Should we really give the whole country a pass on reason when it comes to JFK conspiracies?

[DanTex]

92. I saw that documentary.

I don't blame you for giving it credence, but I do blame the people who made it, because it is people like them that are responsible for spreading misinformation and keeping rumors of conspiracy alive. It did make what seemed to be a compelling case, but that's only because the audience was assumed to not be familiar with any of the actual evidence. In reality, the level of journalistic integrity there was somewhere between Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

A few brief problems.

First, that theory required that Oswald only fired two shots, which the documentary explained by claiming that one of the shell casings wasn't actually fired, and that Oswald was just keeping it in the gun to keep the barrel clean. But we know that he fired three shots, not just because there were three shell casings found on the floor, but also because there were three employees of the TSBD watching the procession from the window directly below Oswald who all heard three loud shots fired above them. One of them, who was familiar with guns, also heard clicking from reloading, and the sound of shell casings dropping to the floor. Another one of them had some dust or residue drop on his head from the floor shaking above him from the shots. The fact that the producers of the documentary omitted that evidence while trying to claim that only two shots were fired should be reason enough to be extremely skeptical of anything else they present.

Second, the doc makes a big deal of the fact that a bunch of witnesses say they saw that Secret Service officer holding the AR-15 before the third shot was fired, even though the officer's statement said he didn't have it out until after. And maybe the witnesses were right -- it was a matter of seconds, after all. What the doc doesn't mention is that none of the witnesses actually heard or saw the AR-15 fire a shot. This includes not only bystanders, but also the other people riding in the same car, who were asked about this when the theory came out, and who stated that they obviously would have noticed a rifle being fired right next to them and that it didn't happen.

About the head wound, the obvious reason why the head bullet broke up while the "magic" bullet didn't is that the head bullet went straight into JFK's skull, while the "magic" bullet went through soft tissue. The documentary also fails to mention that two fragments of a full metal jacketed bullet were found in JFK's car, and that ballistics matched those fragments to Oswald's gun. Again this is conclusive evidence that Oswald fired both shots that hit JFK, and along with the first shot that missed, that makes three Oswald shots and zero shots from anywhere else. And, I hope that you'll agree, from the point of journalistic integrity, failing to mention the bullet fragments that matched Oswald's rifle is a pretty serious "error".

The trajectory thing was a simple mistake. The guy who came up with the theory was an expert on guns, not an expert on photography, so he has no particular expertise in figuring out the angle of JFK's head from the Zapruder film. The House Select Committee on Assassinations had the film reviewed by a panel of photographic experts, who confirmed that the angle of his head was such that the bullet trajectory lined up with Oswald.

And so on. I don't remember all the other details, but you get the idea.

The broader point is, it's pretty easy to make a documentary that selects a few witnesses out of hundreds, and ignores major pieces of forensic evidence, and presents what appears to be a persuasive case for one theory or another. And that's what most of the conspiracy stuff boils down to.