JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jon Banks on November 22, 2020, 03:58:12 PM
-
Does it matter how Americans interpret the events that occurred on November 22, 1963?
I believe it was a conspiracy and one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century.
I’m not the type of person who typically believes in Conspiracy Theories but I think there’s enough smoke or inconsistencies in the Kennedy assassination evidence for people to reasonably speculate that there were others involved.
I don’t think we’ll ever reach the point where most people agree on what happened that fateful day in Dallas.
Does it matter whether someone believes Oswald acted alone or whether someone believes there was a conspiracy?
There are credible arguments for both ends of the spectrum and we’ll never know beyond all doubt what really happened or why it happened...
-
Does it matter how Americans interpret the events that occurred on November 22, 1963?
I believe it was a conspiracy and one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century.
I’m not the type of person who typically believes in Conspiracy Theories but I think there’s enough smoke or inconsistencies in the Kennedy assassination evidence for people to reasonably speculate that there were others involved.
I don’t think we’ll ever reach the point where most people agree on what happened that fateful day in Dallas.
Does it matter whether someone believes Oswald acted alone or whether someone believes there was a conspiracy?
There are credible arguments for both ends of the spectrum and we’ll never know beyond all doubt what really happened or why it happened...
There are credible arguments for both ends of the spectrum...
That is a subjective opinion. It is difficult to have a credible argument without any credible evidence. Just sayin...
Yes, I believe that it matters greatly how this case is interpreted. There will always be controversy regarding the assassination. However, when a majority of the people distrust the government it is detrimental to the society in many ways. It is one thing to be skeptical and ask for verification. But quite another thing to immediately distrust everything the government does. How can we improve the situation? I wish I knew!
-
There are credible arguments for both ends of the spectrum...
That is a subjective opinion. It is difficult to have a credible argument without any credible evidence. Just sayin...
The investigations into the Kennedy assassination were bungled badly enough that your statement applies both ways (the evidence against conspiracy and the evidence for conspiracy).
Yes, I believe that it matters greatly how this case is interpreted. There will always be controversy regarding the assassination. However, when a majority of the people distrust the government it is detrimental to the society in many ways. It is one thing to be skeptical and ask for verification. But quite another thing to immediately distrust everything the government does. How can we improve the situation? I wish I knew!
I don't think there's anything "we" can do to solve that problem.
What the government, the news media, and other institutions need to do is quit lying to us and perform better at their jobs when it comes to serving the Public.
The JFK assassination is one event, but there were many events that followed where the government and it's allies in the news media haven't told us the truth about certain matters.
-
The investigations into the Kennedy assassination were bungled badly enough that your statement applies both ways (the evidence against conspiracy and the evidence for conspiracy).
I don't think there's anything "we" can do to solve that problem.
What the government, the news media, and other institutions need to do is quit lying to us and perform better at their jobs when it comes to serving the Public.
The JFK assassination is one event, but there were many events that followed where the government and it's allies in the news media haven't told us the truth about certain matters.
The investigations into the Kennedy assassination were bungled badly enough that your statement applies both ways (the evidence against conspiracy and the evidence for conspiracy).
The evidence for conspiracy? LOL
-
Hi.
I've been researching the subject for more than 16,000 hours and there's no chance in hell that Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. Lee Harvey Oswald is almost irrelevant, his role and actions was mostly intended as a diversionary maneuver..
You can find the timeline within the attached presentation beneath which shows how he was set up to be identified as the man who assassinated President Kennedy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOKtV2eGKpM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOKtV2eGKpM)
Best Regards,
Christer
-
The investigations into the Kennedy assassination were bungled badly enough that your statement applies both ways (the evidence against conspiracy and the evidence for conspiracy).
The evidence for conspiracy? LOL
Your attitude is why most people will continue to distrust the government and other institutions.
-
Does it matter how Americans interpret the events that occurred on November 22, 1963?
I believe it was a conspiracy and one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century.
I’m not the type of person who typically believes in Conspiracy Theories but I think there’s enough smoke or inconsistencies in the Kennedy assassination evidence for people to reasonably speculate that there were others involved.
I don’t think we’ll ever reach the point where most people agree on what happened that fateful day in Dallas.
Does it matter whether someone believes Oswald acted alone or whether someone believes there was a conspiracy?
There are credible arguments for both ends of the spectrum and we’ll never know beyond all doubt what really happened or why it happened...
Does it matter whether someone believes Oswald acted alone or whether someone believes there was a conspiracy?
Yes....If you believe in the constitution and the declaration that all men ( that includes Lee Oswald) have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness .... and if they have been accused of committing a crime they have the right to be consider NOT GUILTY until they are tried by their fellow citizens.
If you don't give a damn about the constitution or your rights .......Then ......No .... Not if you're comfortable with living in a fantasy world and don't give a damn if your leaders lie to you, and treat you like you're an addled brained simpleton.
-
The investigations into the Kennedy assassination were bungled badly enough that your statement applies both ways (the evidence against conspiracy and the evidence for conspiracy).
I don't think there's anything "we" can do to solve that problem.
What the government, the news media, and other institutions need to do is quit lying to us and perform better at their jobs when it comes to serving the Public.
The JFK assassination is one event, but there were many events that followed where the government and it's allies in the news media haven't told us the truth about certain matters.
What the government, the news media, and other institutions need to do is quit lying to us and perform better at their jobs when it comes to serving the Public.
Of the people and by the people and for the people
The intent of the second amendment..... The right to keep and bear arms was intended to to guarantee that the people would have the means to insure that the leaders wouldn't lie to them and cheat them out money that had been taken as taxes to support the nation....
In the modern era.... Our leaders routinely lie to us and threat us as if we are addled brained children and steal our taxes ......
-
No conspiracy required to do what Oswald did.
-
No conspiracy required to do what Oswald did.
Allegedly did
-
Your attitude is why most people will continue to distrust the government and other institutions.
My attitude is the reason? ???
What you apparently don’t realize is that I believed (for many years) that there just HAD to be a conspiracy. But after finding no credible evidence of one. And taking a fresh look at the case with an open mind, I no longer believe that. I do believe that Castro possibly knew ahead of time that something was going to be attempted. There is some questionable evidence of that. And his personality and history of violence make it possible for me to believe that he was more involved than just knowing about a likely attempt. But credible evidence for these ideas just hasn’t surfaced. So therefore I no longer believe that there HAD to be a conspiracy. The evidence that we have points to LHO as the lone assassin. And I am convinced that he was capable of this. But I am still open to any credible evidence of a conspiracy that might come to light.
-
My attitude is the reason? ???
What you apparently don’t realize is that I believed (for many years) that there just HAD to be a conspiracy. But after finding no credible evidence of one. And taking a fresh look at the case with an open mind, I no longer believe that. I do believe that Castro possibly knew ahead of time that something was going to be attempted. There is some questionable evidence of that. And his personality and history of violence make it possible for me to believe that he was more involved than just knowing about a likely attempt. But credible evidence for these ideas just hasn’t surfaced. So therefore I no longer believe that there HAD to be a conspiracy. The evidence that we have points to LHO as the lone assassin. And I am convinced that he was capable of this. But I am still open to any credible evidence of a conspiracy that might come to light.
The smug dismissal of the facts that the investigations were sloppy, there were coverups, and the only named suspect was killed within 48 hours of JFK’s murder. It’s very reasonable to speculate that there is more to the story given those circumstances alone.
Those are also the reasons most people will never be satisfied with the Warren Report’s conclusion.
I find it plausible that Oswald acted alone but there are too many coincidences and flaws in the forensic evidence for me to dismiss the idea that there was a conspiracy.
Given the litany of problems with the case, I keep an open mind and welcome any new evidence that could sway me in one direction or the other...
-
The investigations into the Kennedy assassination were bungled badly enough that your statement applies both ways (the evidence against conspiracy and the evidence for conspiracy).
I don't think there's anything "we" can do to solve that problem.
What the government, the news media, and other institutions need to do is quit lying to us and perform better at their jobs when it comes to serving the Public.
The JFK assassination is one event, but there were many events that followed where the government and it's allies in the news media haven't told us the truth about certain matters.
don't think there's anything "we" can do to solve that problem.
That smug dismissal represents exactly what is wrong. Remember what JFK said: Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” Whining isn’t going to solve anything. We are responsible for some of the issues simply because we allow it to happen and don’t do enough to inspire change for the better. There are avenues to take that will inspire some needed changes. And violent riots isn’t one of them. Neither is As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'ing without making a suggestion for changes. Ideas for changes for the better to be implemented are out there. We must encourage the good ideas and their implementation. If enough people do this the positive changes will happen.
-
don't think there's anything "we" can do to solve that problem.
That smug dismissal represents exactly what is wrong. Remember what JFK said: Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” Whining isn’t going to solve anything. We are responsible for some of the issues simply because we allow it to happen and don’t do enough to inspire change for the better. There are avenues to take that will inspire some needed changes. And violent riots isn’t one of them. Neither is As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'ing without making a suggestion for changes. Ideas for changes for the better to be implemented are out there. We must encourage the good ideas and their implementation. If enough people do this the positive changes will happen.
I think you missed my point.
Sure, we can help by not spreading disinformation but ultimately, the government, the news media, the big banks, and other big institutions have to win back the public's trust on their own.
We as individuals cannot fix the reasons for distrust in our public institutions.
I'm 40 years old. I came of age around the time when the Bush administration lied to us about Iraq in order to start an unnecessary war. How does the US government and the American media restore the credibility that was lost due to the fallout from the Iraq war?
-
Hi.
I've been researching the subject for more than 16,000 hours and there's no chance in hell that Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. Lee Harvey Oswald is almost irrelevant, his role and actions was mostly intended as a diversionary maneuver..
You can find the timeline within the attached presentation beneath which shows how he was set up to be identified as the man who assassinated President Kennedy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOKtV2eGKpM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOKtV2eGKpM)
Best Regards,
Christer
Hallo ...
Are you from Holland?
-
I think you missed my point.
Sure, we can help by not spreading disinformation but ultimately, the government, the news media, the big banks, and other big institutions have to win back the public's trust on their own.
We as individuals cannot fix the reasons for distrust in our public institutions.
I'm 40 years old. I came of age around the time when the Bush administration lied to us about Iraq in order to start an unnecessary war. How does the US government and the American media restore the credibility that was lost due to the fallout from the Iraq war?
We cannot change what has happened in the past. But we should try to learn from our mistakes and try to avoid repeating them. And we can contact our government representatives and let them know what we would like for them to do.
32 years ago I was part of a group of people who were being treated unfairly because of some nation-wide revisions to U.S. Army policy. We petitioned our congressmen and they responded with an amendment to the law that solved the issue.
Respect and credibility are earned by our deeds. Do the right things for the right reasons and the respect and credibility will be the byproduct.
-
We cannot change what has happened in the past. But we should try to learn from our mistakes and try to avoid repeating them. And we can contact our government representatives and let them know what we would like for them to do.
32 years ago I was part of a group of people who were being treated unfairly because of some nation-wide revisions to U.S. Army policy. We petitioned our congressmen and they responded with an amendment to the law that solved the issue.
Respect and credibility are earned by our deeds. Do the right things for the right reasons and the respect and credibility will be the byproduct.
Government Accountability and Transparency are the only things that can restore the public's trust...
-
Government Accountability and Transparency are the only things that can restore the public's trust...
Then take action to insist on what you want. It isn’t going to happen if everyone just As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'es about it and does nothing. If you believe something is wrong, make contact with someone who can help. Form a group of likeminded people and make some (peaceful) noise. That is how the process begins. Moaning and groaning about generalities doesn’t tell anyone specifically what it is that you want changes for.
-
No conspiracy required to do what Oswald did.
Then why is there so much deception and so many falsehoods in the testimonies of the TSBD employees, particularly and tellingly, of those working on the sixth floor. It should have been so straight-forward, another day at the office, so to speak. Everyone shows up to work not knowing that one of them has murder on their mind, the shots ring out and people are questioned as to where they were and what they were doing at that time. Of course there will be minor discrepancies over some details, that's human nature, but what we see in these testimonies is a complex of misdirection and obfuscation. People are lying (IMHO) and to not ask why they are is unacceptable.
I agree, it takes just one man to take the shots but it takes more than one to create the labyrinth of confusion that follows.
-
The smug dismissal of the facts that the investigations were sloppy, there were coverups, and the only named suspect was killed within 48 hours of JFK’s murder. It’s very reasonable to speculate that there is more to the story given those circumstances alone.
Those are also the reasons most people will never be satisfied with the Warren Report’s conclusion.
I find it plausible that Oswald acted alone but there are too many coincidences and flaws in the forensic evidence for me to dismiss the idea that there was a conspiracy.
Given the litany of problems with the case, I keep an open mind and welcome any new evidence that could sway me in one direction or the other...
Jon, There IS evidence that proves that Lee Oswald was NOT the assassin nor did he murder J.D Tippit.....But only YOU, and you alone , can open your eyes.....
-
Does it matter how Americans interpret the events that occurred on November 22, 1963?
Most accept what they see on the TV documentaries...highly conforming to the official rap. I saw this one program on a history type channel just last night claiming that Oswald's prints were all over 'HIS' rifle. So remove any doubt...the media and government will never lie to you (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/undecided.gif)
-
"The One Thing All Americans Agree On: JFK Conspiracy"
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/jfk-assassination-files/one-thing-all-americans-agree-jfk-conspiracy-n815371 (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/jfk-assassination-files/one-thing-all-americans-agree-jfk-conspiracy-n815371)
...a new survey from FiveThirtyEight released this week finds that’s right about where the public is today: 61% believe others were involved in JFK’s assassination, while 33% believe one man acted alone.
But the most interesting finding in the FiveThirtyEight poll is the breadth of the nation’s JFK conspiracy beliefs. More than 50 percent of most every demographic group believes “others were involved” in the assassination: Men and women, whites, blacks and Hispanics, registered voters and non-registered, all age groups.
And in an era when the political divides appear in everything from media consumption to shopping habits, the JFK assassination is one area where supporters of President Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton agree: 61 percent of Trump voters and 59 percent of Clinton voters believe “others were involved...”
-
Does it matter how Americans interpret the events that occurred on November 22, 1963?
I believe it was a conspiracy and one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century.
I’m not the type of person who typically believes in Conspiracy Theories but I think there’s enough smoke or inconsistencies in the Kennedy assassination evidence for people to reasonably speculate that there were others involved.
I don’t think we’ll ever reach the point where most people agree on what happened that fateful day in Dallas.
Does it matter whether someone believes Oswald acted alone or whether someone believes there was a conspiracy?
There are credible arguments for both ends of the spectrum and we’ll never know beyond all doubt what really happened or why it happened...
Smoke, speculate, inconsistencies.
How about conjecture? That would almost constitute evidence. ::)
-
Most accept what they see on the TV documentaries...highly conforming to the official rap. I saw this one program on a history type channel just last night claiming that Oswald's prints were all over 'HIS' rifle. So remove any doubt...the media and government will never lie to you (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/undecided.gif)
You're absolutely right, Jerry....... The government lies , and their propaganda agency regurgitates the lie and invents convincing information to convince the suckers that the governments tale is the truth.
-
You're absolutely right, Jerry....... The government lies , and their propaganda agency regurgitates the lie and invents convincing information to convince the suckers that the governments tale is the truth.
Last week I watched a BBC documentary about a 'third rate burglary' in other words the Watergate Affair. The British excel in these types of programs, in a way they still "rule the waves" I suppose.
It showed how a high-level conspiracy worked and was organized. In this case, the President expressed his desire to develop a political intelligence capability after leaks of classified information to the press. His wish was sent down the White House hierarchy through Haldeman and Ehrlichman, at a point people who had experience in covert operations like Hunt and Liddy got involved, who in turn hired the Cubans to execute the burglary and install the wire tapping devices.
Not sure if something like this happened in the JFK assassination, as spying on the opposing political party and enemies of the state is a whole different ballgame than the murder of a US president. And just look how quickly the Watergate cover-up collapsed.
-
Conclusions reached by the HSCA: "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy." "It is probable that more than one person was involved in the President's murder. That fact compels acceptance and it demands a re-examination of all that was thought to be true".
The many obvious similarities between the JFK assassination and the reasons which forced president Nixon to resign are explained in this presentation:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5iA_dEf5Ds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5iA_dEf5Ds)
Best Rgds,
Christer
-
Last week I watched a BBC documentary about a 'third rate burglary' in other words the Watergate Affair. The British excel in these types of programs, in a way they still "rule the waves" I suppose.
It showed how a high-level conspiracy worked and was organized. In this case, the President expressed his desire to develop a political intelligence capability after leaks of classified information to the press. His wish was sent down the White House hierarchy through Haldeman and Ehrlichman, at a point people who had experience in covert operations like Hunt and Liddy got involved, who in turn hired the Cubans to execute the burglary and install the wire tapping devices.
Not sure if something like this happened in the JFK assassination, as spying on the opposing political party and enemies of the state is a whole different ballgame than the murder of a US president. And just look how quickly the Watergate cover-up collapsed.
Obviously a conspiracy isn’t successful if participants get caught and prosecuted.
Iran Contra is another conspiracy that was exposed by someone getting caught.
But there are lots of other conspiracies that have been successfully executed in the sense that we don’t know specifically who did what or there’s not enough evidence to connect the dots to any potential suspects.
This occurs frequently with organized crime conspiracies but also in covert operations.
Organized crime organizations and Intelligence operatives are capable of successfully planning and executing conspiracies. They do it often.
-
Obviously a conspiracy isn’t successful if participants get caught and prosecuted.
No...a murder conspiracy is successful if their their victim is dead.
The Lincoln conspiracy as well as the Kennedy [assuming it was a conspiracy]
-
No...a murder conspiracy is successful if their their victim is dead.
The Lincoln conspiracy as well as the Kennedy [assuming it was a conspiracy]
a murder conspiracy is successful if their their victim is dead.
The conspiracy is successful.... If they can successfully blame some hapless individual for their deed......
-
No...a murder conspiracy is successful if their their victim is dead.
The Lincoln conspiracy as well as the Kennedy [assuming it was a conspiracy]
From the standpoint of the perpetrators, it's not successful if they get caught.
But I guess, you're right that achieving the main objective (if it's murdering someone) makes the conspiracy at least partly successful.
-
Does it matter how Americans interpret the events that occurred on November 22, 1963?
I believe it was a conspiracy and one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century.
I’m not the type of person who typically believes in Conspiracy Theories but I think there’s enough smoke or inconsistencies in the Kennedy assassination evidence for people to reasonably speculate that there were others involved.
I don’t think we’ll ever reach the point where most people agree on what happened that fateful day in Dallas.
Does it matter whether someone believes Oswald acted alone or whether someone believes there was a conspiracy?
There are credible arguments for both ends of the spectrum and we’ll never know beyond all doubt what really happened or why it happened...
At a time when truth is hard to find and major news services promulgate "deep state" conspiracies and fraudulent elections with absolutely no evidence, it would be refreshing to find someone point out things based on actual documented evidence:
1. there is abundant evidence that Oswald shot JFK, Governor Connally, and officer Tippitt
2. that the evidence surrounding the shooting of Oswald by Ruby shows that Ruby by coincidence encountered Oswald being transferred 2 hours later than scheduled and that no evidence of any connection between the two exists;
3. that no evidence of a second shooter in Dealey Plaza has ever been found.
4. that the HSCA conclusion that there was a fourth shot from the grassy knoll based on acoustic evidence has been debunked by science and at least 150 witnesses.
5. the lack of any consistent theory let alone evidence that anyone put Oswald up to carrying out the killings.
-
At a time when truth is hard to find and major news services promulgate "deep state" conspiracies and fraudulent elections with absolutely no evidence, it would be refreshing to find someone point out things based on actual documented evidence:
1. there is abundant evidence that Oswald shot JFK, Governor Connally, and officer Tippitt
2. that the evidence surrounding the shooting of Oswald by Ruby shows that Ruby by coincidence encountered Oswald being transferred 2 hours later than scheduled and that no evidence of any connection between the two exists;
3. that no evidence of a second shooter in Dealey Plaza has ever been found.
4. that the HSCA conclusion that there was a fourth shot from the grassy knoll based on acoustic evidence has been debunked by science and at least 150 witnesses.
5. the lack of any consistent theory let alone evidence that anyone put Oswald up to carrying out the killings.
1 - It's not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22/63 or was even on the 6th floor at the time JFK was shot.
2 - Ruby was affiliated with the Mob. The Mob hated the Kennedys. Ruby owed debts at the time of the JFK assassination.
3 - There's not enough evidence to rule out multiple shooters and the physical evidence is flawed. Several books have been written detailing the problems with the evidence.
4 - The HSCA's bullet analysis linking all the Dealey Plaza bullet's to Oswald's rifle has been debunked too.
5 - Even among those who think Oswald acted alone, there's no consensus on Oswald's motive. No proof that he opposed or even disliked JFK.
There's plenty of smoke but no smoking gun...
-
1 - It's not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22/63 or was even on the 6th floor at the time JFK was shot.
There is some direct evidence. But the circumstantial evidence is enough to convince a reasonable person that Oswald was on the 6th floor and fired all three shots. The evidence of what he did afterward speaks volumes. And the evidence that he fired a shot at Gen Walker's head constituted similar fact evidence of the most cogent kind.
2 - Ruby was affiliated with the Mob. The Mob hated the Kennedys. Ruby owed debts at the time of the JFK assassination.
Ruby was a nightclub owner who carried a gun and liked pistol whipping the odd patron who touched his employees inappropriately. There is innuendo but no hard evidence that he was affiliated with "the mob". Besides, the Mob disliked Bobby Kennedy more than Jack. And Frank Sinatra was a good friend of the President.
3 - There's not enough evidence to rule out multiple shooters and the physical evidence is flawed. Several books have been written detailing the problems with the evidence.
There are always little problems with evidence. That does not amount to evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence of another shooter.
4 - The HSCA's bullet analysis linking all the Dealey Plaza bullet's to Oswald's rifle has been debunked too.
Are you referring the the NAA analysis? I will agree that the comparative bullet lead analysis has been debunked. But that just means that it cannot be shown that the fragments all came from the same bullet. The shells came from the MC but the only bullet that can be positively tied to the MC is CE399.
5 - Even among those who think Oswald acted alone, there's no consensus on Oswald's motive. No proof that he opposed or even disliked JFK.
True. But Oswald was an impulsive person. How many people do you know who shared his political views actually gave up their citizenship and moved to Russia? How many people who disliked Gen. Walker took a shot at him? How many people took a longish package to work on the morning of Nov 22/63 and had their palm print on a package in the sniper's nest? Oswald was probably depressed and angry at the world because he was working for $1.25 an hour and had to support a wife and two young children. Not everything that such people do is always rational or well thought out.
-
There is some direct evidence. But the circumstantial evidence is enough to convince a reasonable person that Oswald was on the 6th floor and fired all three shots. The evidence of what he did afterward speaks volumes. And the evidence that he fired a shot at Gen Walker's head constituted similar fact evidence of the most cogent kind.
Circumstantial evidence and Assumptions-based evidence is all there is.
Perhaps that's plenty for you to be certain that he acted alone but for most people, it's obvious that we don't know the whole story.
Ruby was a nightclub owner who carried a gun and liked pistol whipping the odd patron who touched his employees inappropriately. There is innuendo but no hard evidence that he was affiliated with "the mob". Besides, the Mob disliked Bobby Kennedy more than Jack. And Frank Sinatra was a good friend of the President.
From his childhood in Chicago up until 11/22/63, Ruby was associated with the Chicago Mob and later, the Dallas and New Orleans organized crime organizations.
Carlos Marcello, the New Orleans Godfather, hated JFK and vowed to have him killed.
Joseph Campisi of the Civello crime family in Dallas was one of Ruby's first visitors in when he was Jailed after shooting Oswald.
There are always little problems with evidence.
True but it can be argued due to the problems with the forensic evidence, that we can't conclusively say there were no other shooters.
Are you referring the the NAA analysis? I will agree that the comparative bullet lead analysis has been debunked. But that just means that it cannot be shown that the fragments all came from the same bullet. The shells came from the MC but the only bullet that can be positively tied to the MC is CE399.
Yes, the NAA bullet analysis has been debunked.
Also, we don't know for certain that CE399 wasn't planted due to the broken chain of evidence.
I'm inclined to believe it was planted.
True. But Oswald was an impulsive person. How many people do you know who shared his political views actually gave up their citizenship and moved to Russia? How many people who disliked Gen. Walker took a shot at him? How many people took a longish package to work on the morning of Nov 22/63 and had their palm print on a package in the sniper's nest? Oswald was probably depressed and angry at the world because he was working for $1.25 an hour and had to support a wife and two young children. Not everything that such people do is always rational or well thought out.
Oswald did lots of odd things that can be interpreted more than one way.
Individuals often apply their own emotions and biases when interpreting the evidence...
-
There is some direct evidence. But the circumstantial evidence is enough to convince a reasonable person that Oswald was on the 6th floor and fired all three shots.
Bull.
The evidence of what he did afterward speaks volumes.
Yes, it speaks volumes about your confirmation bias.
-
Bull.
Yes, it speaks volumes about your confirmation bias.
So what are the alternative, reasonable explanations for:
1. Oswald leaving the TSBD without telling anyone, including Roy Truly.
2. Oswald willing to spend a significant portion of his daily wage on a taxi to get home quickly.
3. Oswald not remaining at his rooming house for more than a few minutes but getting his hand gun.
4. Oswald shooting Officer Tippitt.
5. Oswald entering the Texas Theater without paying.
6. Oswald saying "Well its over now" or words to that effect and pulling his handgun out when arrested?
7. Oswald admitting to Marina that he had fired a shot at General Walker with the MC and leaving a the letter for her, and having pictures of Gen. Walkers house...?
When we get that sorted out, try explaining
1. why Oswald's lunch required a long package placed in the back seat of Buell Frazier's car and
2. why Oswald wanted him to believe it was curtain rods, ...
3. why Oswald's the paper package that contained "curtain rods" was found in the SN.
-
So what are the alternative, reasonable explanations for:
Goldilocks and The Three Bears--- do you believe that one too?
-
Goldilocks and The Three Bears--- do you believe that one too?
Let's face it. If this was about some random person being shot on the street by someone with a rifle on the sixth floor, you would not be quibbling about the sufficiency of the evidence to convict Oswald as the shooter. So the dispute is not about evidence. There is plenty of evidence to connect the dots.
-
So what are the alternative, reasonable explanations for:
1. Oswald leaving the TSBD without telling anyone, including Roy Truly.
There was no more work that day. All the employees were dismissed. We don’t know exactly when.
2. Oswald willing to spend a significant portion of his daily wage on a taxi to get home quickly.
We don’t know for a fact that he did. But that’s evidence of murder?
3. Oswald not remaining at his rooming house for more than a few minutes but getting his hand gun.
You don’t know that he got a handgun at the rooming house. That’s pure conjecture.
4. Oswald shooting Officer Tippitt.
That’s one of the things you’re trying to prove.
5. Oswald entering the Texas Theater without paying.
Nobody saw Oswald enter the Texas Theater without paying. But is that supposed to be evidence of murder?
6. Oswald saying "Well its over now" or words to that effect
McDonald was the only one in the building who claimed to hear anything like this.
and pulling his handgun out when arrested?
Not even McDonald claimed this. It’s pure Nutter mythology.
7. Oswald admitting to Marina that he had fired a shot at General Walker with the MC
Marina didn’t say anything about “the MC”. And Marina said a lot of things. She also said Lee took a gun to go take a look at Nixon when Nixon wasn’t even in town.
and leaving a the letter for her
You mean the unsigned, undated note in Russian that doesn’t mention Walker or shooting? What does this have to do with JFK anyway?
, and having pictures of Gen. Walkers house...?
Really? He had them? Or were they found in the Paines’ garage?
When we get that sorted out, try explaining
1. why Oswald's lunch required a long package placed in the back seat of Buell Frazier's car
The bag that was too short to contain the alleged murder weapon?
2. why Oswald wanted him to believe it was curtain rods, ...
You don’t know what it contained.
3. why Oswald's the paper package that contained "curtain rods" was found in the SN.
No, a paper bag that Frazier said was not the same bag was allegedly found in the “SN” but doesn’t appear in any crime scene photos.
How do any of these misrepresentations tell us who shot JFK?
-
So what are the alternative, reasonable explanations for:
1. Oswald leaving the TSBD without telling anyone, including Roy Truly.
>>> He said he was just going to a movie so it must be true
2. Oswald willing to spend a significant portion of his daily wage on a taxi to get home quickly.
>>> He was having a torrid affair with Earlene
3. Oswald not remaining at his rooming house for more than a few minutes but getting his hand gun.
>>> His affair with Earlene was just at the 'touch & go' stage.
4. Oswald shooting Officer Tippitt.
>>> He was having a bad hair day
5. Oswald entering the Texas Theater without paying
>>> He needed the money to buy popcorn
6. Oswald saying "Well its over now" or words to that effect and pulling his handgun out when arrested?
>>> Re 'Well its over now: He was referring to the movie. And he was taking the gun out to show the cops how nifty it was: It's what boys do.
7. Oswald admitting to Marina that he had fired a shot at General Walker with the MC and leaving a the letter for her, and having pictures of Gen. Walkers house...?
>>> He wrote the letter to get her to do more chores. He needed the BY photos and the Walker incident for his resumé
When we get that sorted out, try explaining
1. why Oswald's lunch required a long package placed in the back seat of Buell Frazier's car
>>> It was a broken-down Carcano-sized 34.8" sandwich
2. why Oswald wanted him to believe it was curtain rods[/b], ...
>>> He didn't want anyone to find out that he had an eating disorder
3. why Oswald's the paper package that contained "curtain rods" was found in the SN
>>> By that time it contained only bread crumbs, but not enough to confirm the type of bread.