Interesting new documentary on JFK's assassination

[MerryHolidays]

This is a very recent video about the new book by renowned JFK assassination researcher Josiah "Tink" Thompson. He finds a clear conspiracy based on reviewing the facts in evidence, something he has consistently posited since the 1960s, but with new information this time.

To all, whether you're a lone gunman or conspiracy theorist, this needs to be considered as what happened to our beloved JFK. if you believe nothing else, ask yourself why the US government is still withholding documents 59 years after the assassination. And, if you're a lone gunman theorist believing Lee Oswald alone killed JFK, ask what possible national security reason there is in withholding these documents?

[whathehell]

1. Sounds interesting...Thanks for the recommendation. n/t.

[Cherokee100]

2. Just wondering

Just wondering how a known (to the FBI and CIA) defector, just happened to get a job, in a building on the JFK motorcade route. Then gets killed/assassinated, in the Dallas police station. Just wondering...

[thucythucy]

11. He got the job through the woman his wife was living with

at the time. A Quaker and a pacifist, she was helping Oswald's wife during their separation. This happened before the motorcade route was announced or even planned. This has been public knowledge for decades.

Both the FBI and the Dallas police were remiss. In the case of the FBI Oswald's nomadic lifestyle--his inability for instance to keep a job, his alienating the people he rented from--made it difficult to keep track of him. Remember, this was before the internet, before widespread use of computers. All information was kept on paper and index cards. There was an FBI agent assigned to his case who had interviewed Oswald's wife, and was trying to interview Oswald, but it didn't happen in time.

The Dallas police were far more at fault. The FBI had strongly suggested that Oswald be moved to a more secure location, and that it be done without publicity, in the middle of the night. The Dallas police chief, who'd been soaking in the attention of the world media, vetoed the idea because he'd promised "the boys in the press" it would be another public spectacle.

Had Oswald stood trial the case against him would have been overwhelming. Eyewitnesses saw him at the sixth floor window, one even saw him fire the rifle. His rifle fired the bullets, his fingerprints were on the rifle and on boxes at the window. His handgun fired the bullets that killed Officer Tippet. Eyewitnesses saw him commit that murder. His actions immediately after the assassination--fleeing the scene, murdering a cop rather than answer questions, fleeing into a movie theater after that murder, pulling his weapon on people in the theater--again, in front of multiple witnesses--all would have come out in trial. It might also have come out that Oswald had attempted assassination before--taking a shot at a right wing demagogue several weeks before he murdered Kennedy and Tippet.

Oswald had a long history of violence, going back into his childhood. He was a delusional wife beater who was resentful of not being recognized as some kind of political revolutionary genius. His own brother insists on his guilt, while his mother summed up Oswald's motivation perfectly. Her statement after his arrest: "I will never be ordinary again."

I used to be a Kennedy conspiracy fan, but gave it up several decades ago. Today I see the JFK conspiracy mania as the germ and fertile ground of our contemporary crisis--"conspiracies" everywhere. Soros is behind the pandemic. No, the Chinese. No, the "Deep State." No, "Big Pharma."

The mafia killed Kennedy. No the CIA. No the Secret Service. No, some cabal of billionaires. No, it was anti-Castro Cubans. No, it was Castro.

Actually, it was one hateful man, trained as a sharpshooter by the Marine Corps--where he was repeatedly disciplined for his antisocial behavior--with easy access to firearms and both motive and opportunity. A nobody who wanted to be somebody famous, much like the sociopath who murdered John Lennon.

Oswald, like Chapman, got what he wanted--far far more than his fifteen minutes of fame. In this regard he was finally, tragically successful.

[MerryHolidays]

13. I agree with some of this

Last edited Sun Jan 9, 2022, 04:05 PM - Edit history (1)

The FBI was totally remiss, as was the DPD.

However, can you please name all the eyewitnesses who confirmed that it was Oswald at the 6th Floor window? AFAIK, there was only one person who tried to definitively state it was Oswald at the window (namely, Howard Brennan), but his testimony was marred by several problems:

Oswald Was Seen Firing a Rifle

Several people had seen at least one person with a rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD, but only one witness, Howard Brennan, provided an identification that came close to matching Oswald’s appearance. Brennan, however, turned out to be unreliable and unhelpful:

He claimed that the gunman had been standing up when firing, although the half–open window required any gunman to have crouched or kneeled.

He claimed to have seen the gunman’s trousers, which would not have been visible from Brennan’s viewpoint on the street sixty feet below.

When asked whether he had actually seen the firing of the rifle, he replied, “No.”

He claimed that on hearing the first shot, “I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun.” Brennan’s reaction to the first shot is visible on the Zapruder film: standing directly opposite the sixth–floor window, he watches Kennedy’s car go past him to his left, then from about frame 204 he in fact turns his head sharply to his right, away from the TSBD, rather than up toward the sixth floor.

He failed to pick out Oswald at an identification parade, despite already having seen Oswald’s picture on television.

Two witnesses, Arnold Rowland and Amos Euins, saw a man on the sixth floor, holding a rifle, who did not resemble Oswald. Rowland saw the gunman a few minutes before the shooting, when Oswald’s alibi almost certainly places him on the first floor, a location which is consistent with his encounter with the policeman and the building supervisor.

http://22november1963.org.uk/how-did-oswald-kill-kennedy

Also, the reference to Mark David Chapman's assassination of John Lennon is irrelevant. Chapman stalked John and killed him at close range in front of eye-witnesses. By contrast, Oswald strongly denied for two days, until he himself was executed (see below), that he had anything to do with the assassination of JFK and specifically said he was a "patsy", a highly unusual word. If he wanted to make a name for himself, why would he do that?

Also, have you have ever looked at the path that Oswald took immediately after the assassination? He took a BUS! Then he took a taxi when there was too much traffic, but an elderly lady wanted to take the same taxi. The taxi driver testified that Oswald actually offered to let the lady have his taxi, but she declined. Also, if the only reason he went to his rooming house after the assassination was to change clothes and get his handgun, don't you think he would have packed that before the assassination to make a much quicker getaway? This doesn't strike me as a person making a hurried getaway, but someone who needed to meet someone at an appointed time. But that's just me.

I am not saying that Oswald had no involvement - he clearly was involved in SOME way, but the point is that we are not sure what exactly that way was and was he working with one or more other persons.

There are so many things that are left open after 59 years. For goodness sake, this video shows LBJ on a recorded phone call with Senator Richard Russell where both of them agree that the "magic bullet theory" is nonsense. If the magic bullet didn't cause all the non-fatal wounds to the President and the Governor, there would have been at least FOUR shots. If there were four or more shots, Oswald couldn't have acted alone as he only had time to get three shots off max, and that is indisputable. That's why there have been so many contortions to say that there were only three shots. Perhaps there were only three shots, but there were TONS of witnesses, including the Governor himself, who said there were more than three shots.

For those who say the Warren Commission is infallible, I guess they also believe that we were winning the Vietnam War, that the Watergate burglary was a "third-rate" event with no real connection to the Nixon administration, and that the second Iraq War was justified? Why, well, because the government says so, it must be true?

Oh, and I sure buy that Jack Ruby knocked off Oswald to save Mrs. Kennedy the trauma of testifying...right.

[thucythucy]

20. The opinion of LBJ and Russell as to the plausibility of the single bullet theory

has as much credibility as that of any other layperson. Neither of them were experts on forensics or the physics of gunshots or gunshot wounds, so their recorded opinion is neither here nor there.

Brennan, from my reading, was not an "unreliable witness." He saw someone matching Oswald's description at the window holding a rifle and firing at least two of the shots. A reporter in the press car in the motorcade yelled "There's the rifle!" and pointed to the sixth floor window. Many of the conspiracy theories deny the possibility of the shooter being where the Warren Commission placed him--but there is eyewitness evidence someone was there, and considering Oswald's rifle was found there, along with his fingerprints on the rifle and the boxes he'd used to construct the sniper's nest, it's a pretty safe bet--even without Brennan's account--that it was Oswald at the window with a rifle.

Oswald spent the night with his wife at the Paine house. Ruth Paine was the woman who connected Oswald to his job at the Depository. He had been spending weekends there but this was the first time he showed on a Thursday night. According to Marina, he pleaded with her to take him back, and she refused. It's entirely possible he didn't make up his mind to kill Kennedy until he was certain his life with Marina was over. He retrieved his rifle from the Paine's garage, where he'd stashed it, wrapping it up in paper bags and telling his coworker it was curtain rods for his boarding house room. No curtain rods were ever found--an obvious lie, one among many that Oswald told in the following days.

Oswald wasn't the brightest bulb, so it isn't surprising his plan was half assed. His attempts to create a phony ID were laughable. His fantasy that he was some kind of international revolutionary hero was pathetic. He was a creep who got "lucky" being in the wrong place at the wrong time, with a mail order rifle and a grudge against the world.

I never said the Warren Report was infallible. In fact it was certainly flawed, for a number of reasons. First was Johnson's insistence that it be issued well before the 1964 election. Second was the fact that both the CIA and the FBI engaged in a campaign of "cover your ass." Oswald had threatened in the days before November 22 to kill an FBI agent, and had even delivered a threatening note in person to the FBI office in Dallas. The FBI fumbled it, and after Oswald's death destroyed the letter, which, if Oswald had gone to trial, might have been placed in evidence. The CIA for its part kept information about plots against Castro from the Commission.

All of this is now public knowledge, hashed over and over and then some. None of it has an impact on the evidence against Oswald.

And if Oswald wasn't the shooter, why did he kill Tippet? The eyewitnesses to that killing, last I heard, are beyond question. Why was he the only employee to flee to Depository after the assassination? Why did he flee his boarding house, taking his other gun? Oswald was a news junkie and fancied himself a deep political thinker. And yet, finding himself at the center of the most important single event in American politics in half a century, he decides to head home and then take a little stroll with his handgun. And sneak into a theater. And try to shoot someone there. Hardly the actions of a "patsy" or innocent man.

The BBC did a fairly good documentary on all this called "Beyond Conspiracy." I think an American network picked it up and ran with its own version. You might check that out and see what you think.

Going on six decades and despite the efforts of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of researchers, no one has been able to identify with any degree of plausibility the identity of any other assassin. Keeping such a monumental secret this long is highly unlikely--especially if the conspiracy involved even a fraction of all the many players--FBI, CIA, Dallas Police, LBJ, Cuban exiles, Mafia, and god knows who else--that have been put forward as suspects. The latest I heard is that the Secret Service agent in the limo shot Kennedy (and Connally?) by mistake. It just goes on and on.

As I said, I used to buy into the idea of a conspiracy. But for me to believe after all these years in some labyrinthine plot I need solid, tangible proof, not a series of coincidences coupled with endless speculation.

We could go back and forth on this forever. I doubt I'll able to convince you or you convince me. You asked a question--how is it Oswald got this job at the Depository, implying some kind of sinister plot to place him where he could murder the president. The truth is rather more mundane. Tired of his abuse, Oswald's wife moved in with Ruth Paine. Wanting to help the couple, and knowing money was an issue in their marriage, and that Oswald was out of work, she talked to a friend whose husband worked at the Depository who said there was an opening there. Oswald applied for the job and got it. All this is in the Warren Report, in the sworn testimony of Paine and the others involved. No great plan, no sinister plot.

Sometimes history works that way, as much as we'd like events such as this to make sense or serve some greater purpose. Whatever the case, the murder of JFK was a profoundly traumatic event, so it's no wonder there continues to be this effort to make it be more than it was--a brutal firearms murder, one of hundreds of thousands we've witnessed in the past half century and more. All of them tragic, all of them just as senseless.

Best wishes and happy new year.

[MerryHolidays]

21. There is no need to find a "labyrinthine plot"

I wasn't the one asking about how LHO got a job at the Texas School Book Depository...that's irrelevant to me. But since you have raised the issue that Oswald was "violent" and a "wife beater", can you name any instance whatsoever when he indicated he didn't like JFK? AFAIK, he was a FAN of JFK and was NEVER known to say anything negative about him.

You specifically said there were multiple witnesses that showed Oswald at the 6th floor window of the TSBD. That is clearly not true, and there is more than ample information that Howard Brennan, the ONLY witness who tried to finger Oswald, was not reliable. Two other witnesses saw someone in this window, but their evidence rules out Oswald.

You do understand Richard Russell was on the Warren Commission, and he and President Johnson find it implausible that the magic bullet did the damage it did? Please don't dismiss the lack of credibility of the "magic bullet" theory. If it fails, there is absolutely no doubt that there were at least two shooters. Putting that aside, do you seriously believe a single bullet could cause so many wounds to two humans and emerge relative unscathed?

Do you really think that Jack Ruby offed Oswald to save Mrs. Kennedy sadness? Seriously???

Can you name exactly who saw Oswald kill Officer J.D. Tippit?

I am not saying that Oswald didn't do it...neither am I saying he did it all alone. If you believe he did it all alone, I suppose you believe the government's stories on Viet Nam, Watergate, and the 2nd Iraq War.

Again, I am not saying that Oswald had nothing to do with JFK's assassination. But what I am saying is that this video clearly raises huge issues as to whether he could have acted alone. I think any person with an ounce of common sense can see that LHO didn't act alone. Ruby's gangland execution of Oswald is one of many, many suspicious acts.

[thucythucy]

22. The identity of the witnesses that testified, under oath, that they saw Oswald shoot Tippit

is public knowledge, and has been since November 1963.

Here's one source--there are others.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340670/m1/1/

I think Jack Ruby had serious mental health issues and yes, he was distraught over the assassination and spoke before he shot Oswald about how "that smug son of a bitch killed my president" and how much Jackie and the children would suffer if there was a trial. Posner in his book Case Closed details Ruby's actions hour by hour leading up to the shooting, interviewed co-workers, family and friends who all stated he was an emotional wreck and highly unstable. Like Oswald he had a history of violence, including violent altercations at his club.

Indeed, a less likely professional assassin could hardly be imagined. Ruby shooting Oswald to keep him quiet? Well then, what's to keep Ruby from spilling the beans? Who hired him? What's to say he wouldn't, once in custody, point to the same people Oswald was supposedly at risk to incriminate? So then why wasn't Ruby shot? And then of course you'd have to off that person as well, and on and on and on. Ruby spent the rest of his life in prison--what possible gain did he derive from his act, other than the momentary satisfaction of the killing itself? Where are the records of Ruby being paid off? Or his family? And what professional assassin does a hit in a garage full of cops, reporters and TV cameras? Great way to keep the conspiracy under wraps! Shoot the prime suspect with tens of millions of people watching! Even the thug who shot Joe Gallo--one of the most public gangland hits in history--made sure of his getaway. But not ace Mafia gangland assassin Jack Ruby, who died years later of natural causes in prison. Mighty sloppy of those conspirators, to leave a loose end like that dangling for so long.

Have you bothered to read the actual Warren Commission Report, along with its supporting documents and testimony? I did, years back, the entire multi-volume report and not just the one volume summary. Read the actual words of the actual people who were questioned, under oath. That more than anything else convinced me most of the conspiracy claims were at best, misguided and uninformed, at worst out and out scams providing a living for folks who push these claims as a way to make a living. People like Jean Hill who made a virtual career out of appearances at conspiracy conclaves, whose testimony under oath bears no relation to her ever evolving and ever more ludicrous accounts of that day at Dealy Plaza.

Your comment about my believing "the government's stories on Vietnam, Watergate and the 2nd Iraq War" are ad homonym attacks that I often encounter from conspiracy true believers. To not buy into the conspiracy dujour prompts just the sort of attack you made against me. For the record, I opposed the Vietnam War, have read the Pentagon Papers (and met Daniel Ellsberg), demonstrated against the second Iraq War, and cheered when Nixon resigned. I prefer not to make ludicrous generalizations about people I encounter on-line, especially those on DU, except to say attacks like yours go along with a general unwillingness of conspiracy buffs to look at the more ugly side of the whole JFK conspiracy craze. As an example, the blatant homophobia in the Oliver Stone film, which reflected the blatant homophobia of William Garrison, whom Stone turned into a hero, fictionalizing events beyond all recognition.

This all has a real world impact. To stay with Garrison for a moment, his crusade against Clay Shaw was a vicious vendetta against a successful gay businessman. Shaw was practically hounded to his death, with Garrison continuing to vilify him even after the jury rejected his bogus case. Shaw died before he could bring suit against Garrison, and it's simply nauseating that Stone continued the attacks on a man whose only crime was to be gay and closeted.

Again, check out the BBC documentary, which goes at some length into the single bullet theory. As one forensic expert put it, it's not theory, it's fact. Analysis of the Zapruder film, the location of the wounds on Kennedy and Connolly and the bullet's path through their bodies all demonstrate that the wounds were caused by a single shot fired from behind from the corner of the sixth floor of the School Book Depository. The simple fact that Connolly's wrist was hit demonstrates that the shot couldn't possibly have originated anywhere in front of the limousine. And before you counter with the whole "back and to the left" mantra, a digital analysis of the Zapruder film, done with technology unavailable in 1964, shows Kennedy jerking forward the moment he is hit in the head. The "back and to the left" happens a fraction of a second later, the result of the spasm caused by massive trauma to the brain.

You're invested in conspiracy, I believe I have good reason to have gone beyond all that. I've read and seen much of the pro-conspiracy material. Have you made a good faith effort to delve into those who do the debunking?

As I said, we could go on and on about this, point for point for point. As I think I said at the start of all this, Oswald would be delighted to know people are still talking about him decades later. That was the point of his crime--it had nothing to do with liking or disliking JFK. He recognized in the day or so leading up to November 22 that he had a once in a lifetime opportunity to make history and become famous, and he took it. Occam's Razor in this case cuts right to the core.

[MerryHolidays]

24. You still haven't cited any evidence

Last edited Mon Jan 10, 2022, 09:17 PM - Edit history (2)

As I said, I just want to know the truth, whatever that is. I am not "invested" in anything. However, you seem to dismiss everything without any evidence and base everything on the Warren Commission's Report. What's NOT looked at might be more important than what is, and the Warren Commission didn't look at or deal with a mountain of evidence. To use your terminology, you're the one who's "invested", not me.

The pages you cite mention only one witness to the Tippit shooting, TF Bowley (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339179/m1/1/), and he never identified Oswald (he was also a doorman for the very poignant and tragic ( ) figure Jack Ruby!). The only persons who possibly identified Oswald near Tippit were Helen Markham and Domingo Benevides, the first of whom had serious credibility issues and the second of whom did not, in reality, identify Oswald. Check the summary of Benevides' interview with the Commission's legal staff.

Where in heaven's name did you get that Jim Garrison went after Clay Shaw because of his sexual orientation? That was roundly dismissed in the 1960s. IMHO, Garrison went too far in saying that the assassination was a result of the military-industrial complex's desire to see war in Viet Nam, but he was right to investigate these issues, many of which occurred in New Orleans, and the greater question of whether there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. Oliver Stone's movie is no less or more absurd than many of the unfounded, unresearched, or simply jettisoned bits of evidence "examined" (or not) by the Warren Commission.

And by the way, Shaw died in 1974, five years after Garrison's case concluded in Spring 1969...yet you say he didn't have enough time to bring a defamation/abuse of process case against Garrison? Really?

And on "back and to the left", this video, as well as several other resources, indicates that JFK was hit by two bullets almost simultaneously, one from the front and one from the back. Governor Connally and his wife, both of whom were just a wee bit closer to the tragic events than you and I, consistently said that the Governor was hit by a separate bullet than the one that hit JFK in the throat. And the President of the United States, who clearly wanted the Warren Commission to have the case limited to Oswald, himself finds the magic bullet theory nonsense. But you dismiss all of this. Again, that's fine, but I would like to know why these points weren't examined in far greater detail or not at all. If either or both of those views are right, Oswald couldn't have been the lone gunman, as he only had time to get off three shots. Four or more shots didn't work for the Warren Commission, and it's quite sad how they came up with justification after justification for only three shots, dismissing any evidence that undercuts this because it was so essential to having the investigation go no further than Oswald. I guess Occam's Razor cuts very deeply.

And yes, Jack Ruby had a history with the mob. So a mob guy had sympathy for Mrs. Kennedy? Touching really, isn't it?

My reference to the other government pronouncements that were categorically false specifically relates to falling for everything the government says without critical analysis...that's about it; however, if you want to accuse me falsely of "ad homonym" [sic] attacks when you seem to be devoted to the Warren Commission, go right ahead. I guess you also know who knocked off Jimmy Hoffa and where his remains are, since, in your world, nothing remains secret?

And by the way, where else would Ruby have offed Oswald except in front of many people/tv cameras? That was essentially the only environment where Oswald was seen in the last two days of his life. While apparently massively grieving for Mrs. Kennedy, Mr. Ruby amazingly found enough intestinal fortitude to stalk Oswald at the police station on November 22 and 24, helpfully answering questions to the press about Oswald's affiliation with a pro-Castro group. What an amazing man Ruby was ....he could take himself from his overwhelming grief to show up at the police station on the night of the assassination to be near Oswald (wearing sunglasses at night, no less!). Remarkable character, indeed.

By the way, Gerald Posner has been discredited by newspapers like The LA Times and The Baltimore Sun. He has no special expertise in murder investigations, much less political assassinations. He's just a lawyer. There are certainly some correct views he takes, but his absolute intransigence in accepting no information that goes against his views is telling.

Also, citing a 19 year-old ABC/BBC documentary, which I have indeed seen, as additional principal support for your views is no different than my citing a video less than a month old by the ABC affiliate in San Francisco that contradicts your absolute position. Take your pick. Better yet, consider both or several.

Yes, I have read the entirety of the Warren Report, and likely far more recently than you based on your comments. I've spent four decades researching this as a kid, as an adult, and as a lawyer, all in an informal capacity, and I still don't know what happened. You clearly believe you do.

I agree: there's no further point in arguing. I am merely convinced that I don't know what happened, whereas you are certain as to what happened. That's the difference.

I suggest that others who are open-minded look at this website: http://22november1963.org.uk/ . I find it remarkably balanced and extremely well-researched with pinpoint citations to directly relevant testimony and evidence. It clearly does lean to the view that either Oswald acted with others OR that he was innocent. However, it tells both/multiple sides of any issue and presents on-point evidence. It makes you wonder, as long as you keep your mind open.

[thucythucy]

25. I feel a need to respond to one part of your lengthy diatribe.

I feel the need to respond to just one part of your long diatribe, simply because it is so egregious, so dismissive of such an ugly aspect of this whole sordid affair.

You ask "Where in heaven's name" I "came up with" the idea that Garrison went after Shaw because of his sexuality. The fact that you're unaware of this or think it was somehow "roundly dismissed in the 1960s" shows me how much genuine "research" you've done.

Garrison's homophobia was notorious, indeed entire books have been written about it. Among them are Alicia Long's "Cruising for Conspirators: How a New Orleans DA Prosecuted the Kennedy Assassination as a Sex Crime" and "On the Trail of Delusion," by Fred Litwin. I suppose you'll dismiss those books and other discussions of Garrison's--and by extension Oliver Stone's -- rampant homophobia by attacking the various authors. When doing so, be sure to add a or two.

But just do a Google search of "Garrison" and "homophobia" and you come up with a wealth of material.

Just a quick sample:

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/181555

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lgbt-history-month-the-gay-man-charged-in-the-assassination_b_58076defe4b00483d3b5cdc4

https://www.amazon.com/Trail-Delusion-Garrison-Great-Accuser-ebook/dp/B08KFRNSHG

https://uncpress.org/book/9781469662732/cruising-for-conspirators/

https://gonola.com/lgbt-new-orleans/guilty-gay-nola-businessman-clay-shaw

Here are two quotes that might be of interest:

"DA Garrison rejected the findings of the Warren Commission’s “lone gunman” theory and believed, according to investigative journalist James Phelan, that the Kennedy assassination involved a complex conspiracy that included Clay Shaw and a possible “homosexual plot” or “homosexual thrill killing” — whatever that is. In a press conference about the case, Garrison replied with a curt “no comment,” without further elaboration, when asked if he believed that “homosexuality or coercion to homosexuality was a factor in the planning or the assassination of John F. Kennedy.”

"Tapping into the public’s willingness to take seriously conspiratorial explanations of the Kennedy assassination, Garrison drew on the copious files the New Orleans police had accumulated as they surveilled, harassed, and arrested increasingly large numbers of gay men in the early 1960s. He blended unfounded accusations with homophobia to produce a salacious story of a New Orleans-based scheme to assassinate JFK that would become a national phenomenon."

The fact that you claim to be ignorant of Garrison's clear bigotry, which culminated in him harrassing unto bankruptcy and death an entirely innocent man (who, let's not forget, was acquitted by a jury in near record time) is deeply disturbing to me. I take bigotry seriously, especially when indulged in by a prosecutor.

I'll go to the website you suggest, and see what I see. I just hope it doesn't try to lend any credence to Garrison or Stone's hate filled delusions, or some of the other nonsense in which conspiracy "researchers" often indulge. It's tough enough being gay in this culture without having to deal with that kind of poisonous background noise.

[MerryHolidays]

26. You said that Shaw died before he could bring a claim against Garrison

Last edited Mon Jan 10, 2022, 11:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you have any proof, especially when you said he died before he could bring such a claim? As I pointed out, he died 5 years later, more than enough time for trial and several rounds of appeals.

There is no diatribe....there is merely a factual refutation of the many things you raise. To the extent you are right, I am happy to be corrected. Perhaps, you can do the same? The problem is that we will likely never know because of the failure of the US government to make a full disclosure. That is what I find totally unacceptable. I want to know what happened. That's it.

Since you are now focused only on the Garrison case, it is irrelevant to anyone (including me) that Shaw was or wasn't gay. The ONLY issue was whether Shaw and David Ferrie were involved in a conspiracy to kill the incredible John F. Kennedy. Given your knowledge of the JFK assassination, I am sure you are aware of this picture:



It shows David Ferrie and Oswald together at a Civil Air Patrol event. Folks like Oswald, Ferrie, Shaw, etc had CLEAR connections. I have no idea what those connections are and what they mean, but that's the point and that was the point Garrison was making. These figures ARE most clearly connected in some way. However, the desire to make Oswald the sole perpetrator without doing a full investigation (realizing that Oswald NEVER had a chance to put on any real defense) is my specific indictment against the warren Commission. My beloved President died, and there needs to be retribution to all involved and also a clear way to never allow this to happen again.

Please read up about Lamar Waldron. He has written extensively about the assassination and shows, at least to me, in a convincing manner that the Mafia and the CIA were using the same set of people to do their bidding. The Kennedy assassination, most likely by the Mafia, was highly embarrassing to the CIA because the people that were used for the assassination (presumably by the Mafia) were the same people used by the CIA to "neutralize" Fidel Castro. That is the likely secret hidden by the US Government's refusal to release all documents related to this tragic event 59 years after the tragedy.

Like 9/11, it's not the US Government was involved in the act. Rather, the powers that be at the time were covering up their own failures to prevent the tragic events of JFK's assassination and 9/11. Frankly, that is UNACCEPTABLE.

Given your interest in Watergate, I am sure you remember that Nixon told his henchmen Haldeman and Ehrlichman six days after the break-in to tell the CIA that a full-blown investigation of the Watergate burglary would "open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing" as a reason to stop the burglary investigation which was getting closer to Nixon. If you have the time, please check up on the meaning of that curious threat in June 1972 to the CIA that actually resulted in the CIA telling the FBI to stop the Watergate investigation, which lasted for about 2 weeks. What precisely does the "Bay of Pigs thing" mean? Remember that this was the specific smoking gun that led Nixon to resign. And there is a tie of the Bay of Pigs folks to folks involved in the JFK assassination (e.g., Shaw, Ferrie, et al) and to Watergate (e.g., Frank Sturgis, Howard Hunt, etc). Connect those dots, and you then likely have the answer to this riddle.

I couldn't care less about race, religion, sexual orientation, etc etc etc etc. I just want to know the truth.

[thucythucy]

27. Shaw indeed filed suit against Garrison

Last edited Wed Jan 12, 2022, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

but the case was delayed and Shaw died before it could be decided. Under Louisiana law only his children could have pursued the suit after his death, and Shaw died childless.

Defending himself against Garrison drove him into bankruptcy. The trial itself--the one Garrison brought--wasn't decided until two years after Shaw's arrest. The jury voted to acquit on the first ballot, returning with its verdict in less than an hour. But two days after this verdict Garrison had Shaw arrested again, this time for perjury. That case lasted another two years before the federal court, in June 1971, issued an injunction barring Garrison from further persecution of Shaw. Garrison appealed the federal injunction all the way to the Supreme Court, where he again lost. So Garrison's persecution of Shaw lasted four years. A disgusting travesty.

You want "proof" of all this? I cited two books written specifically about the case. Check those out--proof indeed.

Perhaps you "couldn't care less about race, religion, sexual orientation" but I certainly care. That a notorious homophobe like Garrison could have any credibility among progressives, much less be lionized as some kind of hero (even offered a supporting role in Stone's movie) I find highly disturbing. If Garrison had started his "investigation" by claiming the assassination was a plot by "the international Jewish conspiracy" would you still grant him the respect you do? Not to mention, the fact that you were entirely unaware, after spending as you say years on the topic of the assassination, of Garrison's homophobia also gives me pause. It's not like Garrison's bigotry hasn't been a matter of public discussion and record. The movie "JFK" was denounced by prominent LGBTQ groups at the time of its release precisely because of its demonization of gay people, a demonization that accurately reflects Garrison's own homophobia. How could you be so deep into all this without at least knowing something about this?

I'm puzzled too by your not knowing that eyewitnesses identified Oswald as the killer of Officer Tippit. I apologize for the link I first provided--I thought it was more extensive.

So to answer your question about these witnesses more extensively:

Helen Markham was a half a block from the scene of the crime. She saw Oswald shoot Tippit and began screaming. Oswald looked at her (so she got a full view of his face), smirked and started running. She positively identified Oswald in a line-up.

Virginia and Barbara Davis were in their house, on the corner of Tenth and Patton, when they heard the shots. They went to their window, seconds later, and saw Oswald running across their lawn from the scene of the murder. He was holding his weapon, emptying it of spent shells. Markham meanwhile was pointing to Oswald screaming "He shot him. Call the police." The two women got a good look at Oswald, and positively identified him in a line up.

William Scoggins was eating lunch in his cab, parked less than half a block away from the murder. He heard the shots, saw Tippit collapse, then hid as Oswald went running by. He got a clear view of Oswald's face, was close enough to hear Oswald mutter, "poor damn cop" or "poor dumb cop." Scoggins positively identified Oswald in a line up.

Ted Callaway, a block or so away, saw Oswald, gun still in hand, running away. Callaway yelled, "What the hell is going on?" Oswald stopped for a moment, mumbled something Callaway didn't catch, then continued fleeing. Callaway also positively identified Oswald in a line-up that evening.

All of this is in the Warren Report, which you said you read, including, you said, the supporting testimony. So not only did these five witnesses all identify Oswald in line ups as the murderer of Officer Tippit, they also testified to these facts to the Commission under oath. Their testimony can be found in volumes III, VI and VII of the report.

So, if you read these volumes, how could you have missed this absolutely crucial testimony? It identifies Oswald at the very least as someone willing and able to commit murder--hardly an "innocent patsy." And it raises the question--why would Oswald commit cold blooded murder in front of witnesses unless he was desperately fleeing the scene of another crime?

Part of the problem I have debating conspiracy buffs is the conspiracies are all so contradictory. If Oswald was a patsy, then why kill Tippit? And how was it his rifle and finger prints were found at the sniper's nest? If he was indeed being framed by some sinister conspiracy, again, why kill Tippit? And why pull his gun and attempt to kill another police officer in the movie theater?

But let's suppose he was indeed part of some far flung conspiracy. Okay, so the plotters are able to pull off murdering the president. They think Oswald has enough information on them to make them order his killing as well--presumably the reason Jack Ruby gunned him down. At least that's the scenario you seem to be suggesting. So let's see- these conspirators, who set up a cross fire so devilishly clever it confounds forensic specialists to this very day--this is the "two shots from two directions fired simultaneously" theory--forgot to arrange a getaway car for Oswald? What, they just said, "Here kid, here's some bus fare, thanks and good luck?" And then said, when he was caught, "Holy shit, he might spill the beans, let's kill him before his does!"? And arranged it so their newest shooter would also be caught, thus continuing to put them at risk? Seriously?

I'm a firm believer in Occam's Razor. Which tells me: Oswald was a sociopathic misfit who saw a chance at lasting fame by killing the president. He had a well documented history of deluded self-importance and extreme violence. He'd already tried assassinating General Walker and had failed at that. Indeed, he failed at everything he ever tried, up until November 22.

As for the coincidences you site--the connection between Ferrie and Oswald and such--they are just that--coincidences. You yourself state you have no idea what these mean. A cryptic comment by Richard Nixon, of all people, does not a proven conspiracy make. "The Bay of Pigs thing" means what? Payoffs to Nixon by Cuban exiles?

You claim Posner's book was discredited, in what way? What specifically does he get wrong? Here I'm asking you for proof. What details in his book--with its end notes and named sources--are incorrect? As for the BBC film being old--age doesn't alter the truth. One of my personal heroes is the Greek historian Thucydides--hence my DU handle. His account of the Peloponnesian War still stands as a masterpiece, despite being more than two thousand years old. If you saw the BBC documentary, you saw the forensics behind the statement that the "single bullet theory" is fact. What in that analysis was wrong? Again--using your own standard--how about some proof?

Finally, your comment that this is somehow "Like 9-11" rather creeps me out. Please tell me you're not another "truther."

I'll read Waldron when I get the time. I hope there's "more there there" than I've seen reading and hearing various other conspiracy theorists.

[MerryHolidays]

28. I have no idea why you take the tone you do

Last edited Wed Jan 12, 2022, 10:54 PM - Edit history (2)

But that's entirely up to you.

A few further points:

1) I guess you are clearly stating that the only reason that Jim Garrison brought the case against Clay Shaw was because of Shaw's sexual orientation. That's patently absurd. Read Garrison's On The Trail of the Assassins and see how clearly he raises the issues as to why he brought the case. It's an excellent and meticulously detailed book. Garrison and his case had his/its faults, but so did Clay Shaw. And those issues had nothing to do with sexual orientation. I did check the case that you refer to (Shaw v. Garrison). It's actually incorrect to say that Shaw's death ended the case. It didn't as to FEDERAL law. I can't find a final disposition of that case, so I don't know whether Shaw's claims were upheld (I don't think they were). Garrison addresses the additional litigation against him in great detail in his book, so I am not going to get into a point-by-point refutation. Again, Garrison had very limited resources and the entire federal government opposed his case. Perhaps rightfully, perhaps wrongfully. And I totally DON'T believe Garrison's contention that the purpose of the assassination was to keep the US in Viet Nam. But I cannot dismiss that he raised some important issues.

Ordinarily, I am a big fan of Wikipedia, but in cases like the JFK assassination, there are far too many competing interests and issues to say that an open-source encyclopedia is definitive. For example, in looking at the page for the Shaw trial, apparently, Judge Hegerty, the presiding judge in the 1969 trial, said in a 1992 interview that he believed Shaw was lying but was a believable con man. On that same page, you will find information supporting your doctrinaire beliefs, and I can find the same to support my simple contention that we don't know what really happened.

2) Do you believe Oliver Stone is also a homophobe? As are Tommy Lee Jones, Joe Pesci, Kevin Bacon, and literally a cast of thousands in JFK? You may have issues with Stone's depictions in the movie, and that's your absolute right. However, it has nothing to do with the basic thesis of JFK's death, and that there were gigantic deficiencies in the Warren Commission's report.

3) And yes, I am aware of the criticisms of Garrison and his alleged homophobia, and I specifically referred to it in an earlier post. That's also specifically raised in the Stone movie. The attacks against JFK because of certain portrayals is not something I have followed because it has nothing to do with what really happened with the assassination. Perhaps you're right, but it's not relevant to this central issue. It's a wholly unrelated issue. Of course, it's unacceptable to malign anyone because of their sexuality, race, gender, religion. I trust you have no issues with that, but your post seems to indicate you do. You might want to consider rephrasing your response, as, otherwise, it seems you think that it's ok to take, for example, race into the question of a suspect's criminal behavior. That's all I mean, but you went a bit OTT with your response.

4) As for the Tippit killing, there were witnesses to many things, but there were VERY few people who actually were in a position to see who actually killed the man. For example, here's a 2002 article by a now-deceased extremely distinguished law professor at the University of Georgia Law School demonstrating grave doubts about the witnesses and evidence related to the Tippit murder: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1145&context=fac_pm . If you choose to believe Gerald Posner, who had a few years of corporate law experience and no experience whatsoever AFAIK in criminal law, over an internationally famous legal expert in criminal law and procedure, that's again your choice. So this is at least as much "proof" as Posner's absolutist defense. There are plenty of others, and I guess we can keep firing off links to each other. But that's finally the point: there are MANY well-respected people who have significant doubts about this and other aspects of the assassination.

If I were you, and with respect, I would stop citing Posner and look at Vincent Bugliosi, a far more believable source. I have been a huge fan of Mr. Bugliosi from the time of the Manson murders, and he wrote a massive tome on the Kennedy assassination. I confess that I have not gone through it except for the first few chapters. However, my understanding is that Mr. Buglioisi was not a huge fan of Posner's work, but he did ultimately praise it. Nonetheless, Bugliosi to me is a far more credible source than Posner. That Vincent Bugliosi found that Oswald was the lone assassin was a surprising thing to me and does raise issues with other explanations simply based on his reputation. That being said, his book is huge, with a CD to add to the reading. It's sitting on my bookshelf, and this exchange will prompt me to open it up again.

5) Take a look at Oswald's relatively leisurely journey from the TSBD to his rooming house. This was CLEARLY not a mad dash to get away. The guy took a bus and then offered to give his taxi to a senior citizen. And also consider his journey from his rooming house to the Texas Theater where he was captured. Do you really believe the timing? There are plenty of videos and written pieces out there demonstrating it was essentially impossible for Oswald to do the things he did in the 1.25 hours from the assassination to when he was captured at the Texas Theater. And I am sure you will find me tons of "evidence" stating the opposite. Again, what is right?

6) As for the "magic bullet theory", there are many sources out there slamming this For every video you show me praising the magic bullet theory, I will find you one eviscerating it. The POTUS, whose Commission this was, did slam this view too. And Governor Connolly, one of the three people injured that awful day in 1963, disputed that his wounds were caused by the same bullet that caused Kennedy's non-fatal wounds. The Warren Commission said he must be "mistaken", or words to that effect, which is how they treated anything that did not fit the final outcome that they (and LBJ) wanted: the case must stop at Oswald, not Russia, not Cuba, but only Oswald.

Also, so many of the doctors at Parkland Hospital attending to JFK clearly stated there were entry wounds (plural) that could have only come from the front, not the back (e.g., TSBD). Remember that these were the FIRST medical personnel to attend to the President and while he still had a pulse. Are they lying? Perhaps they were "mistaken" using the Warren Commission's word for anything that undercut the clear-cut objective: limit the case to Oswald.

It may not be that there were intentional bad acts by the Warren Commission. Rather, they already knew the final result and they just felt the need to do the bare minimum to get to that point.

7) And yes, there were THREE people killed or injured that day: (a) President Kennedy; (b) Governor Connolly; AND (c) James Tague, a bystander whose cheek was grazed by concrete kicked up by a bullet. That complicates things even more for the Warren Commission as it further opens up the possibility that more than three bullets were fired during the assassination. If four or more bullets were fired, it is essentially indisputable that Oswald didn't act alone, if at all.

8) You keep indicating that Oswald did this for glory. Why exactly would he deny he was involved, literally to his dying breath? Is there a single instance where Oswald indicated he hated Kennedy? No. What was his motive then? Some just say he was "crazy"? Really?

By the way, where all the notes and recordings from interviews/interrogations for the time that Oswald was in the custody of the Dallas Police Department. The failure to have those is highly irregular, especially in perhaps the most important US murder in the 20th century.

To the extent that the Mannleicher Carcano was Oswald's rifle, why do you find it so compelling that his fingerprints were on it? Of course, they were on it. That proves nothing - it was undoubtedly his rifle. And why were his fingerprints all over the TSBD and specifically the 6th floor and the boxes there? Again, the answer is obvious and commonsense (calling to mind Occam's Razor) - the guy WORKED there.

9) You keep talking about "proof". I've sent you several links, and you've cited many things too. Much of this is disputed. Who's right or wrong, I can't say. However, you clearly believe you can. There's "proof" for many contentions on multiple sides. My simple point, which you continuously deny, is that there is much that is in dispute. Not everyone is as nuts as you make them out to be.

10)Your ad hominem attack about 9/11 is absurd too. My point, which you repeatedly fail to grasp, is that the government has been flat-out wrong on many issues, either by negligence or intentionally. Do you think George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice did their utmost to stop 9/11 from occurring? Of course, they didn't. And unlike your baseless attacks, it's not some "truther" issue - it's because they knew they dropped the ball in acting on all the intelligence clearly indicating something was going to happen. They bent over backwards to withhold info from the 9/11 Commission. That is not "trutherism", using your vernacular. If you choose to believe everything the government says without critical analysis, then that's your choice. I choose not to.

Not that this really matters, but perhaps it does, given how strident you are in your defense of the Warren Commission. My understanding is that nearly 65% of Americans believe that Oswald didn't act alone. Your absolutist views are in the minority.

But that's not my real issue: you refuse to accept anything except what you believe, regardless of the apparent reality. For a person who is as clearly intelligent as you are and who cites Thucydides, I would have thought there would be a greater willingness to consider differing points. But that's up to you.

I would suggest you read Waldron. He comes up with an incredibly cogent reasoning why things aren't what they appear and the motivations for limiting the analysis.

[MerryHolidays]

29. And just to add

Last edited Thu Jan 13, 2022, 02:23 PM - Edit history (3)

To the extent I've added any fire to this exchange, that fire is hereby withdrawn.

I do get passionate about JFK because I simply adore the man and cannot understand why he was taken away from us. He was a bit before my time, but his utter brilliance still shines on me today. I love to hear his voice. His presence today, like RFK and MLK, and also John Lennon would have made this world utterly different than what it is today. I don't ever want there to be anything again like these horrific events, and that's why it's critical to know everything about them as to what really happened.

That's it in a nutshell: I just want to know what happened and why. It outrages me that documents related to the JFK assassination are still being withheld. If, for example, the Kennedy family came out and said they were requesting documents to be withheld for personal/privacy reasons, I could buy that. Certainly, for things like autopsy photos, we don't need to see those (although they are clearly out there). However, I simply fail to understand what national security interest in preventing the release of documents that there could possibly be if LHO acted alone and not in concert with any other person, organization, or country.

Time permitting, do check out some of the links and books that I've mentioned...they aren't wild conspiracy theorists. As mentioned, I think it's absurd that folks say that the Secret Service or Mrs. Kennedy did it. That's insane. But there are so many doubts that arise when something is rushed like the Warren Commission. That is the precise reason why more than 60% of Americans have doubts as to what happened.

Also, here's a very long but recent piece from the Washington Post about the 30th anniversary of JFK and interviews with Stone and others. Many of the topics we've discussed in our exchange are discussed here. Worth a read if you have about 20 minutes or so: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/12/22/oliver-stone-jfk-anniversary/ .

Like I said, Vincent Bugliosi's massive book and CD are gathering dust on my bookshelf, and I intend on reading it soon when I get caught up with things. Bugliosi is someone who I have greatly admired, and I loved his books on Manson, OJ Simpson, Bush v. Gore etc. Check out his TV trial of Oswald with Gerry Spence and some of the other re-enactments by the ABA. He clearly finds LHO as the lone perpetrator. That's extremely significant to me, and that's why I paid a small fortune to buy his book. Perhaps he will convince me. Posner doesn't hold a candle to Vincent Bugliosi, IMHO.

Sunlight is absolutely a great disinfectant.

I wish you a peaceful and safe 2022. This is my last post on this thread!

[thucythucy]

31. I'm not sure what you mean

when you say I somehow support discriminating on the basis of race or gender or sexual orientation. Seems to me I've been saying the opposite, hence my umbrage at Garrison's persecution of Clay Shaw. And yes, I think the primary reason he went after Shaw was because Shaw was gay. That's what put Shaw on Garrison's radar in the first place. One of the links/quotes I cited discussed how Garrison went through the anti-gay files compiled by the New Orleans police to look for his "suspects." Once he found a gay man that seemed to fit the bill, he started compiling his spurious case. It was a classic example of prosecuting the person, not the crime.

I've read Garrison's book, though it's been a while, and my impression was it was filled with dubious claims and absurd leaps. If A knows B and B knows D, then A and D are obviously linked. The worst kind of guilt by association. It also, as I recall, gives short shrift to how, after he made his case, the jury came back in record time with a verdict of not guilty. Either Garrison was incompetent in his arguments, or the jury was part of the "conspiracy" or the jurors saw that the whole case was bogus, and voted accordingly. I think this last explanation is by far the most likely.

Is Oliver Stone homophobic? Not knowing the man I can't say, but he obviously doesn't recognize homophobia when he sees it, or doesn't care if he does, and thus was willing to indulge in some pretty hateful imagery in his film. Again, this was discussed in some of the links, is discussed at length in the books I cite. As for the various actors you mention--again, I don't know any of them. Lots of times actors don't know how a film will turn out until the final cut. They're all professionals, all well paid for their work, all willing to work with a famous director. Sometimes bigotry is so embedded in a culture that even well meaning people don't recognize it. I love the film "Casablanca" and admire each of the actors--many of whom were refugees from Nazi occupied Europe when the film was made. And yet the racism in the film makes me cringe. When Ingrid Bergman refers to Dooly Wilson (the piano player Sam) as "the boy," when "Sam" is the only character who consistently calls Rick "Mr. Rick" and Ilsa "Miss Ilsa" the racism is obvious. Was Humphrey Bogart a racist? Ingrid Bergman? Again, I have no idea. But those scenes definitely come out of a racist context, and would never fly in a film made today.

One of my frustrations in discussions with conspiracy buffs is with the constantly moving goal posts. Sometimes Oswald is part of a conspiracy. Sometimes he's an innocent patsy. You seem now to be taking the second position. Yes, of course his fingerprints were on the rifle, it was his rifle. Okay, but what was his rifle doing at the Depository? Only two people knew where he kept his rifle--hidden in a blanket in the Paine garage. Those two people were Oswald and his wife. Paine herself didn't even know-again, I'm relying on her sworn testimony. So if Oswald didn't bring his rifle to the Depository, how did it get there? And if he did bring it--telling the co-worker who gave him a ride on the 22nd that it was "curtain rods" he had wrapped up in brown paper--why? Why bring a high powered rifle to your workplace if you're an innocent patsy?

Another frustration, related to the first, is the ever shifting standards for "proof." Again, changing goal posts. You asked, early on, where for heaven's sake I got the idea that Garrison was a homophobe. So I cited two books devoted entirely to that subject. Not enough. You asked for the names of witnesses to Oswald shooting Tippit. I produce five names, all of whom positively identified Oswald in a line-up, all of whom testified under oath as to what they saw. Were they all mistaken? Did they all commit perjury?

I also become frustrated at being called upon to disprove the same assertions again and again. Another poster here pointed out how the whole "puff of smoke" nonsense keeps cropping up, despite the fact that any assassin that day would have been using smokeless ammo. An assertion like that should call into question everything else in a presentation--it's such an obvious fallacy, so thoroughly debunked.

My "tone" was in direct response to yours. In your first reply to me you basically accused me of being a gullible fool--someone willing to fall for lies about Vietnam, Iraq, Watergate. You sprinkled your replies to me with the sarcasm emoji, which I assume means you were being sarcastic. So my responses were in kind.

I appreciate this last post of yours, and understand how emotionally invested you are in this whole issue. I have a similar investment, though of a different sort. You mention polls showing how many Americans remain skeptical and perhaps buy into the various conspiracy theories. This is what bugs me. I see the whole JFK conspiracy fad as part and parcel of what put us in our current awful political climate, a climate where tens of millions of Americans believe that there was a conspiracy to steal the last election, that Covid is a liberal plot funded by George Soros to take away our "freedom," that a cabal of baby eating pedophiles are behind everything wrong with the world. Obviously these last conspiracy theories are unhinged, absurd, but they're prefigured by some of the more absurd allegations around the murder of JFK. You yourself can see some of that--for instance the absurd notion that the Secret Service shot JFK. All this, I think, contributes to our fact free politics, to the point where a sitting member of Congress can seriously suggest the existence of "Jewish space lasers" as a cause of western wild fires.

To be clear, I'm not saying you believe or are responsible for any of this. And I understand your need to settle all this once and for all. But I also bristle at the notion that anyone who doesn't buy into the conspiracy outlook is somehow naive, or gullible, or worse.

I suspect that if we were ever to meet we'd find we have far more in common than anything that divides us. I too believe that the murders of JFK and RFK were horrid acts that damaged us all immeasurably. And I appreciate your honesty in this last post, your sincerity over all. And I sincerely apologize for my part in raising the temperature of this exchange. I'll certainly check out the materials you suggest, and hope to see you again in some other discussion.

In the meantime, best wishes to you and yours, and a happy and healthy new year to you as well.

[MOMFUDSKI]

3. Thanks for

posting this. I watched the entire thing. I was in high school when it happened. Damned shame.

[Dan]

5. The theory that I found most interesting was

The idea that the President was shot by his own security - using the new M16 which was new at the time.

[MerryHolidays]

6. That didn't happen in a zillion years...I am still looking for definitive proof

that LHO alone killed JFK. After 59 years, that is completely still open.

And that is why this is all so sad.

[William Seger]

9. Where are you looking?

We're not supposed to argue conspiracy theories here, but beyond any reasonable doubt, the Zapruder film shows that the fatal shot was from behind: JFK's head does indeed pitch forward about 2.5 inches, and Thompson's claim that it's an illusion caused by motion blur is just nonsense. If anything, the motion blur exaggerates the forward pitch, but a more careful analysis can compensate for that blur, and the forward pitch is definitely there. Furthermore, Thompson doesn't mention that the film shows that the famous "back and to the left" motion started 2 frames later, and it accelerated for several frames, which could only happen if a continued force was being applied after the hit. Whatever caused that motion, it was certainly not momentum from the bullet, because the bullet could only impart momentum while it was passing through the head, and the forward pitch in frame 313 shows the head's immediate reaction. The back-and-to-the-left motion looks very much like a movie actor faking a bullet hit, because his muscles are doing the accelerating, not the instantaneous momentum transfer from a bullet.

What kind of "researcher" would ignore or simply dismiss evidence like this? One that doesn't want his pet theory destroyed. But unfortunately for Thompson's life's work, any theory that says the fatal shot was from the grassy knoll is crap, like any theory that depends on impossible physics. And, like other "assassination researchers," this pattern of ignoring contrary evidence and arguments is repeated in his other claims, which they keep recycling despite repeated debunking. (I had to laugh that he even dragged out the "puffs of smoke" nonsense, as if the assassin used a black powder flintlock.)

There is no "definitive proof" that Oswald acted alone, which would amount to proving a negative, but all the credible evidence says he was the lone shooter. If conspiracy theorists have a different explanation, the burden of proof is on them, and don't let one-sided presentations like Thompson's fool you into thinking they've done so. If you're really interested in the subject, "do your own research" and at least read the counterarguments before you make up your mind.

[John1956PA]

10. +1

Thanks for your well-explained analysis.

[MerryHolidays]

12. I actually have for more than 4 decades

Governor Connolly himself said there were more than three shots. If that's right, and he had more awareness of this than you, there had to be more than one shooter. Oswald could not have gotten off more than three shots.

You also are discounting that there may have been TWO nearly simultaneous shots at the end, one from the back AND one from the front.

You seem to be awfully confident that you know it all. Answer my two simple questions in the OP if things are so obvious and that Oswald acted completely alone. I certainly don't know it all, and neither do you.

[William Seger]

14. "You seem to be awfully confident that you know it all."

Well, I'm pretty confident in what I actually said, yes, which included saying that there is no "definitive proof" that Oswald "acted alone." But since neither of us know what's in the documents, why would our imaginations have any particular significance to the issue of where the fatal shot came from?

[MerryHolidays]

15. I suppose that's finally the point

Why do we need to "imagine" what's in the withheld documents 59 years later? We shouldn't. A full release would hopefully dispel, at the very least, the robustness of the assassination investigation.

[William Seger]

16. OK with me, but I wouldn't expect it to dispel anything among hoax theorists

Before JFK's assassination, conspiracy theories were generally about powerful groups controlling things out of public sight, but since then, the popular theories are all about the government executing elaborate hoaxes to accomplish objectives: the moon landing; 9/11; Sandy Hook; even a resurgence of flat-earthers who can see right through those hoaxed space flights. No hoax is too elaborate, and no motive is too elusive.

The tragic beauty of hoax theories is that they torpedo the notion of evidence-based reasoning right from the get go: If it's a hoax, then all the evidence supporting the "official story" is fake, of course, and all the "real" evidence has been covered up. If there are multiple sources of evidence telling the same story or a huge number of people who would need to be involved, just expand the conspiracy until it's all included. If there are experts who don't accept the conclusions of your technical arguments, then impugn their motives. Any fact that can't be easily explained by the "official story" must be taken as evidence that the cover-up wasn't completely successful, rather than an ordinary gap in our knowledge, even if that fact doesn't prove anything relevant, anyway.

Truth to tell, I was a JFK hoax theorist myself twice in life: once in the late 60s when I was influenced by people like Thompson, and again when I accepted the "scientific" analysis of the police recording presented to the HSCA. Since then, I've come to the conclusions that the claims made by hoax theorists just don't stand up to scrutiny -- not that those conclusions are necessarily wrong, but that they are not really supported by sound evidence and valid logic.

If the documents are released, which I'm fine with, and they don't tell the story that hoax theorists want them to, explaining why that's so will not be a problem for them.

[MerryHolidays]

17. I think we are in total agreement

I am perfectly happy to say it's Oswald. If those remaining documents can show that, I have no reason to deny that.

I just don't quite understand why, after all these decades, there is ANY reason to hide documents that could show what really happened to our beloved JFK. He was a bit before my time, but I just wonder how different this world would be if great people like him, RFK, MLK, and others were "allowed" to exist. That their magnificent presence was taken away from us is an outrage, and there should simply be no stone unturned in making sure we know what and why it happened and that it won't happen again.

This video was compelling to me for two things: (a) I hadn't recalled that John Connolly had thought that there were more than three bullets. Perhaps somewhere I knew that, but I was a bit surprised when seeing this video. (b) What was truly stunning to me was that the video contains a recording of a phone call between LBJ and Senator Russell where they both categorically slam the magic bullet theory as unbelievable. I never knew that until I watched this video that President Johnson appears to have significantly doubted this key point: if there was no magic bullet causing all the non-fatal wounds to the two men, there had to have been more than three shots.

If the respective views in either (a) or (b) are true, that absolutely means Oswald was not the only shooter, as there is no doubt that he could have shot more than three times.

I also found it interesting that Thompson goes back to the HSCA acoustic evidence to try to show that there were more than three shots. I haven't studied this particular contention to know whether the HSCA, which was right, then wrong, and now is apparently right again, does indeed have a proper foundation.

[thucythucy]

23. Thank you for this.

We seem to be more or less on the same page.

I've also noticed how the same theories and such come up again and again, despite being debunked.

What started me in this thread was the question posed about how Oswald got his job at the Depository. As if this was some sort of clever "fix" by the mysterious masterminds of the plot.

Never mind that the actual chain of events leading to his employment there was known virtually from day one. His wife, whom he'd been abusing, was living with a friend. The friend knew Oswald was unemployed and the family needed money. She talked about the Oswalds to a friend whose husband worked at the Depository, who suggested Oswald apply there. No great conspiracy. No shadow government or Deep State manipulating or otherwise controlling events. Just a run of the mill story, entirely unremarkable. And yet, going on six decades later and this issue is still brought up, right up there with "puffs of smoke" and "umbrella man" and "back and to the left."

I try not to get drawn into these discussions, but it's been a slow few days.

Best wishes.

[Rhiannon12866]

7. K&R. Bookmarking for later.

I was in elementary school back then, but I vividly remember that horrible day.

[burrowowl]

8. Kick

[BComplex]

18. I never bought the story we got sold on Kennedy's assassination.

But I'm going to have to save this til later to watch. It's a long one!

[MerryHolidays]

19. It is a long one

Josiah Thompson is pretty well-respected as a JFK assassination researcher, having been involved in the area since the 1960s. He's now 86 years old, and he says this is probably his last major work on this tragic event.

As mentioned in a couple of my other posts in this thread, this video has two or three very important points that have received little or no attention.

I simply don't know what happened, but this video advances my views a bit. It's worth the 80 minutes or so to see it. Is it definitive? no; but does it raise very critical issues by some key players? absolutely.

[MicaelS]

30. I believe LHO acted alone.

I used to be a gun nut, before I changed. (Sandy Hook changed me) .

I remember all the data about guns and ballistics.

When I moved to DFW in 1989. the first I did was go to Dealy Plaza and the Sixth Floor museum. BTW, Dealy is much smaller in reality.

I stood on the 6th floor next to the window he fired from. My reaction was "This was an easy shot'". In seconds all my years of conspiracy beliefs went right down the toilet.

There WAS a conspiracy by TPTB after the fact to cover up their mistakes of not taking LHO much more seriously.