conspiracy

I saw somebody else give a nod to a good book, so I will too. Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination From a Historian’s Perspective
by Michael L. Kurtz is excellent. It is admittedly a tougher read than a lot of the fluff JFK books written by journalists and the like. It is very fact based, so at times when it is going into detail about specific medical evidence it is kind of hard to read. I still enjoyed it immensely and learned more from that one book than I had from the first 6 or 7 books I had read about it combined.

If you have a limited attention span, just read his intro, the summaries at the end of every chapter, and the concluding chapter and you will have a decently solid understanding. He doesn't claim to know who was behind the conspiracy; rather, he points the immense physical, medical and acoustical evidence to the fact that there were multiple shooters. He does offer a few possibilities of who may have been behind it perhaps, but doesn't present these as fact.

Kids, kids, kids.
Deep breaths.

There are plenty of good sources which back up the lone gunman theory.
The fact that no one has yet to cite one would tend to indicate which direction you people want to look. It's an interesting idiosyncracy of this murder: You can find "facts" which will lead you toward your preconceived notions.



Step away from the Oliver Stone movie, little fella.
The vast majority of witnesses heard three shots. There have been good scientific investigations which demonstrate how all three shots could have, and most likely did, come from Oswald's rifle.



Extremely interesting and well made doc. on Discovery Channel a few years ago: Unsolved History: JFK — Beyond the Magic Bullet. It shows, scientifically how the single bullet theory was possible, and likely. This finding was also backed up with more science, in ABC's '03 doc. on the same subject.
Oliver Stone intentionally distorted the position of Connally in relation to JFK in order to "debunk" the magic bullet. How many of you knew that?

Allen Dulles response when asked about the Warren Commissions report and how he could release it so full of inconsistencies:

"The American people don't read."

BTW, that Discovery Channel documentary was the biggest piece of garbage ever. Talk about a huge bias. Ugh..that was brutal

David, Chris, look who's side you're on. LOL.



By golly, you've totally debunked it.

Would you like to respond to my post about the Corsican Mafia? And how some of Howard Hunt's last words corresponds with it?

Like I said, that is something none of the critics against the conspiracy have ever touched on

Haha! You've debunked it!

I think my understanding of the facts on this are rational, and I stop at the point where I'm forced to speculate about WHO was behind the killing.

Three shots or six shots, it doesn't matter much. It was three shots from a bolt-action rifle, two direct hits, in six seconds, against a target moving across the field of fire, and the wounds don't jibe with the position of the shooter. The fact that the autopsy report doesn't jibe with the films of the shooting just add to teh questions.

Whoever Oswald was working with, didn't want him telling his tale, so he ends up whacked by a mobster two days later.

I'm not basing my beliefs on any crazy Oliver Stone versions of secret events or meetings or "Deep Throat" type informants. All of this is in the public record and well known by everyone.

I've always felt it required more mental gymnastics to believe that it was a single shooter than that it was two or three. That's how I assess reasonableness.

That's just wrong, plain and simple.
You haven't researched this issue, plain and simple.



The Oswald theory is evidentially verified. The same cannot be said for the multiple shooter theory. Plain and simple.

I haven't, but many others, surely more credentialed than I, have.

There is, obviously, a certain segment of the population who refuse to listen to logic, reason, science on this issue (the same can be said of any good conspiracy theory).

Odds are...very good...that Oswald was the only shooter that day. Did someone else know that he was going to do it? It's possible, I suppose.

dont over analyze this people.. it was the driver . in plain sight

I don't have a theory, but it's funny how so many people are now certain that Oswald couldn't have done it himself. Is it really so hard to believe than a guy trained in the army to shoot might have just made a couple excellent shots?

It is quite conceivable, nay even likely that one can get off several shots in rapid sucession with a bolt action rifle. The main issue is that the act of removing ones hand from the stock and operating the action tends to cause one to deviate from the target. This however, I would imagine can be sufficiently mitigated by being supported by a table, windowframe, etc.

Don't tell me what I've researched and what I haven't.

Which part is wrong, just plain wrong?


I'm sure you'd agree that the term "evidentially verified" is not "plain and simple" even in and of itself.

If only they had Grisholm from CSI at the scene at the time of the assasination.

On the question of where the shots that killed the President came from, 38 could give no clear opinion and 32 thought they came from the Texas School Book Depository Building (TSBDB). Fifty-one held the shots sounded as if the came from west of the Depository, the area of the grassy knoll on Elm Street, the area directly on the right of the President's car when the bullets struck...

I've done plenty of research on this, and it is very clear to me that there was without a doubt a conspiracy. I'm not endorsing a crazy notion that it was LBJ or a vast conspiracy by the FBI, CIA, Mob and every other organization in the world. However, scientifically speaking, there was more than one shooter. So call it a conspiracy.

Nothing I say is based on the wonderful fiction movie that was JFK. Sounds like everything you say is based off of the fiction that was the Discovery Channel program. That show was so ridiculously one sided. Watch it again, as they talk and FIGURE OUT how to make their hypothesis happen. They are just as guilty as Oliver Stone for bending the truth. Except they are even worse, because they are expected to be a reputable source.

The six second time frame is incorrect. People base this on the assumption that the first shot fired was the one that hit Kennedy in the throat(as soon as he emerges from behind the sign). And then 6 seconds later came the headshot, with a second shot fired inbetween. The truth is, the first shot missed. Then Kennedy and Connally were hit by the second bullet(they reacted at the exact same time, watch the video) and then Kennedy was hit in the head with the third shot. So the total time was more like 8 or 9 seconds. And if you watch the zapruder film you will see clearly the back of Kennedy's head, and it does not blow off. And if you pause it right before the head shot, and watch it frame by frame, you will see that when he gets hit in the head, his head actually pushes forward on impact, then he goes backwards. And the reason he went backwards was because he was leaning so far forward from the first shot that hit him, and because he was wearing a back brace, which is why he appeared so stiff. He could not go forward any further. And the reason the side of his head exploded was because that was where the bullet exited. Bullets always leave a bigger hole when it exits. The video clearly shows this.

None of this, however, proves Oswald was the one who did the shooting. I'm not sure he did....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070518/ts ... 0518124611

granted this comes from AFP, but it was in the news today.