Whatever! - JFK Assassination - Oswald alone or a conspiracy?

Print Page | Close Window

JFK Assassination - Oswald alone or a conspiracy?

Printed From: You Boys in Green
Category: Other Forums
Forum Name: Whatever!
Forum Description: Anything else going on
URL: https://forum.ybig.ie/forum_posts.asp?TID=47079
Printed Date: 28 Apr 2024 at 9:05pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.00 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: JFK Assassination - Oswald alone or a conspiracy?

Posted By: sid waddell
Subject: JFK Assassination - Oswald alone or a conspiracy?
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 10:04pm

Thoughts?

Do you believe the official version?

Or has the wool been pulled over our eyes?

Replies:

Posted By: Trap junior
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 10:04pm

Kerrzy said Trapattoni did it

-------------
Pied Piper to: Baldrick, Brendan 88, 9Fingers, Borussia and more...

97.6% chance this post will be replied to by Baldrick (source: PWC)

Posted By: Siralex
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 10:21pm

Ah - great thread...wrong time for me though as I'm about to leave...

I HATE conspiracies - they really annoy me.

But as for JFK - there has to be something to it... The best snipers in America were tested and couldn't fire off the three shots Oswald was supposed to have pulled off - considering the fact that Oswald was supposed to have landed the deadly blow with his third shot was said to be practically impossible. Eye witnesses say they saw fire coming from the picket fence... Oswald murdered the next day....The official line that Oswald acted alone is very hard to believe.

I don't buy in to the full Jim Garrison theory, but I think - from my understanding - that Oswald was involved in some way, but definitely as part of a shooting team of 2 or more people.

The fact that the whole investigation was holed, despite many many questions unansewred leads me to believe the CIA were involved - but that's just speculation as there is very little proof around to support such a theory.

Be interested to read what other people think on this, and I'll log back in on Monday....

-------------
If I keep writing enough hagiographic articles on Man Utd, they might give me a job

Posted By: horsebox
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 10:27pm

I read Jim Garrisons book and most of the witnesses were murdered or died in suspicious circumstances.

I always thought it was the CIA as they were the only ones they would be able to do it successfully.

Lots of other things happened too like the Kennedy's car was re-routed.

Lots of security arrangements were changed too - can't remember the details..

I'd love to hear Fergie's thoughts on it...

-------------
It was far across the sea,
When the devil got a hold of me,
He wouldn't set me free,
So he kept me soul for ransom.
na na na na na na na na na
na na na na na na na na.
I'm a sailor man from Glasgow to

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 10:31pm

As far as I'm concerned there has been no credible alternative theories, every one has been easily debunked and the evidence overwhelmingly points to Oswald acting alone.

Posted By: Doyler1993
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 10:36pm

Dont think oswald acted alone as only one sniper could manage it and that was on his third attempt which means there must of been someone else involved. And if there was someone else involved it had to be the CIA as if it was an ordinary person they surely would of been caught

Posted By: coyne
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 10:40pm

Was it actually ever proven it was Lee Harvey Oswald who shot him?

He never made a confession or was found guilty in the courts as he was shot himself before he was proven guilty.

Posted By: jinky
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 10:43pm

coyne wrote:

Was it actually ever proven it was Lee Harvey Oswald who shot him?

He never made a confession or was found guilty in the courts as he was shot himself before he was proven guilty.

just a suspect like bin laden and 9/11

-------------
tir gan teanga ,tir gan anam

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 10:43pm

Oswald was a trained sharpshooter from his time in the US Marines. He fired three shots in 8.3 seconds. That was comfortably doable for somebody of his shooting ability.

Posted By: Jackthelad
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 10:44pm

Very interesting stuff. I know nothing about it, only the general details. Shot by Oswald in Dallas and he was killed in turn by jack ruby.
The whole affair does seem to be clouded in mystery though, there's got to be more to it. We'l never know

-------------
Oh Poland we loved you.....

Posted By: coyne
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 10:53pm

See that's my problem with believing it was Oswald, no one ever properly found out what was Jack Ruby's motive for shooting Oswald.

I'm led to believe Oswald knew someone who was involved because he tried to get in touch with the Soviet Union Embassy - And was simply silenced because Ruby had underground connections also.

To me it's pretty similar to the assassination of the Russian Ex-KGB guy (Alexander ???) in the UK only in the past decade just to much much bigger scale.

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 10:53pm

Jackthelad wrote:

Very interesting stuff. I know nothing about it, only the general details. Shot by Oswald in Dallas and he was killed in turn by jack ruby.
The whole affair does seem to be clouded in mystery though, there's got to be more to it. We'l never know

There isn't, and pretty much beyond reasonable doubt, we do know.

The problem is that many people are taken in by the movie which is a work of fiction and by the cottage industry of conspiracy which grew up around the assassination.

I think the muddying of the waters stems in part from people not being able to comprehend or not wanting to accept that a US President can simply be killed by a lone, inconsequential oddball.

John Lennon was murdered by one, and Ronald Reagan nearly was. It's hardly a surprise that a country with such a pervasive gun culture has seen incidents like these.

Posted By: Jackthelad
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 10:59pm

sid waddell wrote:

There isn't, and pretty much beyond reasonable doubt, we do know.

The problem is that many people are taken in by the movie which is a work of fiction and by the cottage industry of conspiracy which grew up around the assassination.

I think the muddying of the waters stems in part from people not being able to comprehend or not wanting to accept that a US President can simply be killed by a lone, inconsequential oddball.

John Lennon was murdered by one, and Ronald Reagan nearly was. It's hardly a surprise that a country with such a pervasive gun culture has seen incidents like these.

Some very valid points there alright Sid. I'm just open minded in a debate where my knowledge is limited.
Although the same could be said for a lot of the threads I frequent!

-------------
Oh Poland we loved you.....

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 11:02pm

coyne wrote:

See that's my problem with believing it was Oswald, no one ever properly found out what was Jack Ruby's motive for shooting Oswald.

I'm led to believe Oswald knew someone who was involved because he tried to get in touch with the Soviet Union Embassy - And was simply silenced because Ruby had underground connections also.

To me it's pretty similar to the assassination of the Russian Ex-KGB guy (Alexander ???) in the UK only in the past decade just to much much bigger scale.

It isn't similar at all. Livinenko was poisoned with polonium that likely would have only been available to people like the Russian secret service.

The gun Oswald used to kill Kennedy was purchased by mail order.

Russian state involvement in Litvinenko's death was immediately suspected by good sources.

Nothing but unsubstantiated smoke and mirrors have ever been suggested as regards the JFK assassination and any notion of Soviet involvement is fantastical.

Posted By: armahibee
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 11:08pm

3 shots in 8.3 seconds, 2 hitting with a scoped bolt action rifle on a target moving at around 20mph, that's some fine shooting.

Posted By: Jackthelad
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 11:16pm

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fifty-years-on-who-killed-jfk-has-become-for-many-a-macabre-parlour-game-29758478.html

An interesting piece on JFK.

-------------
Oh Poland we loved you.....

Posted By: Dukla
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 11:17pm

I know a guy who worked on JFK's brother Robert Kennedy's campaign team in California for the 1968 presidential election, he met Robert just days before he himself was also assassinated.

Even today he's a pensioner & in all honesty doesn't have much time left sadly, but he is still so passionate about this. He firmly believes it was an inside job.

Personally I use to buy into loads of conspiracy theories Roswell, JFK, 9/11, Moon landing, etc which I now believe is just a load of crap. But out of all of them I have to admit there have been some strong arguments made regarding the JFK assassination.

-------------

Posted By: Trap junior
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 11:20pm

Sure Sid would know all about hitting a target with 3 shots.

''Here we have Lee Harvey Oswald a.k.a 'The Dallas Cowboy' oh not a bad first effort, now the second,oh on the wire! Last throw of the dice, needs this one, oh and he's found the target! Kennedy looks about as comfortable as a penguin in a microwave.''

-------------
Pied Piper to: Baldrick, Brendan 88, 9Fingers, Borussia and more...

97.6% chance this post will be replied to by Baldrick (source: PWC)

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 11:25pm

armahibee wrote:

3 shots in 8.3 seconds, 2 hitting with a scoped bolt action rifle on a target moving at around 20mph, that's some fine shooting.

The target was moving away from him in pretty much a straight line, and Oswald was a skilled sharpshooter, so it was comfortably within his abilities.

Posted By: armahibee
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2013 at 11:39pm

sid waddell wrote:

armahibee wrote:

3 shots in 8.3 seconds, 2 hitting with a scoped bolt action rifle on a target moving at around 20mph, that's some fine shooting.

The target was moving away from him in pretty much a straight line, and Oswald was a skilled sharpshooter, so it was comfortably within his abilities.

that's far from a comfortable shot, especially as it wasn't a standard issue rifle/scope the marines would have used. I agree with the straight line travelling away thing. However his head does move around a fair bit, it wasn't a static shot, he would have needed to use the bolt between each shot then get the eye back in. Then we have the fact that he missed the first easier shot at the president of the u.s.a in a urban location, he has bound to have being under immense stress, he might have blown his chance by missing the first. Is it impossible, no! Is it likely, in my opinion no!

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 12:07am

armahibee wrote:

sid waddell wrote:

armahibee wrote:

3 shots in 8.3 seconds, 2 hitting with a scoped bolt action rifle on a target moving at around 20mph, that's some fine shooting.

The target was moving away from him in pretty much a straight line, and Oswald was a skilled sharpshooter, so it was comfortably within his abilities.

Are you disputing that Oswald fired the shots?

Posted By: HateHenry
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 12:10am

Killed by his own and more then 1 shooter...6 shots in total 2 for Kennedy ,2 for Connolly,and some strays...We may know in a couple of years, was this not due to be released after 60/70 years or something??

-------------
Polska Bialo Czerwoni

Posted By: armahibee
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 12:22am

sid waddell wrote:

armahibee wrote:

sid waddell wrote:

armahibee wrote:

3 shots in 8.3 seconds, 2 hitting with a scoped bolt action rifle on a target moving at around 20mph, that's some fine shooting.

The target was moving away from him in pretty much a straight line, and Oswald was a skilled sharpshooter, so it was comfortably within his abilities.

Are you disputing that Oswald fired the shots?

Honestly Sid I wouldnt have any alternative hypothesis or anything like that, but the auld gut feeling would say yes or at least there was a team. Saying that would be a handy clean up job shooting the patsy killer the next day. It's a great story to wax lyrical about.

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 12:23am

HateHenry wrote:

Killed by his own and more then 1 shooter...6 shots in total 2 for Kennedy ,2 for Connolly,and some strays...We may know in a couple of years, was this not due to be released after 60/70 years or something??

Can you give any credible sources for any eyewitnesses who saw a second shooter?

Six shots?! Can you give any credible sources that say there were more than three shots?

Posted By: HateHenry
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 1:07am

Yes, but not tonight Josephine Sleepy

-------------
Polska Bialo Czerwoni

Posted By: corkery
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 2:12am

There's so many you can blame, those who wanted an invasion of Cuba, those who hated the blacks, the Mafia his brother was after. Could of been anyone.

-------------
'The younger generation as in 17 -25 are certainly gayer than their predecessors. I think they may cause the extinction of the human race with their activities.'- Baldrick

Posted By: Dukla
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 2:36am

Watching La Haine. One of the lads is going around with a tshirt that says 'Elvis Shot JFK' LOL

-------------

Posted By: irishmufc
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 9:58am

Cannot stand conspiracy theories.Some of the 9/11 are completely rediculous as for the moon landings being fake

.

With JFK though take your pick of who wanted him dead.I don't think the mafia would've risked it,given the major possible backlash if it got back to them.I'm open to whether it was Oswald or some government agency but what is for sure is there was more than one shooter.The last shot had to be taken from the grassy knoll direction given the angle it hit JFK's face.Oswald and probably 1 or 2 shooters at ground level at the front of JFK's convoy.It could've been Oswald and two other nutters or certain government/military parties that wanted him dead.I do think there'd have been no Vietnam war had the man lived.

As for the theory it was the driver that shot him

Robert Dalleks book on him is excellent

-------------
Wings? They're only the band The Beatles could have been.

Posted By: Trap junior
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 10:47am

irishmufc wrote:

Cannot stand conspiracy theories.Some of the 9/11 are completely rediculous as for the moon landings being fake

Robert Dalleks book on him is excellent

Exterminate! Exterminate!

-------------
Pied Piper to: Baldrick, Brendan 88, 9Fingers, Borussia and more...

97.6% chance this post will be replied to by Baldrick (source: PWC)

Posted By: The E
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 12:33pm

I had a chat with S**o last night in Gibneys and he reckons Trapnoclue shot JFK

-------------
PropaghandE

Posted By: Shedite
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 5:28pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories

Posted By: Claret Murph
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 5:44pm

Most interesting thing i ever read about the shooting was , that 11 people said they saw another shooter and all 11 people who said this somehow died within a year .

Now the chances of that happening are , one to 1000000000000000000000000000 to to chance , errr that's 27 zero's to one .

Everything will be told in 25 years , that's 75 years after the killing .

Really what do you really think ?

-------------
Lansdowne Road debut aged 52 and 201 days .

Posted By: Trap junior
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 5:48pm

Well for me it's pretty clear. It was aliens. Them or the lizard people.

-------------
Pied Piper to: Baldrick, Brendan 88, 9Fingers, Borussia and more...

97.6% chance this post will be replied to by Baldrick (source: PWC)

Posted By: The Count
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 8:54pm

good piece on geroge hook about this last night, worth a listen on the podcast. some cuban lad when he was 87 back in 2007 had something he wanted to get off his chest before he died....interesting stuff

-------------

Posted By: Bob Hoskins
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 9:18pm

Trap junior wrote:

Well for me it's pretty clear. It was aliens. Them or the lizard people.

drat, beat me to it damn LIZARDS

-------------
Romario 2016: And the ticket mafia gets caught! Well, four years ago I had already told the government.

Posted By: elroy45
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 11:02pm

Not for one for conspiracy theories but this is a very intriguing one. Have watched plenty of documentaries on this and the ote thing that has ever stuck with me is the trajectory of at least of the bullets that hit JFK was very unlikely to have been shot from the height and distance where Oswald was.

I have my doubts that it was an inside job. If it was, it was a seriously botched inside job and why would they plan to do it in the full glare of the public, surely an inside job, CIA/FBI or otherwise wouldve organised something a little more sophisticated.

Posted By: PanteirA
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 11:19pm

Claret Murph wrote:

Most interesting thing i ever read about the shooting was , that 11 people said they saw another shooter and all 11 people who said this somehow died within a year .

Now the chances of that happening are , one to 1000000000000000000000000000 to to chance , errr that's 27 zero's to one .

Everything will be told in 25 years , that's 75 years after the killing .

Really what do you really think ?

Interesting alright. How did they die though?

Posted By: HateHenry
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 11:33pm

PanteirA wrote:

Claret Murph wrote:

Most interesting thing i ever read about the shooting was , that 11 people said they saw another shooter and all 11 people who said this somehow died within a year .

Now the chances of that happening are , one to 1000000000000000000000000000 to to chance , errr that's 27 zero's to one .

Everything will be told in 25 years , that's 75 years after the killing .

Really what do you really think ?

Interesting alright. How did they die though?

AIDS but that had,nt been released at the time, it was covered up until 1983

-------------
Polska Bialo Czerwoni

Posted By: Trap junior
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 11:45pm

Is that true about the 11 'eyewitnesses' dying within a year?

-------------
Pied Piper to: Baldrick, Brendan 88, 9Fingers, Borussia and more...

97.6% chance this post will be replied to by Baldrick (source: PWC)

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 12:09am

elroy45 wrote:

Not for one for conspiracy theories but this is a very intriguing one. Have watched plenty of documentaries on this and the ote thing that has ever stuck with me is the trajectory of at least of the bullets that hit JFK was very unlikely to have been shot from the height and distance where Oswald was.

The trajectories of the bullets have been analysed in detail and proven to be entirely consistent with having come from the window where Oswald was in the book depository.

Posted By: Claret Murph
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 7:17am

Trap junior wrote:

Is that true about the 11 'eyewitnesses' dying within a year?

Yep .

-------------
Lansdowne Road debut aged 52 and 201 days .

Posted By: Hoosay
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 12:10pm

In 1976 the US House of Representatives formed the US House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), after 2 years of mostly secret hearings they released a report that concluded that Kennedy was most likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

Posted By: HateHenry
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 11:28pm

Hoosay wrote:

In 1976 the US House of Representatives formed the US House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), after 2 years of mostly secret hearings they released a report that concluded that Kennedy was most likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

And this is also a conspiracy....(secret)?

-------------
Polska Bialo Czerwoni

Posted By: Pipkin
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 11:42am

I didnt really know anything about this until I started watching a few programmes on it the last few days.

But what I want to know is why nothing is made of the wife's reaction. Surely it is not a natural reaction to be jumping on the back of the car to retrieve head matter when you are under fire. Is that not the last thing you'd think of?

Could she have been in the know Shocked

Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 11:49am

Watched "Did the mob kill JFK" on the discovery channel last night and some of the arguments they put forward were interesting.

Will try to find a link to the doc online and post it up.

Posted By: Bob Hoskins
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 12:01pm

Claret Murph wrote:

Trap junior wrote:

Is that true about the 11 'eyewitnesses' dying within a year?

Yep .

Is there a list of names and causes of death?

-------------
Romario 2016: And the ticket mafia gets caught! Well, four years ago I had already told the government.

Posted By: Claret Murph
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 12:47pm

Bob Hoskins wrote:

Claret Murph wrote:

Trap junior wrote:

Is that true about the 11 'eyewitnesses' dying within a year?

Yep .

Is there a list of names and causes of death?

Again Bob it was some time ago that i read it but all were quite mundane deaths like car crash etc etc . Now one did stand out as i recall as one dude died with a fight over a hose pipe in the back garden which when you come to think of it is nuts .

-------------
Lansdowne Road debut aged 52 and 201 days .

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 1:06pm

I would respectfully suggest that there were a hell of a lot more than 11 eyewitnesses to the assassination in all.

The estimated figure is somewhere around the 600 mark, based on video footage.

Posted By: lassassinblanc
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 1:19pm

interesting stuff alrights, didn't Sam Beckett become the shooter on the grassy knoll in the last episode of Quantum Leap?

Posted By: Hoosay
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 1:35pm

Kerrzy wrote:

I didnt really know anything about this until I started watching a few programmes on it the last few days.

Could she have been in the know Shocked

You're asking the wrong question. The real question is why or how was part of his skull blown onto the back of the car if he was shot front behind?

Posted By: Just saying like
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 2:15pm

I know fcuk all about this but the recent publicity has sparked my interest. What is the best book to read that is reasonably unbiased and explores all or most of the theories/facts.

Posted By: Siralex
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 2:49pm

Just saying like wrote:

I know fcuk all about this but the recent publicity has sparked my interest. What is the best book to read that is reasonably unbiased and explores all or most of the theories/facts.

The Garrison book is absolutely fascinating, but by now is largely considered to be too extreme in forcing a bigger conspiracy than most experts care to consider. Although I wouldn't read too much in to it, there are definitely some truthful and jaw-dropping facts in the Garrison book. Alternatively, you can look at the JFK movie which is based on the book - though it is a great watch, it's also quite condensed and slightly tweaked.

Have to say that Sid Waddel's views (whilst it's always good to play devil's advocate) are coming across rather clueless. Not sure he knows much about this. 600 eye-witnesses? He must be thinking of something else.

Here's the great footage. Kennedy, when shot for the second time (the face explosion) moves to the left and back....the direction he would have moved had he been shot from the grassy knoll. The book depository was at Kennedy's five o'clock, the knoll at his 2o'clock. Also, people always forget to mention that in the same room that Oswald was in, he would have had a much cleaner shot at Kennedy on the other road before he turned in to Elm Street. Surely, Kennedy was shot in a cross-fire, that was planned between 2 shooters. There are so many eye-witnesses who claim the shots came from the knoll, not to mention one police officer who's attention was brought there straight away after the shooting and he claims he smelt gunpowder.

There's a billion twists and turns in the story...absolutely no notes taken of Oswald's interrogations? That's just not believable.. I could go on about this all day. Read Garrison for some jaw-dropping investigations and then read High Treason. For some reason, I've owned a copy of this for a while, but have never finished reading it..Must get back in to it.

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL1qSGk8oMQ" rel="nofollow - http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL1qSGk8oMQ

-------------
If I keep writing enough hagiographic articles on Man Utd, they might give me a job

Posted By: horsebox
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 2:58pm

The thing is that once you read the book, you'll want more answers, and the answers are just not there!

You could spend a life time researching who did what and why and still not find definite answers.

-------------
It was far across the sea,
When the devil got a hold of me,
He wouldn't set me free,
So he kept me soul for ransom.
na na na na na na na na na
na na na na na na na na.
I'm a sailor man from Glasgow to

Posted By: Siralex
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 3:33pm

horsebox wrote:

The thing is that once you read the book, you'll want more answers, and the answers are just not there!

You could spend a life time researching who did what and why and still not find definite answers.

Very true....The conspiracy theories are so plentiful that you can easily get distracted down the wrong path too...

This document that will be released in 2029 will hopefully provide answers, but I have a feeling it will be underwhelming.

-------------
If I keep writing enough hagiographic articles on Man Utd, they might give me a job

Posted By: Vivakenbarlow
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 3:40pm

Siralex wrote:

The Garrison book is absolutely fascinating, but by now is largely considered to be too extreme in forcing a bigger conspiracy than most experts care to consider. Although I wouldn't read too much in to it, there are definitely some truthful and jaw-dropping facts in the Garrison book. Alternatively, you can look at the JFK movie which is based on the book - though it is a great watch, it's also quite condensed and slightly tweaked.

Have to say that Sid Waddel's views (whilst it's always good to play devil's advocate) are coming across rather clueless. Not sure he knows much about this. 600 eye-witnesses? He must be thinking of something else.

Here's the great footage. Kennedy, when shot for the second time (the face explosion) moves to the left and back....the direction he would have moved had he been shot from the grassy knoll. The book depository was at Kennedy's five o'clock, the knoll at his 2o'clock. Also, people always forget to mention that in the same room that Oswald was in, he would have had a much cleaner shot at Kennedy on the other road before he turned in to Elm Street. Surely, Kennedy was shot in a cross-fire, that was planned between 2 shooters. There are so many eye-witnesses who claim the shots came from the knoll, not to mention one police officer who's attention was brought there straight away after the shooting and he claims he smelt gunpowder.

There's a billion twists and turns in the story...absolutely no notes taken of Oswald's interrogations? That's just not believable.. I could go on about this all day. Read Garrison for some jaw-dropping investigations and then read High Treason. For some reason, I've owned a copy of this for a while, but have never finished reading it..Must get back in to it.

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL1qSGk8oMQ" rel="nofollow - http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL1qSGk8oMQ

Wasnt that because he was wearing a back brace that he was rigid in his seat and couldnt bend forward?

-------------
It took City 44 years to win the league and 10 months to lose it

Posted By: horsebox
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 3:42pm

Siralex wrote:

Kicking the can down the road...

What document will be released in 2029?

-------------
It was far across the sea,
When the devil got a hold of me,
He wouldn't set me free,
So he kept me soul for ransom.
na na na na na na na na na
na na na na na na na na.
I'm a sailor man from Glasgow to

Posted By: Siralex
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 3:49pm

Vivakenbarlow wrote:

Siralex wrote:

The Garrison book is absolutely fascinating, but by now is largely considered to be too extreme in forcing a bigger conspiracy than most experts care to consider. Although I wouldn't read too much in to it, there are definitely some truthful and jaw-dropping facts in the Garrison book. Alternatively, you can look at the JFK movie which is based on the book - though it is a great watch, it's also quite condensed and slightly tweaked.

Have to say that Sid Waddel's views (whilst it's always good to play devil's advocate) are coming across rather clueless. Not sure he knows much about this. 600 eye-witnesses? He must be thinking of something else.

Here's the great footage. Kennedy, when shot for the second time (the face explosion) moves to the left and back....the direction he would have moved had he been shot from the grassy knoll. The book depository was at Kennedy's five o'clock, the knoll at his 2o'clock. Also, people always forget to mention that in the same room that Oswald was in, he would have had a much cleaner shot at Kennedy on the other road before he turned in to Elm Street. Surely, Kennedy was shot in a cross-fire, that was planned between 2 shooters. There are so many eye-witnesses who claim the shots came from the knoll, not to mention one police officer who's attention was brought there straight away after the shooting and he claims he smelt gunpowder.

There's a billion twists and turns in the story...absolutely no notes taken of Oswald's interrogations? That's just not believable.. I could go on about this all day. Read Garrison for some jaw-dropping investigations and then read High Treason. For some reason, I've owned a copy of this for a while, but have never finished reading it..Must get back in to it.

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL1qSGk8oMQ" rel="nofollow - http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL1qSGk8oMQ

Wasnt that because he was wearing a back brace that he was rigid in his seat and couldnt bend forward?

Yeah - that has been an answer to that riddle but still some people think his head would have moved forward with a hit form behind.

HORSEY: The House Select Committee's investigation in to conspiracies around the assasination have been witheld for some reason until the year 2029. I have read up on this, but due to my bad memory, I might tell you things wide of the mark...

Might be a bit of info on that in here: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Freeing_the_JFK_Files" rel="nofollow - http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Freeing_the_JFK_Files

-------------
If I keep writing enough hagiographic articles on Man Utd, they might give me a job

Posted By: McG
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 5:26pm

2038 actually. And even at that, they'll be doctored by those with access.

-------------
YBIG Table Quiz winner 2016 & 2017
AS YOU WERE McGx

Posted By: Bob Hoskins
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 5:29pm

There is some rule that after 75 years documents can be released. It's not just the JFK ones

-------------
Romario 2016: And the ticket mafia gets caught! Well, four years ago I had already told the government.

Posted By: McG
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 5:30pm

It's actually unclear. I read it was 75 years but did a bit of googling and all sorts of dates coming up.

-------------
YBIG Table Quiz winner 2016 & 2017
AS YOU WERE McGx

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 8:42pm

Siralex wrote:

You do realise that Oliver Stone's JFK movie is a work of almost total fiction, right? All the main points of it are basically made up. Garrison was idiot, basically the Lionel Hutz of his day. His court case against Clay Shaw was so flimsy that it was dismissed in 54 minutes.

Stone's movie is unfortunately where an awful lot of people get their view of the JFK assassination from.

The "back and to the left" direction Kennedy's body moves in after the head shot is a total red herring. Bodies can move in different directions after being shot and it's entirely reasonable that his body moved in the direction it did. The Zapruder footage is also consistent with the bullet having come from the Book Depository - it enters through the back and the exit wound is where the front Kennedy's head appears to "explode".

Also it would be quite foolish to ignore the results of the autopsy, which show the entry wound at the back of the skull, which is entirely consistent with the bullet having come from where Oswald was on the sixth floor of the Book Depository, which it did.

And if there was a shooter on the grassy knoll and if Oswald didn't shoot, how did the first bullet that hit Kennedy enter through his back, given that any hypothetical shooter from the grassy knoll would have been shooting from the side?

You say there was two shooters but imply Oswald wasn't one? Where is your supoosed second shooter shooting from, then?

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 8:55pm

A finding which was based in no real evidence, which was conceded by the committee itself.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/22/21564131-jfk-assassination-many-theories-but-no-real-evidence-of-a-conspiracy?lite" rel="nofollow - http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/22/21564131-jfk-assassination-many-theories-but-no-real-evidence-of-a-conspiracy?lite

But the House committee conceded that it was unable to identify any other gunman or spell out the extent of the conspiracy. It ruled out the involvement of the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA, Cuba, the Soviet Union and, broadly speaking, organized crime.

So, basically all likely suspects for a conspiracy are ruled out by that same committee.

The same committee also "established a high priority" that there was a second gunman. That finding was based entirely on audio evidence from a police motorbike later proven to be erroneous. The findings that there was a second gunman were rejected by the FBI in 1980 and by an independent panel from the US National Academy of Sciences in 1982.

So 50 years later, all we have to say there was a second gunman and/or a conspiracy is hearsay and conjecture. As Lionel Hutz would say, those are kinds of evidence.

But as to actual reliable evidence, well, we don't really have any of that.

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 9:43pm

This interview with Vincent Bugliosi, author of "Reclaiming History - The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" (1600 pages, published in 2007) is long, but worth a read.

Why Vincent Bugliosi Is So Sure Oswald Alone Killed JFK (Interview) - See more at: http://hnn.us/article/41490#sthash.iBr5oERe.dpuf

http://hnn.us/article/41490" rel="nofollow - http://hnn.us/article/41490

Posted By: dickybhoy
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 10:51pm

I've read quite a lot about this over the years and studied it in college and University.

We will never know for sure the whole truth.

There are many convincing arguments and points to support a conspiracy and that there was more than one gunman.

For many years I was convinced there must be a bigger conspiracy.

At the moment I'm leaning more to the possibility that Oswald probably acted alone.

A few reasons have led to this decision

1) Oswald was a trained marine, a reported good shooter. For many years it was thought three shots were fired in about 6 seconds. The reality is he had about 11 seconds, more than enough time to fire 3 shots.

2) If there was a second shooter how would they have co-ordinated to shoot more or less at the same time, surely if there were two shooters together there would have been more than 3 or 4 shots to make sure the job was done.

3) Who would hire Oswald? He was a laughing stock an oddball, he couldn't hack it in Russia, the Cubans didn't want to know him when he turned up at their embassy. He had failed his whole life.

4) People want to believe in a conspiracy, they can't believe one man outwitted security and killed the most powerful man in the world and that the people there to protect JFK failed miserably on the day. Maybe Oswald just got lucky that day.

5) People think Jack Ruby killed Oswald to silence him. Well who silenced Ruby? No one, Ruby idolized Kennedy and killed Oswald as he had killed his hero.

6) Oswald went on the run after the shooting, he shot a cop then hid in a cinema. If there was a planned conspiracy surely there must have been a plan to escape the area? Instead his actions afterwards are of a worried, panicing man.

7) A second weapon or any credible evidence of a second gun was never found. Where as Oswalds rifle was recovered.

8) Its hard to keep a secret, surely more real evidence or confessions would have come to light over the years to support a conspiracy?

Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 10:57pm

Having watched that documentary about the Mafia last night on the discovery channel, of all the theories I've heard that sounded the most believable.

Posted By: newrynyuk
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 11:44pm

Kerrzy wrote:

I didnt really know anything about this until I started watching a few programmes on it the last few days.

Could she have been in the know Shocked

I vaguely recall when Jackie deid nearly 20 years ago, there was mention of an interview she did a few years after the shooting where she told her side of the story, but it's embargoed and won't be made public for a few more decades yet. Maybe this will eventually shed light?

Posted By: Hoosay
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2013 at 12:52am

sid waddell wrote:

A finding which was based in no real evidence, which was conceded by the committee itself.

So, basically all likely suspects for a conspiracy are ruled out by that same committee.

So 50 years later, all we have to say there was a second gunman and/or a conspiracy is hearsay and conjecture. As Lionel Hutz would say, those are kinds of evidence.

But as to actual reliable evidence, well, we don't really have any of that.

What they said was that they believed on the basis of the evidence available that he was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. They did not have enough evidence to say who the conspirators were, but on the basis of the evidence the Soviet and Cuban governments were not involved, and that the anti Castro groups as groups and the national syndicate of organised crime as a group were not involved but that individual members of those groups may have been involved. They also said the Secret Service, FBI and CIA were not involved but were highly critical of all three, in carrying out their duties.

This all happened 15 years after the assassination so a number of key players were no longer reachable due to either death or other reasons.

There isn't a lot of reliable evidence, a cover up has the tendency to do eliminate some of the reliable evidence, and a lot of the documents still haven't been released.

Posted By: Siralex
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2013 at 11:18am

sid waddell wrote:

Siralex wrote:

Stone's movie is unfortunately where an awful lot of people get their view of the JFK assassination from.

You say there was two shooters but imply Oswald wasn't one? Where is your supoosed second shooter shooting from, then?

Dude, you've totally mis-read anything I've written here. I have no doubt that Oswald was a shooter. None at all...the big question I raise, isn't about bigger conspiracies - it's a simple one. I can easily buy in to the theory that there was another shooter at the knoll. Oswald from the Book depository and another shooter at the knoll. Otherwise, why didn't Oswald shoot Kennedy when he was travelling towards him?

I've no doubt Oswald was guilty from what I've read and understand, but I just can't buy in to him acting alone... There were eye-witnesses there on the day who were interviewed by police and interviewed for News channels on TV, they pointed to the grassy knoll and said that's where the gun fire came from....very few witnesses said the shots came from the book depository, very few said they came from both the book depository and the grassy knoll, a larger number said the grassy knoll only! I hate conspiracies and conspiracy theorists, but you can't really dismiss eye-witnesses.

And - in no way would I buy in to Garrison too much at all, as I said he raises some fascinating points but as I said in my post I "wouldn't buy in to too much of it".

-------------
If I keep writing enough hagiographic articles on Man Utd, they might give me a job

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2013 at 9:02pm

In my mind there's a very obvious reason why Oswald didn't shoot when Kennedy was nearer him, say at the junction of Houston Street and Elm Street as the car turned or prepared to make the turn). It would have been a more difficult shot, because Kennedy would have been much more of a moving target relative to where Oswald was. When Oswald fired the shots Kennedy presented much less of a moving target relative to where Oswald was as he was moving in pretty much a straight line away from him. Also, in my opinion Oswald likely believed he would have a better chance of getting away with it if Kennedy was that bit further away.

Kennedy was actually 88 yards away from where Oswald was when he fired the third and final shot, the fatal head shot. That's not very far for a trained sharpshooter who, when he was in the US Marines, hit 48 shots out of 50 from 200 yards at a head size target.

The vast majority of eyewitnesses (soundwitnesses in reality) said they heard three shots.

[QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory#Number_and_sequence_of_the_shots" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory#Number_and_sequence_of_the_shots

Of 178 witnesses whose evidence was compiled by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), 132 reported hearing exactly three shots, 17 recalled hearing two, 7 said they heard two or three shots (total: 88%). A total of 6 people said they thought they heard four shots, and 9 said they were not sure how many shots they heard. Another 7 people said they thought they heard 1, 5, 6, or 8 shots.^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory#cite_note-39" rel="nofollow - [39] [/QUOTE}}

Howard Brennan actually saw Oswald shooting. Two people on the floor below Oswald heard him shooting the three shots and clicking the rifle back. Three empty bullet hulls were found at the window where Oswald shot from, as well as his rifle.

Nobody has ever come up with any real, credible evidence of the supposed second shooter on the grassy knoll. There are no eyewitnesses to a shooter there. Also the likelihood is that if a shot had come from the grassy knoll it would have travelled through John Kennedy and also hit Jackie Kennedy.

Far from the claim that "very few witnesses said the shots came from the book depository, very few said they came from both the book depository and the grassy knoll, a larger number said the grassy knoll only", a majority of witnesses in fact said that they thought the shots came from the direction of the Book Depository. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm" rel="nofollow - http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

Nevertheless, in what was undoubtedly a situation of high confusion and anxiety, I believe it's understandable that some people who were on the grassy knoll believed that the fatal head shot came from there. It's actually a natural reaction given what people saw. If you were looking at the Zapruder footage of the fatal head shot for the first time, or watching the shot live as you stood on the grassy knoll, the natural inclination, given that the front of Kennedy's head appeared to explode, as well as the movement of his body backwards and to left, is to think that the shot had to have come from in front or the side rather than from behind. But much as it's a natural human reaction, it doesn't make it true.

It's easily explainable, and has been proved beyond doubt, that it came from where Oswald was - the "explosion" of the front of Kennedy's head is the exit wound, which is much more violent than an entry wound because of how the type of bullet Oswald used transfers it energy. Also the fragments of that bullet ended up making a small crack in the windscreen of the car, which could not have happened if it had come from the grassy knoll.

It's absolutely beyond doubt that the two bullets that hit Kennedy (the first of which also hit Connally) came from where Oswald was positioned. All physical and forensic evidence proves this and disproves that either he or Connally were struck from the grassy knoll.

If a bullet did come from the grassy knoll, where did it end up? No bullet that could have come from the grassy knoll was ever found, the physical evidence showed no wound in either Kennedy or Connally could have come from there, there are no indentations in the ground, the car or anything else consistent with a bullet from the grassy knoll. Nothing.

Posted By: t_rAndy
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2013 at 9:31pm

I don't think he acted alone. He would have to be such a sharpshooter to pull off the amount of rounds it took and to be so accurate. It does look like the last shot came from the front rather than behind too.

I reckon the mafia were involved with the way the shut up Oswald via jack ruby. I think it was to hit up both Kennedy's as they needed Bobby off their case.
If they went for bobby then jack would have came down stronger on them.

The other theory is I find has a bit of weight behind it is the pulling out of Vietnam theory and the fact that war is big business that some people didn't want to end.

I guess we we won't know the true facts ever but just find it hard to believe he acted alone the way the shots were fired and the fact Oswald was killed in police custody so he couldn't speak up.

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2013 at 9:57pm

t_rAndy wrote:

I don't think he acted alone. He would have to be such a sharpshooter to pull off the amount of rounds it took and to be so accurate. It does look like the last shot came from the front rather than behind too.

I reckon the mafia were involved with the way the shut up Oswald via jack ruby. I think it was to hit up both Kennedy's as they needed Bobby off their case.
If they went for bobby then jack would have came down stronger on them.

The other theory is I find has a bit of weight behind it is the pulling out of Vietnam theory and the fact that war is big business that some people didn't want to end.

I guess we we won't know the true facts ever but just find it hard to believe he acted alone the way the shots were fired and the fact Oswald was killed in police custody so he couldn't speak up.

Again, it's been proved that Oswald was easily capable of firing three shots in 8.3 seconds and that all shots came from behind, where Oswald was.

There is no doubt about this whatsoever. None.

On the Sunday, the media were told to be at the Dallas Police Headquarters at 10am for Oswald's transfer.

Ruby entered the building less than a minute before he shot Oswald, at 11:21 am. If there was a conspiracy, why would Ruby leave it so late to enter the building? He didn't even arrive into Dallas city centre until 11am, an hour after the transfer was supposed to have taken place.

Why wasn't Oswald killed straight away after the assassination of JFK if people wanted to shut him him up?

Why would you hire Oswald to kill Kennedy?

Why would you hire a mentally ill strip club owner who had a reputation for not being able to keep his mouth shut, to kill Oswald?

Why wasn't Ruby silenced?

If there was a conspiracy against Kennedy, why not bug him and expose him as a womaniser? That would have been far easier.

If there was a conspiracy, why has no evidence of one ever emerged in 50 years?

If it was the mafia, why did not one of the many mafia members across the US who were "turned" never give any evidence as to such?

Even conspiracy theorists can't agree on the source of the alleged conspiracy - they vary wildly. It says a lot.

Posted By: horsebox
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2013 at 10:26pm

Why did Oswald kill Kennedy?

-------------
It was far across the sea,
When the devil got a hold of me,
He wouldn't set me free,
So he kept me soul for ransom.
na na na na na na na na na
na na na na na na na na.
I'm a sailor man from Glasgow to

Posted By: Siralex
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 10:54am

What on earth is Sid Waddel waffling about?

The time between the shots was 6seconds...

Oswald was in no way a brilliant marksman or a sharpshooter, he was an average shot from tests carried out when he was in the marines....What sort of made up tripe have you been reading? This is all common knowledge.

Test after test after test has proven that expert marksmen (the best America has to offer) couldn't have carried out the assasination in the manner Oswald was supposed to have carried it out alone.

You are either just making stuff up to play devils advocate Waddel, or what you have been reading is totally inaccurate mate.

-------------
If I keep writing enough hagiographic articles on Man Utd, they might give me a job

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 11:54am

Siralex wrote:

What on earth is Sid Waddel waffling about?

The time between the shots was 6seconds...

Oswald was in no way a brilliant marksman or a sharpshooter, he was an average shot from tests carried out when he was in the marines....What sort of made up tripe have you been reading? This is all common knowledge.

Test after test after test has proven that expert marksmen (the best America has to offer) couldn't have carried out the assasination in the manner Oswald was supposed to have carried it out alone.

You are either just making stuff up to play devils advocate Waddel, or what you have been reading is totally inaccurate mate.

"This is all common knowledge" - a classic conspiracy theorist line, trotting out a falsehood, not providing any evidence to back it up.

Where do you get your information that the time between shots was 6 seconds, may I ask?

Where do you get your information that the shots couldn't have been made by "the best America has to offer"?

Again, it's pretty clear that you watched Oliver Stone's movie and think that it was in some way related to reality. It's not. There's no point even debating anything that was in the movie, because it's a work of fiction.

Posted By: Siralex
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 12:02pm

sid waddell wrote:

"This is all common knowledge" - a classic conspiracy theorist line, trotting out a falsehood, not providing any evidence to back it up.

Where do you get your information that the time between shots was 6 seconds, may I ask?

Where do you get your information that the shots couldn't have been made by "the best America has to offer"?

Hold on Sid, you really seem to have a problem reading....I have mentioned a couple of times about not buying in to the JFK movie on this thread.

If I was buying in to the JFK movie, I'd go on and on about dismissing the single bullet theory. Clay Shaw's links to the CIA and the strange death of Dave Ferrie during an investigation in to him...Plus the many other bizarre coincidences brought up in Garrison's theories....I am going off all I've read on the JFK assasination over the years.

Here's some great reading on the investigations in to Oswald's history in shooting as well as a detailed analysis on the actual shots on Dealy Plaza that day, and this coming from a very balanced website on the whole lot of the possible conspiracies....

Despite what you have said on this thread, There was NOT 11 seconds between all three shots and Oswald was NOT a great marksman...

http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-marksman-sharpshooter" rel="nofollow - http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-marksman-sharpshooter

-------------
If I keep writing enough hagiographic articles on Man Utd, they might give me a job

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 12:19pm

I didn't say there was 11 seconds. I said there was 8.3 seconds.

You say six. And that has clearly been proven to be wrong by the Zapruder film.

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 12:25pm

Again, we're going back over old ground here, but Oswald was a trained shooter who attained the rank of sharpshooter in the marines.

A man who easily had the skill to make the shots he did.

But as I say, that's old ground and we established that pages back.

But no harm to re-state the facts, all the same.

Posted By: The E
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 12:37pm

It's quite clear that Prop or the Scientist did it. Bleedin obvious

-------------
PropaghandE

Posted By: Trap junior
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 12:39pm

when I heard that the suspect shot his load in 8.3 seconds I immediately suspected baldrick

-------------
Pied Piper to: Baldrick, Brendan 88, 9Fingers, Borussia and more...

97.6% chance this post will be replied to by Baldrick (source: PWC)

Posted By: Claret Murph
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 12:41pm

Trap junior wrote:

when I heard that the suspect shot his load in 8.3 seconds I immediately suspected baldrick

-------------
Lansdowne Road debut aged 52 and 201 days .

Posted By: Siralex
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 12:44pm

sid waddell wrote:

Again, we're going back over old ground here, but Oswald was a trained shooter who attained the rank of sharpshooter in the marines.

A man who easily had the skill to make the shots he did.

But as I say, that's old ground and we established that pages back.

But no harm to re-state the facts, all the same.

Well, you think you established that Oswald was:

"A man who easily had the skill to make the shots he did"

Yet I'm saying the exact opposite.

Read the link I posted above, all of the evidence and all of the investigations in to Oswald say that he was an average shooter, and that even the most perfect shooters in America couldn't have made that third shot - or fired off those three shots in 6seconds....And I haven't even mentioned that the rifle Oswald was supposed to have shot with was largely flawed. The experts say that these three shots Oswald was supposed to have made, killing Kennedy with the third, using this rifle does not add up in any way at all...

The evidence - if you believe Oswald did in fact shoot this rifle, and I believe he did - sugests that there was also another shooter.

-------------
If I keep writing enough hagiographic articles on Man Utd, they might give me a job

Posted By: Flanno7hi
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 1:26pm

No one mention the man in the second car that was holding a rifle. Agent George Hickey? some documentary I watched claimed he had accidentily fired the third shot during the commotion after the first 2. Interesting take.

The whole conspiracy theory thing fascinates me. People love one don't they?

This thread kinda reminds me (in a very mild way) of the first and only time I left a comment on a youtube video. I pointed out some engineering mistakes in that 911 film loose change. The amount of mad replies and crazy emails I got from very angry people made me unlink my email my account.

-------------
Our City. Our Community. Our Club
IG @flanno_7hi

Posted By: Sligo Hornet
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 1:28pm

Trap junior wrote:

when I heard that the suspect shot his load in 8.3 seconds I immediately suspected baldrick

-------------
Wallet ?? What the fcuk is that ?

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 1:42pm

Siralex wrote:

sid waddell wrote:

Again, we're going back over old ground here, but Oswald was a trained shooter who attained the rank of sharpshooter in the marines.

A man who easily had the skill to make the shots he did.

But as I say, that's old ground and we established that pages back.

But no harm to re-state the facts, all the same.

Well, you think you established that Oswald was:

I didn't establish that the shots were fired in 8.3 seconds. The Zapruder film did, The Warren Commission did, so did the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

I don't know why you 'd say "the exact opposite" about Oswald's ability to make the shots, given that it has been proved conclusively that he had the skill to make them, except that you have an almost religious faith that there was second shooter and a cover up. No serious evidence will back you up.

Everything about Oswald firing the three shots adds up.

Everything the conspiracy theorists put forward doesn't add up.

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 1:52pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle

During his Marine Corps service in December 1956, Oswald scored a rating of sharpshooter (twice achieving 48 and 49 out of 50 shots during rapid fire at a stationary target 200 yards [183 m] away using a standard issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand" rel="nofollow - M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle), although in May 1959, he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification than that ofsharpshooter). Military experts, after examining his records, characterized his firearms proficiency as "above average" and said he was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, "an excellent shot".^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle#cite_note-57" rel="nofollow - [57]}

Posted By: londonirish
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 2:13pm

I think it's almost widely accepted that there's clearly more to this story than the official account of what happened that day. Didn't John Kerry himself (Secretary of State!!) acknowledge that he thinks there's more to this story than the official 'lone gunman' account...

The Oswald theory is about as plausible as a plane bringing down a sky scrapper perfectly... (sorry two). And a building next to it. Opps...

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 2:15pm

londonirish wrote:

I think it's almost widely accepted that there's clearly more to this story than the official account of what happened that day. Didn't John Kerry himself (Secretary of State!!) acknowledge that he thinks there's more to this story than the official 'lone gunman' account...

The Oswald theory is about as plausible as a plane bringing down a sky scrapper perfectly... (sorry two). And a building next to it. Opps...

"Widely accepted".

"The Oswald theory is about as plausible as a plane bringing down a sky scrapper perfectly... (sorry two). And a building next to it. Opps..."

Go on. Flesh those out.

Posted By: Siralex
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 2:27pm

sid waddell wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle

Have I been debating with a man who uses Wikipedia as a source for accurate research? Tut, tut. I'm disappointed with myself...

How Much Skill Was Needed for Oswald to shoot Kennedy?

A Moving Target and a Poor Rifle

Although the distance from http://22november1963.org.uk/who-saw-oswald-in-the-sixth-floor-window" rel="nofollow - Oswald’s supposed location to JFK’s car was never more than about 90 yards (82 metres) during the shooting, several factors increased the difficulty of the act:

the presidential limousine was moving away from the gunman’s location;
the car was obscured for some of the time by an oak tree;
all the shots had to have been fired within a very short space of time;
and, most importantly, the only rifle that could have been used was awkward and unpredictable.

Simulating the JFK Assassination

For the benefit of the Warren Commission, expert riflemen from the US Army and the FBI attempted to duplicate the assassin’s task, using the rifle that had been discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Even after fixing some of the gun’s mechanical problems, and despite firing at stationary targets from an easier vantage point, they failed to achieve the combination of accuracy and speed demanded of the lone gunman: two hits out of three, within about six seconds (see http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=39&relPageId=454" rel="nofollow - Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.446 and http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=39&relPageId=411" rel="nofollow - pp.403–10 ).

How Good a Shot was Oswald?

http://22november1963.org.uk/the-career-of-lee-harvey-oswald" rel="nofollow - Oswald had served in the Marines several years before the http://22november1963.org.uk/" rel="nofollow - JFK assassination , and had been trained and tested in rifle shooting. The Warren Commission needed to show that he was a better marksman than the experts from the US Army and the FBI.

Oswald’s Marine Rifle Marksmanship Scores

In the late 1950s, US Marines were categorised at three levels of shooting ability, according to the scores they achieved at a standardised test of their accuracy:

Expert: a score of 220 to 250.
Sharpshooter: 210 to 219.
Marksman: 190 to 209.

According to his Marine score card ( http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=138307" rel="nofollow - Commission Exhibit 239 ), Oswald was tested twice:

In December 1956, after “a very intensive 3 weeks’ training period” ( http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=20312" rel="nofollow - Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302 ), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a ‘sharpshooter’.
In May 1959, he scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a ‘marksman’.

Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:

The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor “shot” and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good “shot”.

( http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=140785" rel="nofollow - Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f )

Folsom agreed with his (not her) questioner that Oswald “was not a particularly outstanding shot” ( http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=14719" rel="nofollow - Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.311 ).

Lee Harvey Oswald’s Rifle Practice

The Quality of Oswald’s Rifles

During his tests, Oswald had used “presumably a good to excellent rifle” ( http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=20314" rel="nofollow - Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.304 ).

The Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, however, was a “cheap old weapon” ( http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=13237" rel="nofollow - Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.29 ).

It was examined by the FBI’s firearms specialist, who stated that:

Every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. … We fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact.

( http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=16613" rel="nofollow - Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.405 )

Ronald Simmons of the US Army also examined the rifle, and found problems with the bolt and the trigger mechanism:

There were several comments made — particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. … There was also comment made about the trigger pull … in the first stage the trigger is relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire the weapon. … The pressure to open the bolt was so great that that we tended to move the rifle off the target.

( http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=16657" rel="nofollow -

Posted By: londonirish
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 2:48pm

sid waddell wrote:

The Oswald theory is about as plausible as a plane bringing down a sky scrapper perfectly... (sorry two). And a building next to it. Opps...

"Widely accepted".

"The Oswald theory is about as plausible as a plane bringing down a sky scrapper perfectly... (sorry two). And a building next to it. Opps..."

Go on. Flesh those out.

Some flesh.

United States Secretary of State John Kerry recently said he has ''serious doubts that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone'' in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. While Kerry has no alternative explanation for who killed Kennedy, he has never been convinced by the official narrative of the ''lone gunman'' who was killed by another lone gunman. Kerry's beliefs are thoroughly mainstream.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 61 per cent of Americans believe there was more than one man involved in the assassination of Kennedy. Since Gallup first asked the question in 1963, the number of Americans who believe there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy has never been less than 50 per cent. It has usually been much higher.

Like Kerry, not everyone has a fully developed conspiracy theory. In the most recent poll, 40 per cent of respondents who said there was a conspiracy had ''no opinion'' on who might have been involved. This is more than three times the numbers of people who said they believed the government, the Mafia or the Soviets killed Kennedy.

None of these alternative theories of Kennedy's death has ever gained much respectability.

But the simple idea that Oswald could not have acted alone is the most widespread and persistent conspiracy theory in American life.

In 1979 the house select committee on assassinations found the Warren report had been inadequate. Committee acoustic experts conceded a ''high probability'' that there had been more than one shooter, but 15 years after the shooting they had no hope of identifying other suspects. By this time, about 80 per cent of Americans believed there had been a conspiracy.

I won't flesh the other one out for you as it's off topic

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 4:28pm

No flesh there.

I've already explained about the findings of the House Committee on Assassinations further back on the thread. They were based on entirely on evidence later proven to be false, and the findings were rejected by the FBI and an independent panel from the US National Academy of Sciences.

Posted By: londonirish
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 4:40pm

sid waddell wrote:

No flesh there.

How about the Secretary of State saying he felt the whole lone gunman thing didn't add up? I'd go so far as saying he holds some weight no?

How about the fact that the majority of Americans don't buy it either?

You and your flesh...

None of us have a clue what happened but you are being incredibly naive but writing off anyone who questions the run of events as ludicrous conspiracy theorists... a lot about that day does not add up and that's why 50 years later people still aren't letting it go.

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 4:52pm

londonirish wrote:

sid waddell wrote:

No flesh there.

How about the Secretary of State saying he felt the whole lone gunman thing didn't add up? I'd go so far as saying he holds some weight no?

How about the fact that the majority of Americans don't buy it either?

You and your flesh...

Physical, video and forensic evidence trumps "a feeling" every time. No evidence has ever come to light of a conspiracy. Also, Kerry hasn't questioned the lone gunman theory. He hasn't questioned Lee Harvey Oswald being that lone gunman.

Are you honestly saying that because the majority of Americans believe one thing, that it has to true, and making an argument on that basis?

The majority of Americans haven't studied the case. The majority of Americans likely get their view of the case from Oliver Stone's movie, which as I've said several times, is a work of fiction.

The majority of Americans believed Saddam Hussein had something to with September 11th. Does that make it true?

Posted By: Kerrplunk
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 4:54pm

londonirish wrote:

sid waddell wrote:

No flesh there.

How about the Secretary of State saying he felt the whole lone gunman thing didn't add up? I'd go so far as saying he holds some weight no?

How about the fact that the majority of Americans don't buy it either?

You and your flesh...

Sure most of them feckers think we still dont have indoor jacks!

I'm with Sid on this. Too much evidence against Oswald. Not one shred to suggest otherwise. Whole load of motives but no evidence. People just cant get their head around why he did it. No more than Sandy Hook, Columbine etc. He was a fruit cake end of..

But there will always be people buying into cospiracies thats why this thread could go on forever....

Posted By: t_rAndy
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 7:06pm

sid waddell wrote:

Again, it's been proved that Oswald was easily capable of firing three shots in 8.3 seconds and that all shots came from behind, where Oswald was.

There is no doubt about this whatsoever. None.

On the Sunday, the media were told to be at the Dallas Police Headquarters at 10am for Oswald's transfer.

Why wasn't Oswald killed straight away after the assassination of JFK if people wanted to shut him him up?

Why would you hire Oswald to kill Kennedy?

Why would you hire a mentally ill strip club owner who had a reputation for not being able to keep his mouth shut, to kill Oswald?

Why wasn't Ruby silenced?

If there was a conspiracy against Kennedy, why not bug him and expose him as a womaniser? That would have been far easier.

If there was a conspiracy, why has no evidence of one ever emerged in 50 years?

If it was the mafia, why did not one of the many mafia members across the US who were "turned" never give any evidence as to such?

Even conspiracy theorists can't agree on the source of the alleged conspiracy - they vary wildly. It says a lot.

From where he was situated he had 5.9 seconds to get the shots off. I seen it tested on a documentary the other day and it was possible for a sharpshooter to get those shots off inside the time (just) but it was a whole other thug to be able to hit a moving target it that time also under pressure he must have been under when attempting the shots.

Also the evidence provided showed the bullets came from the back yes but this could easily have been tampered with by the powers that be if there was a conspiracy. Also on video footage released on the home video released years after the killing and subsequent inquest the pictures show in my opinion his head being blown off from the front. But I am not an expert so can't say for sure that a head can't react in that way after being hit by the back.

As I said, I am not sure which group were responsible for it but I think for sure the one thing that doesn't add up was the conclusion that he acted alone and was able to pull off the shots. So i do think at least one other person was involved and my opinion is its a probable scenario that Oswald was just a patsy

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 7:19pm

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 7:21pm

The above clip shows Kennedy's head briefly move forward before the involuntary neuromuscular response where he goes "back and to the left".

The exit wound is clearly visible in frame 313.

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 7:25pm

t_rAndy wrote:

From where he was situated he had 5.9 seconds to get the shots off. I seen it tested on a documentary the other day and it was possible for a sharpshooter to get those shots off inside the time (just) but it was a whole other thug to be able to hit a moving target it that time also under pressure he must have been under when attempting the shots.

Also the evidence provided showed the bullets came from the back yes but this could easily have been tampered with by the powers that be if there was a conspiracy. Also on video footage released on the home video released years after the killing and subsequent inquest the pictures show in my opinion his head being blown off from the front. But I am not an expert so can't say for sure that a head can't react in that way after being hit by the back.

As I said, I am not sure which group were responsible for it but I think for sure the one thing that doesn't add up was the conclusion that he acted alone and was able to pull off the shots. So i do think at least one other person was involved and my opinion is its a probable scenario that Oswald was just a patsy

Again, it doesn't matter how many times this is repeated, it doesn't make it true.

Posted By: lassassinblanc
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 10:37am

Have to say an extremely interesting thread. both sides of the argument have valid points. Not to sure myself who shot Kennedy.

Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 3:57pm

Here's CBS News's 1967 simulation of Oswald's shots - and it shows they were very makeable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovyEqfR8Hg" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovyEqfR8Hg

Posted By: Pipkin
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 4:12pm

Watched about 6 programmes in the last week on this. Last one being one from History channel that looks at all the conspiracy theories. And have come to the conclusion that it was Oswald on his own and not under the order of anyone but himself.

As has been said, something would've been leaked if it was CIA/Mafia/Communists etc. There is plenty of evidence from the programmes that he had ample time to get rid of the 3 shots in the 8.6 seconds which again was proven to be the length he had to get the three shots off.

Basically all the conspiracy theories seem to have been proven fairly inaccurate on the Grassy knoll claims and there is nothing to back up the claims about a 3rd party contracting the killing.

The only 2 things left that give any legs to a conspiracy is the POSSIBLE tampering with the car and/or body after death and why Jackie would have the initiative to jump up on the rear of a moving vehicle to gather in some of her husband's head matter whilst the said car is being peppered with bullets.