JFK Assassination Forum

   When they jimmy the elapsed firing time from 6+ Seconds to 10+ Seconds, you KNOW there is a problem with the 1 shooter scenario. The trailing team always wants to change the rules.

The observation that Oswald missed the entire limo is a red herring because it implies that the limo was his target making missing the entire limo seem highly improbable. The truth is Oswald's target was on he extreme right side of the limo meaning  a miss to the right of his intended target would miss the limo entirely. It's still a significant miss but given the difficulties of that shot, it is certainly understandable.

You are ignoring the angle.  If he just missed JFK he would have hit the side of the car.  Here is what it looked like in the Secret Service reenactment as the car passed under the traffic light from the perspective of the SN:


So a miss of the car is actually a significant miss of about half a car width.

Perhaps a Freudian reply?

Oh, dear God, is there any soul so lost as a grimly humorless, self-important wacko? Yes, out of all the choices on the planet, I was actually recommending Dr. William Niederhut.

Oh, dear God, is there any soul so lost as a grimly humorless, self-important wacko? (God: "Actually, no. Very perceptive, Lance my child.")

Most of the time, as you've done here, you ignore troublesome facts and resort to evasive posturing and ad hominem attacks. I would just note that you didn't say one blessed word about the behavior of hollow point bullets vs. FMJ bullets.

All my words are blessed, Grasshopper. There are only like 4,000 internet discussions, including umpteen gun enthusiast sites, about the propensity of FMJ military bullets to fragment in some circumstances. However, lest I be accused of dodging the issue, I shall say, blessedly and with grimly humorless sincerity: "It is well-documented that there are circumstances where a FMJ military bullet will fragment like your grandmother's antique vase that got your butt paddled when you were eight years old." There, you're welcome.

This is the first post of several that I will present in this thread.

In numerous surveys done in the U.S. and Europe over the years, including fairly recently, the percentage of people who have said they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy has ranged from 56% to 85%, with about 6% to 10% undecided. Even in the 1970s, surveys found that a sizable majority of Americans did not buy the Warren Commission's lone-gunman story. I think one of the reasons for the rejection of the single-assassin scenario is that it does not hold up when analyzed with logic and critical thinking.

Truth is not subject to popular opinion. It does not require a majority opinion. Most of the people surveyed are woefully uninformed about the evidence in the case which overwhelmingly points to Oswald as the assassin and there is not a scrap of credible evidence that points to anybody else. I challenged you to produce such evidence earlier this week and you passed on the opportunity.

   

Let us begin by looking at the key issue of motive.

Motive is not a key issue. It is entirely unnecessary to prove Oswald's motive. It can be fun to guess but nobody really knows because he didn't tell anybody his motive.

-- The lone-gunman theory is unable to provide a believable, credible motive for its alleged lone gunman. By all accounts, Oswald liked JFK. No one ever claimed to hear Oswald voice any intent to harm JFK. If Oswald's motive was to make a name for himself in history, why did he vehemently deny shooting JFK? If Oswald had killed JFK to make himself famous, one would logically expect that he would have proudly taken credit for JFK's death and announced his justifications to the world, but he did no such thing.

After Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme tried to assassinate President Gerald Ford in 1975, she made no effort to deny her guilt but proudly defended her action. She openly voiced two motives for her assassination attempt: (1) her anger over Ford's alleged destruction of the environment, and (2) her desire to draw attention to the Manson family.

After Leon Czolgosz was arrested for assassinating President William McKinley in 1901, he staunchly defended his action and made no secret of his motive. He said he viewed McKinley as an oppressive leader and was convinced it was his duty to kill an "enemy of the good people--the working people."

When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln in Ford's Theatre in 1865, he loudly made his motive clear seconds after he did the shooting, shouting to the shocked audience "sic semper tyrannis," i.e., "thus always to tyrants."

None of these cases are the least relevant to the JFK assassination. You seem to believe all assassins think alike.

But Oswald behaved in a completely different manner. At every opportunity, whether under police interrogation or when speaking with journalists, he fiercely denied shooting anyone, and he told the police--and his brother--that the evidence against him was fraudulent, even going so far as to claim he was a patsy.

I guess he never got a copy of the assassin's rule book.

Furthermore, according to the lone-gunman theory, Oswald tried to shoot right-wing extremist General Edwin Walker in April 1963. Now why, oh why, oh why would the same allegedly pro-Soviet and pro-Cuban Marxist who supposedly tried to shoot the ultra-conservative General Walker turn around and shoot the center-left JFK, who was publicly trying to make peace with the Soviets, especially given the fact that JFK had publicly disgraced Walker and had relieved Walker of command? That makes no sense.

Why would you think a senseless person would act sensibly. It doesn't matter if Oswald's actions makes sense to anybody else. It made sense to him.

-- The conspiracy theory of the assassination can provide concrete, documented motives for its suspects.

Motives without out evidence does not establish guilt. I'll bet there are lots of people in this country who wish Thomas Crooks had been a better marksman. Does that make them complicit in the attempt on Trump's life.

It has been amply documented, including with filmed interviews, that certain CIA officers who worked with the anti-Castro Cubans, along with some of the anti-Castro Cubans themselves, viscerally hated JFK and regarded him as a traitor. And we have two credible anecdotal accounts of CIA officers proudly admitting to close associates that they played a role in JFK's death.

Credible to whom?

One of the best books on evidence that some CIA officers and anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the assassination is former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi's 1993 book The Last Investigation.

Oh, goody. Another JFKA conspiracy book. How many of these have been written? They can't seem to agree on who the bad guys were.

There is even stronger evidence of motive for certain Mafia elements. The historical record is clear, and no reputable scholar denies, that the Kennedy administration was waging an intense war against the Mafia, and that the Mafia viewed JFK and RFK as threats to their very existence.

OK, so JFK had enemies. What president hasn't. That doesn't mean they were behind the assassination. There have been 3 assassination attempts on Trump. Should we believe that the people  who hate Trump were behind  these attempts or should we believe they were acts committed by deranged individuals? In lieu of any evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe the latter.

Wiretaps recorded some Mafia leaders expressing a wish to see JFK dead before the assassination, and two informants reported that they heard Mafia leaders talking about a plot to kill Kennedy in the months leading up to JFK's death. Moreover, after the assassination, a government informant heard Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello admit to playing a role in the assassination.

Now all you need is evidence connecting these Mafia figures to the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald.

Three of the best books on the evidence that certain Mafia elements were involved in the assassination are Anthony Summers' 2013 book Not in Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the J.F.K. Assassination (updated version), Lamar Waldron's 2013 book The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination, and Dr. David Kaiser's 2008 book The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Are we supposed to believe every conspiracy book that comes down the pike? What makes these books more credible than all of the others?

Summers was a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2012 and has twice won the Crime Writers' Association's award for top non-fiction works. In recognition of his scholarship, Summers was made a Fellow of the Literary & Historical Society of University College Dublin.

Waldron is a respected journalist and historian. His historical research and non-fiction books have won praise from Publishers Weekly, Vanity Fair, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, and major publications in Europe. His research has been the subject of two prime-time specials on the Discovery Channel, produced by NBC News. He has been featured on CNN and the History Channel.

Kaiser is a respected historian. When Kaiser wrote his JFK book, he was a professor of history at the Naval War College. He later held professorships at Harvard University, Williams College, and Carnegie Mellon University. He earned his B.A. and Ph.D. in history from Harvard. He is now retired. (On a side note, Kaiser concluded that the HSCA's acoustical evidence was valid.)

Really smart people are perfectly capable of coming up with really stupid ideas.

Quote from: Lance Payette on Today at 01:34:11 PM
Anyone who has not caught MTG making substantial errors needs to make an appointment with Dr. William Niederhut, Harvard-trained psychiatrist, for in-depth counseling.

Perhaps a Freudian reply?

I'll let people read our exchanges and decide if you've ever caught me making substantial errors. I think objective readers will see (1) that your knowledge of the JFK case is poor, and (2) that I've caught you making numerous substantial errors, not to mention a number of hilarious gaffes.

On those somewhat rare occasions when you do venture out from behind your silly "conspiracy theorists have warped brains" talking point, you usually get your clock cleaned and prove your knowledge of the case is badly lacking.

Most of the time, as you've done here, you ignore troublesome facts and resort to evasive posturing and ad hominem attacks. I would just note that you didn't say one blessed word about the behavior of hollow point bullets vs. FMJ bullets.