Read the conspiracy theory thread. For believers in outlandish conspiracy theories such as yourself, the absence of evidence is evidence. LOL!
I think it’s reasonable to think Oswald acted alone, but that he had some deep help making it happen. I doubt we’ll ever really know. No way a conspiracy involving the CIA, the mob, Cuba and LBJ could have ever been contained. If there had been something concocted by any grouping of these four we would have heard/learned about it decades ago.I've done a fair bit of reading on the JFK assassination over the years.
One thing I know for certain: the Warren Commission was a travesty. They've been ripped to shreds over the years, including by 2 subsequent government investigations. And I think they deserved it. Even 3 of the commissioners (Sen. Cooper, Sen. Russell, and Rep. Boggs) cast doubts on its output...with Russell even going as far to say flat out that the assassination was a conspiracy.
I'm ambivalent about the prospect of others being involved. Maybe. There are a slew of things we either know for certain or can safely deduce that simply don't jibe with the view that LHO acted alone.
But just because the Warren Commission was so inept doesn't necessarily mean they reached the wrong conclusion.
I've read a couple and there was no conspiracy and LHO acted alone. This is the one I'm reading next:I've done a fair bit of reading on the JFK assassination over the years.
One thing I know for certain: the Warren Commission was a travesty. They've been ripped to shreds over the years, including by 2 subsequent government investigations. And I think they deserved it. Even 3 of the commissioners (Sen. Cooper, Sen. Russell, and Rep. Boggs) cast doubts on its output...with Russell even going as far to say flat out that the assassination was a conspiracy.
I'm ambivalent about the prospect of others being involved. Maybe. There are a slew of things we either know for certain or can safely deduce that simply don't jibe with the view that LHO acted alone.
But just because the Warren Commission was so inept doesn't necessarily mean they reached the wrong conclusion.
The Rest is History did a series on Kennedy's assassination last year. It was very good.I've done a fair bit of reading on the JFK assassination over the years.
One thing I know for certain: the Warren Commission was a travesty. They've been ripped to shreds over the years, including by 2 subsequent government investigations. And I think they deserved it. Even 3 of the commissioners (Sen. Cooper, Sen. Russell, and Rep. Boggs) cast doubts on its output...with Russell even going as far to say flat out that the assassination was a conspiracy.
I'm ambivalent about the prospect of others being involved. Maybe. There are a slew of things we either know for certain or can safely deduce that simply don't jibe with the view that LHO acted alone.
But just because the Warren Commission was so inept doesn't necessarily mean they reached the wrong conclusion.
The Rest is History did a series on Kennedy's assassination last year. It was very good.
In the last episode, Sandbrook went over the theories and laid out two really important facts that I found persuasive.
One, Oswald was mentally ill, troubled as a child, and very erratic as an adult. The notion that the CIA or any other intelligence agency worth its salt would count on him to be the assassin is unlikely, to say the least. That's just not how those services operate.
Two, the very shot that everyone said was so difficult that it couldn't be done by a normal shooter with that rifle has been recreated using the same make of rifle.
Lem Johns, SSA for Kennedy was on the detail in Dallas. He married my great Aunt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lem_JohnsAs to your first point, most of the conspiracy theories don’t have Oswald as the assassin. They have him as the scapegoat. He was recruited because he was the way he was.
As to your second, as he wasn’t the assassin, they weren’t relying on him making that shot (assuming he was even the gunman on the 6th floor…many question that). In fact, virtually all of them have the fatal shot coming from somewhere in front of the limo.
That said, in the Marines, Oswald took the marksmanship test twice. First time, in 1956, he got a good score. Second time, in 1959, he got got a bare minimum score.
![]()
And, again, it wasn’t one shot. The WC put it at 3 - in roughly 5 seconds, based on Zapruder analyses.
Shot 1 they claim missed. And everybody agrees that one shot did miss, whether it was the 1st or 2nd shot fired. Shrapnel actually hit somebody.
Shot 2 hit POTUS in the upper back and continued on to go through Connally twice. This is very doubtful, for numerous reasons. Connally himself maintained to his death that he wasn’t hit by the first shot. And the Zapruder film casts doubt on this too. JFK is reacting for sometime before Connally is.
Moreover, this is the actual bullet the WC said went through human flesh and/or bones 3 times before lodging in Connally’s leg.
![]()
How could it still look like that?
And then there was the fatal headshot - which was either the 3rd or 4th shot fired (depending on who you believe).
Lem Johns, SSA for Kennedy was on the detail in Dallas. He married my great Aunt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lem_Johns
My dad talked to him a lot and maybe 10 years ago, Lem said "I am pretty sure there was a second gunman". But that isn't what his sworn statement said in 1963. Lem also told my dad that there was concern that maybe a secret service agent had fired his gun and struck Kennedy by accident.
The problem with the conspiracy theorists, to reach the second gunman conclusion, you have to make soooo many assumptions: (1) Oswald wasn't the shooter; (2) Oswald wasn't in the book repository --or at least on the 6th floor; (3) Oswald couldn't have fired 3 bullets because he couldn't have made the shot, etc, etc.
Oswald did run from the police and he killed officer JD Tippet. A lot of noise there if you didn't do the shooting or weren't in the book repository.
The Warren Commission was a bit of a joke. Anything will Allen Dulles involved we should be highly skeptical of. Not just because Dulles and Kennedy hated each other (they did), but because Dulles was the proverbial dirtiest player in the game domestically and overseas. The House Select Committee on the assassination dug down pretty good.
The one point that has always bothered me was the involvement of Jack Ruby and his murder of Oswald. It literally makes no sense. Ruby was not some altruistic guy at all yet he claimed he was doing it so Jackie O didn't have to go through more pain. I don't buy that at all. Maybe there is something there.
Regardless, there will be nothing of real significance that will be released, the players are all dead and with them any secrets that may have existed.
There was a major disconnect between what the CIA wanted the cuban army to do and how they could be persuaded to do it. This defect distorted the Agency's advice to Kennedy. It was a complete disaster. Nixon talks about this--he was in DC on the day of the invasion and Dulles called up Nixon to ask for advice. According to Nixon, he told Dulles "well you better tell him you botched this". Richard Bissell was a big failure here, and pretty much the fulcrum for a bed shitting event.Kennedy and Dulles not only hated each other, Kennedy fired Dulles for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. And while I'm sure there was personal animus between them around that, their division likely went deeper than that...as Dulles was a hawk on anti-communism and Kennedy was seen as wanting to thaw the ice with the Soviets.
Moreover, Dulles deputized the mafia (John Roselli) to take Castro out in Cuba -- as they both had a common interest in that happening.
You have to wonder: why did LBJ put Dulles, of all people, on the WC?
I hate this kind of stuff. Just release them if that is what you are doing. We don't need a flipping carnival barker for everything that gets done. You aren't getting clicks in these positions.
Before Pam Bohndi released the Epstein files she said "you won't believe what is in there. It is sick". Those "new files" read like a phone book--largely because it was. Curious how she could arrive at such a conclusion if she had read them.
Whatever is in the files will not match the hype or justify all this anticipation in certain circles.Before Pam Bohndi released the Epstein files she said "you won't believe what is in there. It is sick". Those "new files" read like a phone book--largely because it was. Curious how she could arrive at such a conclusion if she had read them.
Regardless, I would bet that everything in the JFK files that is being released is info we have seen 100 times or is irrelevant.
As to your first point, that doesn't make sense. You can't count on an unreliable person to do anything, including showing up to the Book Depository or keeping his mouth shut or bringing the right rifle, etc.As to your first point, most of the conspiracy theories don’t have Oswald as the assassin. They have him as the scapegoat. He was recruited because he was the way he was.
As to your second, as he wasn’t the assassin, they weren’t relying on him making that shot (assuming he was even the gunman on the 6th floor…many question that). In fact, virtually all of them have the fatal shot coming from somewhere in front of the limo.
That said, in the Marines, Oswald took the marksmanship test twice. First time, in 1956, he got a good score. Second time, in 1959, he got got a bare minimum score.
![]()
And, again, it wasn’t one shot. The WC put it at 3 - in roughly 5 seconds, based on Zapruder analyses.
Shot 1 they claim missed. And everybody agrees that one shot did miss, whether it was the 1st or 2nd shot fired. Shrapnel actually hit somebody.
Shot 2 hit POTUS in the upper back and continued on to go through Connally twice. This is very doubtful, for numerous reasons. Connally himself maintained to his death that he wasn’t hit by the first shot. And the Zapruder film casts doubt on this too. JFK is reacting for sometime before Connally is.
Moreover, this is the actual bullet the WC said went through human flesh and/or bones 3 times before lodging in Connally’s leg.
![]()
How could it still look like that?
And then there was the fatal headshot - which was either the 3rd or 4th shot fired (depending on who you believe).
You can't count on an unreliable person to do anything, including showing up to the Book Depository or keeping his mouth shut or bringing the right rifle, etc.
As to your second, they've recreated the number of shots in the time period allotted and tracked the bullet trajectories. It all works out and is consistent with the wounds.
That’s all addressed in Posner’s book which I’m about to start.Assuming he acted alone, did he not do these 3 things?
So you buy that the pristine bullet pictured above “traversed a back brace, 15 layers of clothing, seven layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of muscle tissue, and pulverized 4 inches of Connally's rib, and shattered his radius bone” without any defect to its shape?
Hard for me to buy.
Your first point/question is irrelevant. Yes, he did do those things. That's not the issue. Hinkley tried to assassinate Reagan--you think an intelligence agency would have counted on him to do it?Assuming he acted alone, did he not do these 3 things?
So you buy that the pristine bullet pictured above “traversed a back brace, 15 layers of clothing, seven layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of muscle tissue, and pulverized 4 inches of Connally's rib, and shattered his radius bone” without any defect to its shape?
Hard for me to buy.
That’s all addressed in Posner’s book which I’m about to start.
Your first point/question is irrelevant. Yes, he did do those things. That's not the issue. Hinkley tried to assassinate Reagan--you think an intelligence agency would have counted on him to do it?
I don't know anything about the bullet argument. What is the best counterargument to yours on the bullet?