A President was "shot"....when will we know the actual story?

i don't know, but i'd love to hear the details

Whats with the quotes? Whatever the various conspiracy theories are, they tend to agree that he actually was, you know, shot. Unless they had some serious cgi effects in the Zapruder film.

Not disputing he was shot.....just disputing that he was "shot"....implying one shooter, one bullet bullshit.

2 bullets, one of them being "magic"

Is THIS when the media started lying to the population???

Oswalt did it and he did it alone.

The "magic" bullet theory is a total distortion of the facts.

I've had this argument way too many times, though. Not going into it again.

And that "JFK" movie, although it was extremely good, was a complete and total distortion of the facts, as well.

explain

You sound extremely sure for a "young'un". Someone can' t form their own thought?

Burden of proof lies on your side. You explain and I'll deconstruct your argument (if I can).

Well you said that the magic bullett theory is a distortion of the facts. I don't understand what you meant by this. Are you saying that the "theory" is a lie or that the theory isn't what the Warren Commission said it was(which was that this bullet whizzed around hitting Connely in the wrist and arm and that it eventually ended up hitting Kennedy in the throat)

http://www.assassinationscience.com/joh ... jfk/intro/
I was always amazed at the thinking that the film could be a hoax, I'm 99% sure that this is bullshit, but that 1% keeps me going back, thinking about it. After all, who doesn't love a good cover up of a conspiracy.





"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

The Warren Commission never found that the bullet "whizzed" around to hit Connally. It was found that Connally was directly in the bullet's trajectory.

My own personal opinion on the matter is that for every famous/powerful person that's been assassinated, there are conspiracy theories to follow. Even Sam Cooke has conspiracy theories concerning the night of his death. What I'm saying is that, no matter how much conclusive evidence is found, it is extremely hard for people to accept that someone so powerful - someone with the potential to literally change the futures of so many people - could be taken out by some inconsequential nobody with a gun.

That photo/shot of the guy in the bush behind the grassy knoll, with a hat on...

Single gun? Oswald cannot be the only one.

This tries to prove the absurdity of the Warren Commission's finding that a single bullet could have caused that much damage and yet the bullet itself remaind quite intact.

Correct if I'm wrong (didn't have time to thoroughly explore), but what it does not mention are the series of tests performed on mock torsos with the same type of rifle and bullets that Oswald used. It also does not provide a picture of the results of those tests or the report of those findings, either.

Findings

Picture

Notice the similarities between the test bullet and the actual.

Anybody read any objective sources about the life of Oswald?

I've always been more than willing to explore avenues that contradict the Warren Commission. But every avenue I've explored so far either doesn't provide enough evidence to overturn what was originally found or it purposely and conveniently leaves out facts.

And you're 29 years old. You're not exactly "old and ripe" with experience, either.

http://history-matters.com/essays/frame ... agical.htm

Basically this link is arguing that there was a broken chain of evidence. However, I think its a bit misleading. The authors search for a broken chain evidence ultimately begins with a lack of "positive identification" because the evidence in question was not marked.



The misconception is that because the evidence was not initialed, the chain of custody is broken and because the chain of custody is broken, the bullet is inadmissable in a court of law. This is false. Physical evidence does not need to be initialed to be admissable.

From there, the article basically goes into conflicting testimonies (some of which are many, many, many years apart) and missing documents, which can be supported by an 82 year old man.

I'm not saying that the entire thing is bunk. However, does this conclusively, without question or doubt, completely disprove the Warren Commission's findings? I think it could possibly be a good basis for disproving it, but there are too many "what if's".

I wonder if MythBusters has done a show on the Single Bullet Theory.