A bunch of people conspired to hijack, and crash those planes.

With JFK, I don't know. Maybe Oswald acted totally in a vacuum, and did it all. But to look at that dude's history and not think it was exceedingly odd.... I don't know how anyone could get that.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

30. You're approaching this from the wrong direction

I don't personally know of anyone who is bent on the idea of conspiracy for conspiracy's sake. A conspiracy is heavily suggested by the facts we do know and the by gaping holes where we lack knowledge. There's no reason a lone nut couldn't get to the President if he got lucky, but that's not what the Oswald story leads me to believe.

[enough]

33. As someone who was a young person of voting age at the time it happened, I highly recommend

Charles Pierce's piece today in Esquire. I saw this thanks to Will Pitt's post on DU today. Notice that Pierce addresses your exact question "why it's so hard to accept that a great man like Kennedy was killed by an insignificant loser like Oswald."


http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/anniversary-of-jfk-assassination-112213

a couple of excerpts>

The Warren Commission was a natural outgrowth of a mentality that had infected the government from the moment that the government decided that it would build, in secret, a weapon that would not only win World War II, but also have the potential to end civilization if it -- or the men who allegedly were in control of it -- ever ran amok. What historian Garry Wills calls the "Bomb Power" was based from its beginnings in the notion that there were things about their government that the American people need not know. From this came an irresistible impulse to treat the American people -- for whom the Founders intended all of what John Adams called "the awful knowledge" about their leaders -- like fragile children who must be protected at all costs from what their government found necessary to do on their behalf. From this has come a hundred commissions and boards and gatherings of the shamans of the security state -- the slow bureaucratic response to the Watergate crimes, the Tower Commission on Iran-Contra, even the Simpson-Bowles budget commission -- all of which sprang from the notion that the nation's elite should conduct the nation's business in as quiet a manner as possible, so as not to disturb the horses or wake the children. The Warren Commission was the first of these, and it did its job very well. What unruly bloggers call The Village can be said to have been founded in the premise that the American people needed to be shielded, for their own good, from the full knowledge of the facts surrounding the murder of their president in broad daylight in the streets of an American city.

snip>

One argument with which I have no patience is that the distrust of the Warren Commission, a distrust that has remained remarkably consistent for five decades, is based in our disbelief that a great leader could be gunned down by an ordinary schmoe with a cheap rifle. This. we are told, is too much for our delicate sensibilities to handle. This is arrant, infantilizing nonsense. At the time of his death, John Kennedy had a national security establishment that was a writhing ball of snakes. (Not for nothing did he insist that his White House cooperate with the filming of Seven Days In May.) There were the ongoing plots against Castro in which his brother was intimately involved. There is a contemporary memo for something called Operation Northwoods that called for what we would now call "false flag" operations within the United States, including blowing up John Glenn on the launching pad in Florida, that could be blamed on Cuba and used as a pretext to invade. You can see a copy of it in the John F. Kennedy Library. Since then, we have seen Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra. Richard Nixon sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks to help him get elected, and Ronald Reagan's people may have done the same thing with the release of the hostages in Iran. Don't tell this generation that we don't believe the Warren Commission out of some mushy, mythical notion of proportionality. There is no proportionality to the deceptions involved in official murder. We've read enough Graham Greene to know that. We watched enough happen on the television. We can see a church by daylight.

snip>

end of quotes



It's not that people MUST believe in a conspiracy, but that, if you were alive and sentient at the time, you knew enough BEFORE the assassination to know that a simple-minded politically neutral explanation of the event would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in order have any credibility. The network of complex, interwoven, rabid and festering hatreds was vividly real BEFORE the event. If you didn't live at that time, you would not believe the virulent level of multi-faceted hatred operating in the country at the time. This was not post-assassination theorizing. When the official explanation attempted to make everyone forget what was already known about the ongoing lethal political atmosphere, it stopped being believable.

[cynatnite]

34. Maybe for some it's impossible to consider that it was one person who did the shooting. n/t

[villager]

42. Because it became a pattern, always benefiting the same political actors

And that pattern changed our subsequent history.

Those same political actors would later rig/steal elections further changing it.

Quite the series of coincidences, eh?

That's why it's so important to "some people."

[PeteSelman]

43. Why is it so important to some that it WASN'T?

It's seems so narrow minded and foolish to just blindly accept the word of an obviously corrupt and evil government. Follow the money.

[Myrina]

50. ^^ This ^^

As the "Deep Throat" character said in Oliver Stone's JFK ... who benefitted?
Who had the means, the motive, and ultimately WHO benefitted from the removal of JFK from the Presidency?
It wasn't 'some loser from Dallas' who claimed from the beginning that he was a patsy & was never actually charged with killing Kennedy. Oswald denied having anything to do with it ... that doesn't sound like the actions of a 'loser' who wants his 15 minutes of fame.

It was more likely a group of very wealthy and powerful folks who wanted to become more wealthy and more powerful, and JFK's policies were in their way.

Look at the Executive Decisions that were left unsigned. Look at the policies that were reversed by LBJ within days of JFK's death.

[former9thward]

46. The truth is important for some people.

For others not important at all.

[fascisthunter]

49. dumb

[GP6971]

54. For my family

the trigger was that all documents were to be sealed for 50 years......I believe it's now 75 years. They were big Kennedy supporters and their opinion was "what is the government hiding"?

[dflprincess]

55. Three members of the Warren Commission

expressed their doubts that the Commission's conclusions were correct.

John Sherman Cooper, Richarch Russell and Hale Boggs. All three complained about the way the FBI was allowed to control the investigation - Boggs said J. Edgar Hoover "lied his eyes out" to the Commission; Cooper and Russell both publicly said they did not believe Oswald acted alone.

The Warren Commission never really asked "Who killed JFK?", it only asked "How do we prove Oswald did it?"

[madville]

57. At this point it doesn't matter

It was before I was born, everything has changed in the world and in politics since then, it's really just a historical bookmark, it was 50 years ago, let's move on and focus on the present

[dflprincess]

59. "Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it"

And what happened 50 years ago today has a lot to do with where we are now and where we're going.

[grasswire]

91. your country today...

....is what it is because of what happened in Dallas. America will never be free of the aftermath until the truth is finally known, no matter what it is. You cannot blithely exist as if it is settled. It, like racism and bigotry, is a festering sore that affects the land.

[Octafish]

62. Because that's what the FACTS show.

Why is it so important for some people that the Kennedy assassination HAD to be a lone nut?

The facts don't show that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

72. Which "facts" are those?

Name one.

[Octafish]

77. For starters: The FBI destroyed evidence.

The Hosty Note.

That's evidence of obstruction of justice.

If you want to learn more, try some of these books:

Rush to Judgment -- Mark Lane

Accessories After the Fact -- Sylvia Meagher

On the Trail of the Assassins -- Jim Garrison

Whitewash -- Harold Weisberg

The Echo From Dealey Plaza -- Abraham Bolden

Plausible Denial -- Mark Lane

Spy Saga -- Philip Melanson

Treachery in Dallas -- Walt Brown

The Man Who Knew Too Much -- Dick Russell

JFK and Vietnam -- John M. Newman

Deep Politics and the Death of JFK -- Peter Dale Scott

Oswald and the CIA -- John M. Newman

The Last Investigation -- Gaeton Fonzi

Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case -- James DiEugenio

Deadly Secrets -- Warren Hinckle and William Turner

Act of Treason -- Mark North

JFK -- Fletcher Prouty

Not in Your Lifetime -- Anthony Summers

Crossfire -- Jim Marrs

High Treason -- Harrison Edward Livingstone and Robert J. Groden

High Treason 2 -- Harrison Edward Livingstone

The Killing of a President -- Robert J. Groden

Coup d'Etat in America -- Alan J. Weberman and Michael Canfield

First Hand Knowledge: How I Participated in the CIA-Mafia Murder of President Kennedy -- Robert D. Morrow

Who Killed JFK? -- Carl Oglesby

Brothers -- David Talbot

A Farewell to Justice -- Joan Mellen

Family of Secrets -- Russ Baker

Breach of Trust -- Gerald D. McKnight

Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA -- Jefferson Morley

Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam -- Gareth Porter

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters -- James Douglass

The Last Word -- Mark Lane

Nexus: The CIA and Political Assassination -- Larry Hancock

Crime and Cover-Up -- Peter Dale Scott

JFK vs. CIA: The Central Intelligence Agency's Assassination of the President -- Michael Calder

[Spider Jerusalem]

78. And?

That's pretty weak. Especially since most of the other "facts" I've seen you claim aren't facts at all. (Like the "Oswald impersonation" that didn't happen.)

[Octafish]

79. The Warren Commission says Oswald shot three times in six seconds.

Including this bullet, which is alleged to have caused 7 wounds in 2 men. Yet, no one else can get a bullet to do that.



Of course, it would require a conspiracy for a bullet in pristine condition to be found on a hospital gurney that was not used to carry President Kennedy or Gov. Connally, but that's something you can look up.

[Spider Jerusalem]

85. 8.3 seconds.

The elapsed time between the two shots that hit was estimated as 5.6 seconds. This is well within the capability of even an average marksman.

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100timing.html

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot6.html

CE399? Not pristine.



Bullet trajectory? Lines up perfectly with the path of the bullet from the sixth-floor window based on Kennedy's position at the time he was hit, the location of the entry wound in his upper back and the exit wound in his throat; Connally was sitting six inches below and three inches to the left and was turned to his right when he was struck--by a tumbling bullet; no "bullet wipe" on the entry wound, which was oblate, indicating that the bullet was tumbling, which means it had already hit something: Kennedy. Bullet deflects along a rib and breaks it, exits under the nipple, strikes his wrist...at a much lower velocity.

Here is a 6.5mm Carcano round, loaded with a reduced charge of propellant, fired through the wrist of a cadaver at approximately 1100fps:



See also John Lattimer's tests of the single bullet hypothesis, which concluded that yes, in fact, a single bullet could cause all those wounds while exhibiting the same sort of deformation as CE399 (which was missing up to nearly 3 grains of weight compared to an intact and undeformed bullet, see here.

[Octafish]

89. LOL. That's what BUGLIOSI ASSUMES in his book.

It's not what the FBI said, based on its analysis of the Zapruder film. What Italian experts using Mannlicher-Carcanos found it took about 19 seconds to fire three shots:

Oswald 'had no time to fire all Kennedy bullets'

By Tim Shipman in Washington
The Telegraph, 1 Jul 2007

Lee Harvey Oswald could not have acted alone in assassinating President John F Kennedy, according to a new study by Italian weapons experts of the type of rifle Oswald used in the shootings.

In fresh tests of the Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action weapon, supervised by the Italian army, it was found to be impossible for even an accomplished marksman to fire the shots quickly enough.

The findings will fuel continuing theories that Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy to murder the 35th American president on 22 November 1963.

The official Warren Commission inquiry into the shooting concluded the following year that Oswald was a lone gunman who fired three shots with a Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle in 8.3 seconds.

But when the Italian team test-fired the identical model of gun, they were unable to load and fire three shots in less than 19 seconds - suggesting that a second gunman must have been present in Dealey Plaza, central Dallas, that day.

CONTINUED...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556184/Oswald-had-no-time-to-fire-all-Kennedy-bullets.html

Learn what the experts say about Bugliosi: http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/

[Spider Jerusalem]

92. Easily refuted.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm

This claim of "19 seconds" is completely bogus and made-up. Multiple tests have been conducted, both with similar rifles, and with Oswald's rifle. Three shots in under 8.3 seconds? Not difficult, at all. Time to cycle the bolt, reacquire the target, fire another shot, using the scope, 2.3 seconds, from FBI tests. Iron sights, 1.75 seconds, from tests conducted by the HSCA. Average time for three aimed shots with two hits, from tests conducted by CBS news using 11 different shooters and similar but not identical rifles? 5.6 seconds.

[zappaman]

94. When did you read Bugliosi's book, my friend? n/t

[Octafish]

95. An expert read it and told me it's bogus.

Actually, a lot of experts:

http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/

Are you an expert in anything, zappaman? Be honest.

[zappaman]

96. Oh, so you comment on things you haven't read.

Why am I not surprised???

[eqfan592]

97. Would love to see your response to post 92.

Or are you ignoring it as it completely destroys part of your argument?

[The Midway Rebel]

98. Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply.

You might die.

[zappaman]

99. You will never get an answer...that's his M.O.

At most, you will get links to previous posts that have fuckall to do with your question.
The emperor has no clothes.

[Octafish]

100. Why waste time?

Based on his response, Spider Jerusalem either isn't interested in discussing what I wrote about or didn't understand the articles and books I've referenced.

Going by what you've posted on this thread, eqfan52, I don't believe you are familiar with the important information learned since the publication of the Warren Commission report.

What a coincidence, that's not my problem, either.

[eqfan592]

103. Yeah, that's what i thought.

Enjoy your woo.

[Spider Jerusalem]

105. You clearly don't understand them.

Because they're directly contradicted by this thing called EVIDENCE. "impossible to load and fire the rifle in under 19 seconds"? When multiple independent tests have shown no such thing, that it can be done in less time than the probably 8.3 seconds of the shots, and even the 5.6 seconds between the two shots that hit? If you think it takes 19 seconds to get off three shots with a bolt-action rifle, I submit that you are totally ignorant of firearms. The only way it could possibly take that long would be if the feed mechanism was jammed and each round had to be fed manually into the chamber from the top with the bolt open.

[eqfan592]

109. Hell, even in that situation i could probably still get 3 shots off faster...

...than 19 seconds! It's just a ludicrous number that only appeals to people with little to no understanding of firearms. Any "expert" that tries to sell that line is not worthy of any level of trust.

[RobertEarl]

101. Hmmm

No scope. Could get off shots but not with the same accuracy as Oswald is said to have had. Even tho the guys were not under any pressure.

And their targets were not moving.

You are welcome.

[eqfan592]

102. Did you watch a different video?

Moving target, with scope, faster times and similar accuracy. Basically the exact opposite of everything you said.

Also, move of them had prior familiarity with the rifle. That's a huge factor.

You're welcome.

[RobertEarl]

104. Just read the words on link.

Did you read the words at link?

Why not go to link and copy then paste here?

[eqfan592]

106. Why not watch the video that I'm clearly referring to?

Why not comment on it honestly? I'm not interested in the link as is the video that I've clearly been talking about all along.

[Spider Jerusalem]

107. There is a video.

Of a shooter with a Carcano with a scope, at the same elevation as the 6th floor TSBD window, firing at a moving target, on a track, at the same distance JFK would have been, moving at the same speed of 11-12mph.

[Spider Jerusalem]

108. What experts?

Your mate DiEugenio who claims that Oswald never owned any rifle, that the order slip and the money order with Oswald's handwriting and the rifle being shipped to Oswald's post office box and the photos and negatives of Oswald with the rifle and his wife's testimony that he owned the rifle are all faked and forged and a frame? The experts who told you that Oswald was "impersonated" in Mexico city and never mentioned that he was identified positively by multiple people from the Cuban consulate, that his photo was on his visa application, that his signature was on it as well as on a hotel register? If these are the "experts" you rely on then it's no wonder you can't really come up with anything but easily debunked nonsense.

[elias7]

63. I think it would be incumbent upon investigators to prove it wasn't a hit

When an important and controversial person is assassinated, the hit man is irrelevant; what is relevant is who ordered the hit.

The Kennedy assassination makes much more sense when thought about in that context.

[Spider Jerusalem]

74. You can't prove a negative.

You can draw inferences from the evidence that make it highly unlikely. "Prove there wasn't a conspiracy" is like saying "prove god doesn't exist".

[YOHABLO]

64. Oswald was getting ready to sing .. that's why Ruby took him out. duh.

[MrMickeysMom]

66. What people desire is the truth, which is a lot different than ...

"something to believe in", like religion, or ancient aliens, or that the love of money is the root of all evil.

This is quite different than believing in simply a theory.

What I believe in is that using your own intellect, a person has the ability to find answers to questions others may have little interest in, such as you might.

The majority of Americans and I seek the truth about a lot of things I've lived through in life. Having followed by reading much about Dallas Tx 50 years ago, I would like to know about the motive of removing President Kennedy.

[whathehell]

75. Your framing is strange...There is no "need" to believe it's a conspiracy and about 70 to 80 %

of the American people do. I think a lot of people are too young and/or too uninterested to do anything

but shrug and accept the "official" version. They don't remember it, they didn't feel the pain of it -- It's ancient

history to them and they just don't care.

[Politicalboi]

81. Why is it important that you believe

Oswald did it? The Warren Commission was put together by people who hated JFK. But you go on and continue to believe getting shot from behind makes your head and body snap back instead of falling forward in his seat. I bet you think fire takes down steel and concrete buildings too.

[U4ikLefty]

82. look at the "no conspiracy" people here on DU

they post a huge percentage of post in regards to the JFK assassination than any "CT'er" (insulting term).

They are the one's who find this important. They are the ones who spam the threads with their BS. They need the gov't line to be true. They are the FEW who dominate the JFK threads.

[arthritisR_US]

83. If there is a hidden history behind his death then

to circumvent repeating past mistakes you have to recognize what they were.

[hughee99]

87. I think it was Karl Rove using the government's time machine,

which is stored in the same top secret facility as their weather machine.

[WillyT]

110. Did Not Have To Be... Release EVERY DOCUMENT RELEVANT...Right Now..

No questions asked...

Then we'll talk.

[ancianita]

111. I think it's you who thinks they HAVE to believe. Believe me, conspiracy was the last thing on

most of the minds of people who were old enough to grasp the politics of the Kennedy era. If conspiracy is even the right word. I like to think "coup," which can cover a whole wider range of participants who had no direct knowledge of the assassination, but who had both plausible deniability and benefitted enough from it to steer this country more into the direction they wanted.

[HangOnKids]

112. You don't understand it

GREAT. Others have a different understanding. Your post is a hoot!