Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Something of interest - JFK and Oswald.


Recommended Posts

> So,Oswald would have to be in on his own murder.

 

Yeah, and there's even a theory that claims THAT was true, too.

 

I never claimed to believe that Ruby was HIRED to kill Oswald. But I still contend that Ruby had every intention to kill him. Ruby was known to most of the Dallas police force. Who's to say that at least ONE cop on the force, whom Ruby confided his intent to, didn't keep him posted on the timing? Another theory, I know. But to fully discredit it, you'd have to foolishly believe that every man who wears a badge is beyond reproach. And I don't wish to hear from any brothers, wives, sons or fathers of a police officer wanting to tell me otherwise. IF that WERE true, there would be NO need for every police agency to have an Internal Affairs division.

 

Sepiatone

 

Edited by: Sepiatone on Dec 1, 2013 2:43 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fifty years and nine days have passed; this is the most investigated assassination ever, even more than that of Lincoln--and the result is always the same: Oswald did it, all by himself alone.

Oliver Stone and company, enough with your ghoulish obsession. As you Americans say: GET A LIFE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The result of the assassination is the same: JFK and Oswald killed, Ruby imprisoned but there are no unanimity that Oswald acted alone. At least, that is what many here in U.K. think. So don't be so hasty.

 

50 years of the evidence explicitly coming to only one conclusion is hasty to the Brits? I know the BBC is famous for producing specials to the contrary, but they never expose a shed of evidence to support any of their nutty claims. The only evidence that exists is one shooter, 3 bullets, 2 hits. No connection of Ruby or Oswald to anyone else's involvement. You can make a claim of anything, but that doesn't make it true. There has to be EVIDENCE to support the claim. No other claim has a shred of evidence to support it. Thus, it's conjecture, and not truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>50 years of the evidence explicitly coming to only one conclusion is hasty to the Brits?

 

Conspiracy buffs are like UFO buffs. For some reason, they must, psychologly, believe in a conspiracy. It is a mental obsession with them, and there is no way to talk them out of it.

 

The oddest people on earth are the combined JFK/UFO buffs:

 

*The JFK UFO Connection*

http://www.unknowncountry.com/dreamland/jfk-ufo-connection

Link to post
Share on other sites

>There has to be EVIDENCE to support the claim. No other claim has a shred of evidence to support it. Thus, it's conjecture, and not truth.

 

Well, they COULD manufacture the "evidence".

 

It's not like, even in this case, it's never been done before. ;)

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

So "They" took Oswald's rifle and "They" killed the president with it? To what evidence are you referring? "They" paid-off the Western Union employee and other customers in the store to say Ruby was there at 11:17? Is that what you're saying? "They" found the myriad people who heard 3 shots fired from the Depository, and told them to testify to that? "They" rigged the Zapruder film to show the President's brain, bone and blood being projected to the front of his head, while his head is pushed forward, at frame 313? Is that what you're saying? "They" cleaned-up ALL other bullets, without anyone seeing them do it, or they paid off these people, as well? Is that what you're saying? The number one reason why conspiracy is ridiculous, besides zero evidence to support it, is that after all these years, no one has spoken about it? Preposterous. It is impossible to keep all the people who would have had to be a part of this major cover up, to keep quiet all these years. IMPOSSIBLE. However, if you want to believe in conspiracy, where none exists, that's your right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said it was truth. But if you are going to put your faith in the Warren Commission and the botched autopsy by the Navy surgeons and how the Secret Service was able to throw its weight around, people question if the Commission arrived at their conclusion at the start of the proceedings by making sure all the necessary evidence fit the conclusion. Why were these two surgeons who never performed autopsies allowed to work on the president? It's sounds very flawed to many.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>people question if the Commission arrived at their conclusion at the start of the proceedings by making sure all the necessary evidence fit the conclusion.

 

If Oswald was the lone assassin, then the Commission could have never come to any other conclusion, no matter how long they worked on the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They were unwilling to throw one of their own under the bus. A secret service agent may have shot the president unwittingly and that is why a cover up ensued. The exit wound on the third shot was completely different than the exit wound from the shot fired by Oswald's rifle that hit JFK and then Connally. Only an automatic weapon using hollow point bullets could have caused that massive implosion within the brain. The kind of automatic weapon agent George Hickey had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>They were unwilling to throw one of their own under the bus.

 

That is a meaningless statement. Since Oswald was the lone assassin, they didn't need to throw anyone under the bus.

 

All your side has to do is to keep the "belief" of conspiracy going, and you NEVER have to give us any facts, such as the Names of the conspirators, the types of guns they used, the types of ammunition, bullet fragments, shell casings, proof of shooting positions, etc.

 

You have to PROVE NOTHING. All you have to do is keep the MYTH OF CONSPIRACY GOING. That's an old trick that doesn't work on intelligent people. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just offered some plausible evidence in the previous post. If you can't be civil then the discussion is over. My purpose here is NOT to convince you of any assassination theory. I am offering my opinion. If you don't agree that's fine but saying things like the following is not civil.

 

The oddest people on earth are the combined JFK/UFO buffs:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a rather lengthy rebuttal to the 'JFK was shot by accident by a Secret Service agent' theory. It actually goes back quite a while, but has had a recent burst of publicity. It has the advantage of having a lot fewer moving parts than the various conspiracy theories, but it's still unproven and not very likely.

 

I don't recall if the two doctors who did the autopsy had never done any before, but they weren't long-time experts in that field. But I doubt the reason they happened to be chosen had anything to do with a conspiracy.

 

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Shooting_holes_in_theory_that_a_Secret_Service_agent_killed_President_Kennedy.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said it was truth. But if you are going to put your faith in the Warren Commission and the botched autopsy by the Navy surgeons and how the Secret Service was able to throw its weight around, people question if the Commission arrived at their conclusion at the start of the proceedings by making sure all the necessary evidence fit the conclusion. Why were these two surgeons who never performed autopsies allowed to work on the president? It's sounds very flawed to many.

 

I'm not putting my faith in the Warren Commission. Why are you even bringing that up. Didn't you read any of my posts? The evidence and facts of this case have been reviewed by more people than anything else in the history of mankind. Every modern scientific method has been applied to the evidence, including the rifle, the bullets, all the film that exist (not just Zapruder's), and there is only one conclusion. It has nothing to do with the Warren Commission. It's the evidence, proof and science. All you bring up is conjecture. Nothing you say has any evidence or science to prove it. You can say anything. What does it have to do with reality? Anyway, as I said before, people who want and need for there to be a conspiracy, won't listen to evidence and science. They just keep saying, "what about...?, as if it has any bearing on anything. The case is and has been closed. Just because you don't want it to be doesn't mean it isn't. Until somebody can show proof of how the modern forensics is wrong, then you have nothing. I'm done responding to this, it's beyond ridiculous, so you can keep saying "What about...? to your heart's content.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>Just because you don't want it to be doesn't mean it isn't. Until somebody can show proof of how the modern forensics is wrong, then you have nothing. I'm done responding to this, it's beyond ridiculous, so you can keep saying "What about...? to your heart's content.

 

Evidently, I'm the only person who has any doubts about the forensics.

Your attitude only belies a deep seated lack of conviction about what actually occurred. Why are some people so smug regarding this issue?

 

*It's beyond ridiculous, the oddest people on the earth, intelligent people can't be fooled.*

 

I've been characterized by those expressions. As I said to someone else, I'm offering opinions. It's perplexing why certain people become so emotional regarding a discussion of the issue.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Mortal-Error-Shot-That-Killed/dp/149095242X/ref=pd_bxgy_mov_text_y

Link to post
Share on other sites

>So "They" took Oswald's rifle and "They" killed the president with it? To what evidence are you referring? "They" paid-off the Western Union employee and other customers in the store to say Ruby was there at 11:17? Is that what you're saying? "They" found the myriad people who heard 3 shots fired from the Depository, and told them to testify to that? "They" rigged the Zapruder film to show the President's brain, bone and blood being projected to the front of his head, while his head is pushed forward, at frame 313?

 

I find it incredible, johnm, that you come up with so much stuff when I wrote practically NOTHING about anything you posted. Doesn't take much to get YOU going, does it?

 

But since you brought it up, let's go over a part of it.

 

I watched much of the coverage firsthand, as I was 12 years old at the time, and recall much of the occurances. While there were SOME people, NOT a "myriad" of people claiming to have heard shots from the depository, there ware also a lot of people who were on the roadside at the location of the limo who claimed to hear a shot come from the OPPOSITE direction. One guy, a soldier on leave, claimed he heard the distinctive "zing" of a bullet go past HIS head.

 

I have seen the Zapruder film many times in the last 50 years, and what I saw was that when the president was hit with the second shot, his head moved BACK, and the blood splattered to the LEFT REAR.

 

AND also testimony from a police officer at the scene claim, "That man was shot IN THE FACE"!

 

Now, it's easy to dismiss the shot heard from a different direction as what some people call "backslap" echo. I'll buy that. Heard it myself in other instances.

 

As for "eye witness testimony", there have been HUNDREDS of studies done that concluded that people who "witnessed" the same incident all claimed to have seen something different from each other. Like, "He was wearing a black coat" when it was blue. Or, "He was blonde" when he was red haired.

 

I don't dispute that Oswald fired three shots. I dispute that any of them HIT anything.

 

And I don't recall posting that the evidence WAS manufactured. I merely stated that EVIDENCE, and not neccessarily evidence in this case, COULD be manufactured. YOU drew your OWN conclusion! And since you're not the only person CAPABLE of doing so, it's easy to see why this topic is still hotly debated.

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it's the folks who believe that Oswald was the lone gunman who are odd, at least in terms of public opinion. Gallup did a poll for the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination and 30% believe Oswald was the man and most of the rest believe it was a conspiracy and a small number are undecided. In all the polls Gallup has taken since the assassination, people who believe Oswald did it himself have always been in the minority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the only reasonable reply would be undecided. But sadly people feel they have to have an opinion on events like this.

 

i.e. most people tend to have a need to believe something. I tend to be agnostic on most issues. e.g. Was Natalie Wood murdered or was it an accident?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many years ago I went to a lecture by Mark Lane. If you didn't know much about the assassination, his presentation was fairly convincing.

What I have read over the last twenty or so years has convinced me that the evidence points to Oswald as the sole assassin. I really don't see any clear evidence of a conspiracy, but to each their own.

 

The history of the Gallup poll on this topic is interesting. In the first few polls immediately after the assassination, up to 35% or so of those polled believed Oswald was the sole assassin. But gradually over the years, that number started to drop, and it reached a low point of 10%. It has started to go up in the last few polls, and reached 30% in this year's poll, so I guess one could say Oswald is making something of a "comeback."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...