JFK Assassination Computer Analysis Video!

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Why are there so many widely different theories after 60 plus years? Conspiracists never seem to want to ask that question.

Like all LNers, you don't seem to be aware that Oswald-Did-It is also a theory.
Like all LNers, you have somehow convinced yourself that you are dealing with a fact and that everyone else has a theory.
You are a Non-Conspiracy Theorist - an NCTer

What does my belief in what happened have to do with my question? A conspiracy theorist could ask the same question. It doesn't matter which side you are on. My view on what happened doesn't make the question invalid.

Again: Why are there so many widely different theories after 60 plus years?

And FWIW, I'm not closed to a conspiracy involving Oswald. Oswald plus someone else. But a small one.

[Tom Sorensen]

@Steve M. Galbraith

"And FWIW, I'm not closed to a conspiracy involving Oswald. Oswald plus someone else. But a small one."

Oswald plus someone else constitutes a conspiracy, so you screwed up again.

[Steve Barber]

New analysis video! Who shot JFK?
Watch on Youtube!

Premiered on 25th February 2025
Please Subscribe to the YouTube Channel.
Comment your thoughts on Youtube!

Who made the video? 
I saw one major error during the ad.   The National Academy of Sciences didn't debunk the acoustics conclusions reached by the experts for the HSCA, alone.  Steve Barber debunked it, and the Committe on Ballistic Acoustics confirmed his discovery that debunked it and used his discovery to conclude that the section of the recording that was thought to have captured the "gunshots" was actually 90 seconds AFTER the assassination.  Whomever did the research for this documentary didn't get it right.

[Patrick Davies]

Any intriguing event of such global importance is going to attract all sorts of theories, many of which are going to be unfounded or highly improbable, such as Paul MacCartney being replaced, crop circles being made by aliens, the earth being a flat disc, etc.  With JFK you get shot by the driver (because on a poor copy of the Zapruder film the top of a head looks a bit like a pistol), shot by accident by AR15 in following car (because a photo shows the gun draw, but this happened after the shooting), shot by aliens, no doubt! Because people want answers in the absence of certainty, and people are happy to write books to make money, and it all sounds intriguing.
Most humans seem to have the need to believe; you only need look at the preponderance of cults and world religions.

It appears to be quite probable that there was a single shooter, probably Oswald. Evidence of cover-up suggests there was something else to hide and a number of key figures had opportunity, means and some strong motives.   

[Patrick Davies]

Who made the video? 
I saw one major error during the ad.   The National Academy of Sciences didn't debunk the acoustics conclusions reached by the experts for the HSCA, alone.  Steve Barber debunked it, and the Committe on Ballistic Acoustics confirmed his discovery that debunked it and used his discovery to conclude that the section of the recording that was thought to have captured the "gunshots" was actually 90 seconds AFTER the assassination.  Whomever did the research for this documentary didn't get it right.

This was the primary source from the National Academies...



Either way, it seems the acoustic evidence should be discarded.

How did you see it during the ad?

[Patrick Davies]

Just for fun!

[Patrick Davies]

What do people think of Ruby's rather awkwardly spoken words,
'Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world.'