If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Conspiracy Theorist)   Retired FBI agent now claiming Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK. In related story sales of Reynolds Wrap skyrocket   (prisonplanet.com) divider line 442
    More: Interesting, Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK, no balls, FBI, government corruption, National Archives and Records Administration, Assassination of John F. Kennedy, social bookmarks  
•       •       •

18832 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2010 at 12:48 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



442 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-08-26 02:04:48 AM
I've read a shiat-ton of stuff about this. I've wanted there to be a conspiracy. When it comes down to it though, the only thing that makes any sense is that Oswald through a mad combination of guile and luck was the one that pulled the trigger. He had a motive, he had the opportunity, he knew how to fire a rifle. Anyone who's ever thrown a 'hail mary' shot at anything - basketball, trash can, beer pong, knows that sometimes you just nail it. That's what happened. We just don't want to believe that some random jackass can kill a President, so we look for other reasons why. I'll bet even he was surprised.
Bah. I'm gonna go make some more ceiling butt drawings.

/read the Illuminatus Trilogy
//It sucked so hard...
 
2010-08-26 03:30:54 AM
tirob Quote 2010-08-25 09:41:57 PM

But that's not what happened to President Kennedy.

>>>

how can you not realize you are showing just as much arrogance as the conspiracy theorists?
 
2010-08-26 07:38:44 AM
Big Al: tirob Quote 2010-08-25 09:41:57 PM

But that's not what happened to President Kennedy.

>>>

how can you not realize you are showing just as much arrogance as the conspiracy theorists?


Very well. I should have written, "But there's no evidence that is what happened to President Kennedy, only theories."

Chalk it up to impatience more than anything else.
 
2010-08-26 07:44:15 AM
There is a theory Drew will turn these threads into a new reality TV show.
tvmedia.ign.com
/procured
 
2010-08-26 09:05:41 AM
Torok: Giblet: tirob: Going back to a point I made earlier on this page, what if the two men who tried to kill Harry Truman had succeeded? Would we all still be wearing out our keyboards discussing the "conspiracy and coverup" of the Truman assassination? Collazo and Torresola didn't kill their target, though, so nobody ever goes around accusing them of being agents of the KGB, or the CIA, or the Mob, or whatever.


You haven't looked at where Oswald was relative to the motorcade. He was shooting from behind and off to the limo's right. If Oswald had hit the left side of the president's head, the exit wound would have been in his front-left jaw.

The exit wound was centered on the back of Kennedy's head (I can't post the picture w/o getting the penalty box). If you've shot people or animals before, you know that couldn't happen from any shot coming from the book repository.

The "magic bullet" or "single bullet" theory refers to the Warren commission's nomadic bullet that struck Kennedy and Connally. The commission determined that the bullet turned in flight.



Note: According to the investigation that single bullet, shown above, caused all of Kennedy's and Connally's wounds. For the bullet to leap from Connally's leg back to JFK so it could appear on the gurney is just one of life's many mysteries.

There is an excellent computer recreation on YouTube that demonstrates how the bullet actually followed a straight line. hitting Kennedy and Connally, with overlays from the Zapruder film. That recreation also requires that there be more than one bullet since it requires that Kennedy be hit in the right shoulder, exiting to the right of his sternum.

This is a great post. It illustrates my earlier argument about the irrationality of Giblet. You will notice that in his statement in bold and the graphic he posted that he vastly over exaggerates how far the the right the shot came from. It was in fact almost from directly behind. He also moved Connally half off the side of his seat and made him face directly forward contradicting the Zapruder film. The reality is closer to this graphic...



I agree that your graphic is more accurate.

But my graphic is what the Warren Commission accepted as fact, and that is my point: the official version of what happened is impossible, so why does everyone accept it as-is?

The files and official story can (and should) be updated with the known facts, such as the computer simulation matched to the Z-film (which makes far more sense than the official story) without unduly wrinkling anyone's labia (eg, yours).

Oswald is innocent according to US law. He's only the primary suspect, based only on circumstantial evidence. The case was immediately closed. Most of the evidence was immediately destroyed (eg, the limo).

The official story is, at best, heavily flawed.

Oswald never admitted guilt, he denied guilt, he was never proven guilty, and claimed to be a patsy.

It is physically and reasonably possible that Oswald was set up.

Ruby admitted that 'there is much more to the story'.

There exist other explanations that make as much (or more) sense, that fit the available evidence better, that are more likely, and that are equally possible.

It's also possible that Oswald was a lone gunman but there are many undisputed aspects of the case that make it seem unlikely.

Summary:

If you're the type of person who automatically believes what they're told, then this case is cut and dried and anyone who questions that story is an idiot nutbag.

If you're the type of person who questions everything that isn't crystal clear, then this case is still open to discussion and inquiry until a flawless explanation with a perfect evidence chain is presented.

One of the two types is highly desirable in the US legal system.

The other is only desirable in a fascist regime or military service.
 
2010-08-26 09:09:43 AM
fnordest: Giblet:
The official story is unbelievable and irrational. Oswald claimed he was a patsy. Oswald's assassin had this to say (new window, WMV format video of Ruby).

Is there a transcript of this somewhere?



Yeah (new window). I shoulda posted it... Sorry.
 
2010-08-26 09:20:53 AM
Giblet: I agree that your graphic is more accurate.

But my graphic is what the Warren Commission accepted as fact, and that is my point: the official version of what happened is impossible, so why does everyone accept it as-is?



Quoting yourself is rude, but deal with it.

It's interesting that brand new evidence, such as the computer simulation matched to the Z-film, which supports the official account, is automatically accepted by the official account's supporters as fact, while any new evidence that contradicts the official account is automatically rejected as nutbag fantasy.

I believe this all boils down to closed v open minds.

Nothing can open a closed mind.

Nothing can close an open mind.

So, who's going to Cincinnati for the fireworks?
 
2010-08-26 09:52:05 AM
cybernia: He did have time constraints. he didn't have all the time in the world.

My point is that he didn't have to "re-create" a perfect shot from somebody else.

Do you have any concept of what a "shot pattern" is. Recreating the shot pattern is all that matters to accept that oswald could have taken the shot.

I can sit down on a range and fire 3 shots into a target and say "Ha! Recreate that!" and have expert shooters fail to exactly duplicate my shot pattern.

Here we have oswald could have had a shot pattern up to 2 feet around kennedy's back and still pin him as the shooter. That's not an expert shot. If he had a smaller shot pattern all the better.

Virtually everybody could have shot Kennedy in the position of Oswald was in. Maybe not a perfect headshot in the upper right hand corner to match the exact ballistics of the Oswald shot, that might take an expert.

But a full silhouette at 100 yards this is an easy shot and there is no getting around that. I can shoot moving silhouettes at 100 yards all day and not miss, ever.

Finally, I remember reading some time ago that the shooters doing the re-enactments had more than one chance at re-creating it. Not one of them was able to do it on the first try.

Well you obviously didn't bother to follow my link since every shooter exactly duplicated the Oswald shot on their first try. I'm gonna rely on the factual evidence available rather than "some dude's memory". It doesn't surprise me you would want to watch something that might challenge your viewpoint though.


Giblet: It's interesting that brand new evidence, such as the computer simulation matched to the Z-film, which supports the official account, is automatically accepted by the official account's supporters as fact, while any new evidence that contradicts the official account is automatically rejected as nutbag fantasy.

I believe this all boils down to closed v open minds.

Nothing can open a closed mind.

Nothing can close an open mind.


More self congratulatory bullshiat. The crux of the conspiracy theory is the need to feel superior.

I can say this a thousand times to no avail.

If you have a theory, post a plausible, factually correct, scientific analysis, that can challenge the mainstream paradigm. Otherwise we need reject your hypothesis and accept the mainstream paradigm as fact.

You can't just throw piles of shiat against the wall and watch as each one gets refuted, and then fall back and say "Well, I just have an open mind and recongize there is alot of stuff out there that doesn't add up".

No, that's not an open mind, that's a lack of ethics. There is a huge difference.
 
2010-08-26 10:17:26 AM
chu2dogg: If you have a theory, post a plausible, factually correct, scientific analysis, that can challenge the mainstream paradigm. Otherwise we need reject your hypothesis and accept the mainstream paradigm as fact.

You can't just throw piles of shiat against the wall and watch as each one gets refuted, and then fall back and say "Well, I just have an open mind and recongize there is alot of stuff out there that doesn't add up".

No, that's not an open mind, that's a lack of ethics. There is a huge difference.


You know that Giblet is just going to respond by calling you close-minded. Why do you bother? Giblet: we don't disagree with you because we're sheep; we disagree with you because you need to refill your medication and develop some kind of rational, logical argument. Giving equal consideration to every conspiracy theory that comes out is not being open-minded, it is being lazy and weak-minded.
 
2010-08-26 11:54:45 AM
chu2dogg:
But a full silhouette at 100 yards this is an easy shot and there is no getting around that. I can shoot moving silhouettes at 100 yards all day and not miss, ever.



According to his marine buddies he could barely hit s stationary target.

Q. Did you fire with Oswald?

DELGADO. Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on line together, the same time, but not firing at the same position, but at the same time, and I remember seeing his [shooting]. It was a pretty big joke, because he got a lot of "Maggie's drawers," you know, a lot of misses, but he didn't give a darn.
 
2010-08-26 12:19:13 PM
I am surprised to see that there are people in here who actually believe that Oswald DID shoot Kennedy. Once you learn the facts, you see that it is not humanly possible for Oswald to be the lone gunman. So, either Oswald is an alien or he did not kill Kennedy (at least not by himself). I'm leaning toward alien. I thought this was all an accepted fact.
 
2010-08-26 12:42:40 PM
The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: Once you learn the facts, you see that it is not humanly possible for Oswald to be the lone gunman.

"Once you learn the facts, you see that it would be physically impossible for the World Trade Centers to collapse from a fire."

"Once you learn the facts, you see that it isn't humanly possible to pass through the Van Allen Belt."

"Once you learn the facts, you see that it physically possible for phone calls to be made from airplanes in flight."

Every time I look in to these "Once You Learn The Facts" statements by conspiracy theorists it turns out that it isn't that they have a greater understanding of the situation that I was heretofore unaware of, it's simply that the only version of events they are aware of must be "the facts".

Prosecutors, scientists, and academics be damned, this shiat I read on the internet is the simon-pure!

Thanks, but I think I'll refrain from sharing intellectual turf with Jeff Rense, Jim Marrs, and Alex Jones.
 
2010-08-26 12:51:36 PM
Giblet: Torok: Giblet: tirob:

But my graphic is what the Warren Commission accepted as fact, and that is my point: the official version of what happened is impossible, so why does everyone accept it as-is?

The official story is, at best, heavily flawed.


There exist other explanations that make as much (or more) sense, that fit the available evidence better, that are more likely, and that are equally possible.

If you're the type of person who automatically believes what they're told, then this case is cut and dried and anyone who questions that story is an idiot nutbag.

If you're the type of person who questions everything that isn't crystal clear, then this case is still open to discussion and inquiry until a flawless explanation with a perfect evidence chain is presented.

One of the two types is highly desirable in the US legal system.

The other is only desirable in a fascist regime or military service.


I suggest that there is a third possibility, which is that the Warren Commission came to the right conclusion but did so based on a flawed premise, or a series of flawed premises.

The Warren Commission made several assumptions about the mechanics of the assassination that I think are flawed. Among these were:

a) A sniper at the sixth floor southeast corner window of the Book Depository would not have fired at the occupants of the Presidential limousine when those occupants were obscured by the oak tree on the Depository side of Elm Street.

Conjecture.

b) The President had already incurred his neck wound by the frame 225 of the Zapruder movie, when he reappears from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Conjecture.

c) Governor Connally was mistaken when he said he was certain that he heard one shot two or three seconds before he was struck by the bullet that wounded him.

Not only conjecture, but a disregard of important evidence by a witness.

Even though I think that the Warren Commission based its report on these and other mistaken premises, I still think that its conclusion--that Oswald was a lone assassin--is correct.
 
2010-08-26 12:56:26 PM
cybernia: blah blah blah

It's not my conspiracy theory, it's yours.

Your theory has to go around the fact that all scientific evidence supports that Oswald was shot from the rear (which has not even been attempted to be refuted here), and further, this was a very easy shot to make.

So, are you going to come up with a theory or continue to throw shiat at the wall hoping for something to stick?

Let's hear it. WHAT IS YOUR THEORY???

I won't hold my breath.


*queue the posting of more random logical fallacies*
 
2010-08-26 01:44:44 PM
ZipSplat: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: Once you learn the facts, you see that it is not humanly possible for Oswald to be the lone gunman.

"Once you learn the facts, you see that it would be physically impossible for the World Trade Centers to collapse from a fire."

"Once you learn the facts, you see that it isn't humanly possible to pass through the Van Allen Belt."

"Once you learn the facts, you see that it physically possible for phone calls to be made from airplanes in flight."

Every time I look in to these "Once You Learn The Facts" statements by conspiracy theorists it turns out that it isn't that they have a greater understanding of the situation that I was heretofore unaware of, it's simply that the only version of events they are aware of must be "the facts".

Prosecutors, scientists, and academics be damned, this shiat I read on the internet is the simon-pure!

Thanks, but I think I'll refrain from sharing intellectual turf with Jeff Rense, Jim Marrs, and Alex Jones.


Really? You are equating the JFK assassination with the WTC and other conspiracy theories? Can you give me any possible explanation for how Oswald could have done it on his own? Could you even give me a motive? I really wish there had been a trial, so you could see how they had nothing on Oswald.
 
2010-08-26 01:57:59 PM
TheGoldcountry: Giblet: we don't disagree with you because we're sheep; we disagree with you because you need to refill your medication and develop some kind of rational, logical argument. Giving equal consideration to every conspiracy theory that comes out is not being open-minded, it is being lazy and weak-minded.


What gave you the idea that I believe every conspiracy theory?

Or did you presume that in the same way you presume Oswald's guilt in direct opposition to the way we do things here.

Snap judgement! I know! Gut reaction! Don't think - KILL IT!

You're about as rational and logical as a clubbed trout.


tirob: Even though I think that the Warren Commission based its report on these and other mistaken premises, I still think that its conclusion--that Oswald was a lone assassin--is correct.

That's reasonable and rational, and I agree completely, if you put "probably" between the last two words above. Don't frown like that. That's just how US law works.
 
2010-08-26 02:17:34 PM
There was a conspiracy alright: The nation watched the president's assassin get shot on live tv. A nation stayed glued to the tv after that.
 
2010-08-26 02:27:09 PM
The First Four Black Sabbath Albums:
Really? You are equating the JFK assassination with the WTC and other conspiracy theories? Can you give me any possible explanation for how Oswald could have done it on his own? Could you even give me a motive? I really wish there had been a trial, so you could see how they had nothing on Oswald.


Here are a couple of excerpts from Oswald's letters -

"I wonder what would happen if someone would stand up and say he was utterly opposed not only to the governments, but to the people, to the entire land and complete foundation of his society"

"It's always better to take advantage of your chances as they come along."

The first one sounds an awful lot like a motive. Especially when you consider that he was an egomaniac who felt that he was destined for great things. He wanted to be famous.. just like everyone else. The second (from March of 1963) gives us another reason - he'd already taken a shot at Walker so we know he had the stomach for it, and now the President was going to drive by his workplace! It was an incredible opportunity, and he took advantage of it.

That's all. It's tragic, but I believe it's the truth. Like I said, I once thought that there must have been a conspiracy (I was younger...). The more I read about Oswald however, made me believe that he did act alone. Never underestimate the power of a 'lone nut'.
 
2010-08-26 02:37:45 PM
The First Four Black Sabbath Albums

I said...
Every time I look in to these "Once You Learn The Facts" statements by conspiracy theorists it turns out that it isn't that they have a greater understanding of the situation that I was heretofore unaware of, it's simply that the only version of events they are aware of must be "the facts".

You replied...
Can you give me any possible explanation for how Oswald could have done it on his own? Could you even give me a motive? I really wish there had been a trial, so you could see how they had nothing on Oswald.

Q.E.D.
It's not that the explanation does not exist, it is that you are unaware. Is that by choice or by chance?
 
2010-08-26 02:58:51 PM
chu2dogg: If you have a theory, post a plausible, factually correct, scientific analysis, that can challenge the mainstream paradigm. Otherwise we need reject your hypothesis and accept the mainstream paradigm as fact.


OK. Fact: Oswald is innocent according to US law. He can only be found guilty in a court of law and that requires that he not be dead.

The bullet trajectory, as reported by the Warren commission, is not possible. All other evidence is hearsay or circumstantial and therefore open to question and debate, according to US law.

While I could make that shot, and apparently you as well, with iron sights there is no evidence that Oswald could. According to the Warren commission, Oswald attempted to murder Major General Edwin Walker, just 7 months earlier, and missed that seated stationary target from less than 100 feet away.

I suspect that the Warren Commission's conclusion, that LHO was the lone assassin, is correct. The preponderance of evidence indicates that this is so, meaning that a civil suit for wrongful death would likely succeed and, were I a juror in that case, I would have to find for the plaintiff. That is NOT how criminal law works though. Criminal law is very clear: "beyond any reasonable doubt".

I, and others here, have simply listed the 'reasonable doubts' that would cause us to block a conviction if LHO were alive to stand trial. Of course, if he were alive, there would no doubt be more evidence and the bastard would likely fry.

The Warren Commission did not have the power to convict and without a conviction, the case remains unresolved.

Belittling others who are following the spirit and rules of US legal procedure by questioning an unresolved case of presidential assassination is anti-American if intentional, and retarded lickspittle derp if it's unintentional.
 
2010-08-26 03:30:41 PM
chu2dogg: cybernia: blah blah blah

It's not my conspiracy theory, it's yours.

Your theory has to go around the fact that all scientific evidence supports that Oswald was shot from the rear (which has not even been attempted to be refuted here), and further, this was a very easy shot to make.

So, are you going to come up with a theory or continue to throw shiat at the wall hoping for something to stick?

Let's hear it. WHAT IS YOUR THEORY???

I won't hold my breath.


*queue the posting of more random logical fallacies*


I'm a grassy knoll guy. I think there was at least one more shooter.

And besides all that, if it is such an open and shut case, why keep the files secret?
 
2010-08-26 05:15:38 PM
Giblet: chu2dogg: If you have a theory, post a plausible, factually correct, scientific analysis, that can challenge the mainstream paradigm. Otherwise we need reject your hypothesis and accept the mainstream paradigm as fact.


OK. Fact: Oswald is innocent according to US law. He can only be found guilty in a court of law and that requires that he not be dead.

I suspect that the Warren Commission's conclusion, that LHO was the lone assassin, is correct. The preponderance of evidence indicates that this is so, meaning that a civil suit for wrongful death would likely succeed and, were I a juror in that case, I would have to find for the plaintiff. That is NOT how criminal law works though. Criminal law is very clear: "beyond any reasonable doubt".

I, and others here, have simply listed the 'reasonable doubts' that would cause us to block a conviction if LHO were alive to stand trial. Of course, if he were alive, there would no doubt be more evidence and the bastard would likely fry.


If Oswald had had his day in court, I don't doubt that he would have ended his life in Texas's electric chair--for the murder of Patrolman JD Tippitt if for nothing else. He also would have been convicted of the attempted murder of Patrolman Nick McDonald if he had been put on trial for that offense.
 
2010-08-26 05:40:26 PM
Giblet:
If you have only 8 seconds from the first shot, and your first shot misses, there's no way in hell those following shots will hit anything.


Giblet:
I suspect that the Warren Commission's conclusion, that LHO was the lone assassin, is correct.


Looks like you completely reversed your opinion and are now trying to cover it up by pretending that you were just trying to say that Oswald was never convicted.
 
2010-08-26 05:53:42 PM
cybernia:
I'm a grassy knoll guy. I think there was at least one more shooter.


The ballistics of the 3 shots show that they came from the area of the sixth floor window of the book depository. Bullets are not magic and can not turn in mid air like that.

I think the thing that pisses me off most about this crap is that the conspiracy theorists can't even make up anything that is believable.

I could do much better than that without even trying. If I were to invent a conspiracy about JFK I would simply say that the shooter was in the book depository but it was not Oswald. Maybe the shooting of Officer Tippit by Oswald was unrelated or it was someone made to look like Oswald, or the witnesses were paid or in on it from the beginning.
 
2010-08-26 06:11:58 PM
Torok: Giblet:
If you have only 8 seconds from the first shot, and your first shot misses, there's no way in hell those following shots will hit anything.

Giblet:
I suspect that the Warren Commission's conclusion, that LHO was the lone assassin, is correct.

Looks like you completely reversed your opinion and are now trying to cover it up by pretending that you were just trying to say that Oswald was never convicted.


Someone suggested that random shots could still hit the target.

It looks like I accepted that as logical.

Flexibility is just one advantage of an open mind.

I'm still open to debating the issue though, if you insist on being an asswipe.
 
2010-08-26 11:23:10 PM
Torok: cybernia:
I'm a grassy knoll guy. I think there was at least one more shooter.


The ballistics of the 3 shots show that they came from the area of the sixth floor window of the book depository. Bullets are not magic and can not turn in mid air like that.

I think the thing that pisses me off most about this crap is that the conspiracy theorists can't even make up anything that is believable.

I could do much better than that without even trying. If I were to invent a conspiracy about JFK I would simply say that the shooter was in the book depository but it was not Oswald. Maybe the shooting of Officer Tippit by Oswald was unrelated or it was someone made to look like Oswald, or the witnesses were paid or in on it from the beginning.


The House Assassination Committee found it was possible that at least 4 shots were fired. They also found that it was possible there were shots from the knoll.

In fact there is plenty of evidence to show that Oswald couldn't have been a shooter given where witnesses put him right before and after the shooting. There's just too much stuff to dismiss it all
 
2010-08-27 08:27:56 AM
cybernia: Torok: cybernia:
I'm a grassy knoll guy. I think there was at least one more shooter.


The ballistics of the 3 shots show that they came from the area of the sixth floor window of the book depository. Bullets are not magic and can not turn in mid air like that.

I think the thing that pisses me off most about this crap is that the conspiracy theorists can't even make up anything that is believable.

I could do much better than that without even trying. If I were to invent a conspiracy about JFK I would simply say that the shooter was in the book depository but it was not Oswald. Maybe the shooting of Officer Tippit by Oswald was unrelated or it was someone made to look like Oswald, or the witnesses were paid or in on it from the beginning.

The House Assassination Committee found it was possible that at least 4 shots were fired. They also found that it was possible there were shots from the knoll.

In fact there is plenty of evidence to show that Oswald couldn't have been a shooter given where witnesses put him right before and after the shooting. There's just too much stuff to dismiss it all


The HSCA findings regarding the sound evidence were debunked a few years after they came out.

That notwithstanding, I would suggest that even if a fourth shot was fired in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, it does not necessarily mean that there was a conspiracy. There were a great many police and Secret Service agents there at the time, and one of them may have discharged his weapon for one or another reason.
 
2010-08-27 09:42:39 AM
tirob: That notwithstanding, I would suggest that even if a fourth shot was fired in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, it does not necessarily mean that there was a conspiracy. There were a great many police and Secret Service agents there at the time, and one of them may have discharged his weapon for one or another reason.


So, is your take on this something like 'there may have been other shots, but who cares where they came from cuz we already have an explanation that can be shoehorned to fit the evidence'?

That was clearly the Warren Commission's attitude. That's why Garrison ruined his career trying to correct it, and it's why so many conspiracy theories exist.
 
2010-08-27 12:33:29 PM
Giblet: tirob: That notwithstanding, I would suggest that even if a fourth shot was fired in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, it does not necessarily mean that there was a conspiracy. There were a great many police and Secret Service agents there at the time, and one of them may have discharged his weapon for one or another reason.


So, is your take on this something like 'there may have been other shots, but who cares where they came from cuz we already have an explanation that can be shoehorned to fit the evidence'?

That was clearly the Warren Commission's attitude. That's why Garrison ruined his career trying to correct it, and it's why so many conspiracy theories exist.


No, that's not what I think. I believe that it is as likely as not that a fourth shot was fired by a Secret Service agent named George W. Hickey, who was stationed in the rear seat of the followup car. A guy named Howard Donahue made the case some years ago that Hickey actually fired the shot that struck the President in the head. I don't buy that, but it seems to be a fact that Hickey had his AR-15 rifle in his hands at about the time that shots were being fired at the Presidential limousine, or an instant after.

Statement of Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett, 11/23/63 (sorry I can't find an online citation for this. It is from Donahue's/Bonar Menninger's book Mortal Error, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1992, p. 297): "...A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high [sic] of the President's head. I immediately hollered, "he'shiat" and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15."

SA Bennett was stationed on the driver's side of the rear seat of the followup car--just to SA Hickey's left.

See also: the statement of SA Tim McIntyre, who was stationed on the rear of the driver's side running board of the followup car. McIntyre wrote that no shots were fired by any agent, however.

I would even go further than you and say that the Warren Commission shoehorned some of the evidence to fit its reconstruction of the assassination. Still and all, I concur with its essential conclusions.
 
2010-08-27 06:27:58 PM
tirob: Giblet: tirob: That notwithstanding, I would suggest that even if a fourth shot was fired in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, it does not necessarily mean that there was a conspiracy. There were a great many police and Secret Service agents there at the time, and one of them may have discharged his weapon for one or another reason.


So, is your take on this something like 'there may have been other shots, but who cares where they came from cuz we already have an explanation that can be shoehorned to fit the evidence'?

That was clearly the Warren Commission's attitude. That's why Garrison ruined his career trying to correct it, and it's why so many conspiracy theories exist.

No, that's not what I think. I believe that it is as likely as not that a fourth shot was fired by a Secret Service agent named George W. Hickey, who was stationed in the rear seat of the followup car. A guy named Howard Donahue made the case some years ago that Hickey actually fired the shot that struck the President in the head. I don't buy that, but it seems to be a fact that Hickey had his AR-15 rifle in his hands at about the time that shots were being fired at the Presidential limousine, or an instant after.

Statement of Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett, 11/23/63 (sorry I can't find an online citation for this. It is from Donahue's/Bonar Menninger's book Mortal Error, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1992, p. 297): "...A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high [sic] of the President's head. I immediately hollered, "he'shiat" and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15."

SA Bennett was stationed on the driver's side of the rear seat of the followup car--just to SA Hickey's left.

See also: the statement of SA Tim McIntyre, who was stationed on the rear of the driver's side running board of the followup car. McIntyre wrote that no shots were fired by any agent, however.

I would even go further than you and say that the Warren Commission shoehorned some of the evidence to fit its reconstruction of the assassination. Still and all, I concur with its essential conclusions.



How embarrassing would that be; you're Secret Service and you accidentally shoot the guy you're supposed to protect. If that's what happened, then Hickey knew what he did.

Refer to the very Boobies in this thread.

"Sorry about that, chief..."
 
2010-08-27 07:29:48 PM
Giblet: tirob: Giblet:

How embarrassing would that be; you're Secret Service and you accidentally shoot the guy you're supposed to protect. If that's what happened, then Hickey knew what he did.

Refer to the very Boobies in this thread.

"Sorry about that, chief..."


Embarrassing but probably academic, as the President's neck wound would likely have been fatal in and of itself--the bullet clipped one of his thoracic vertebrae, which in turn probably struck his spinal cord, and thereby, I believe, caused his right elbow to fly up as shown in frames 227-230 of the Z film. If the President had survived such a wound, it would have been as a quadriplegic vegetable, according to medical opinion I have read.

Errata in my post before this one:

1) Bennett shouted, "he'shiat!"

2) Bennett was stationed on the passenger's side of the rear seat of the followup car, and Hickey on the driver's side. I had them reversed. This configuration would make more sense assuming that Hickey was right-handed.

If Hickey fired his gun, I suspect that the bullet he discharged slammed into the grassy knoll.
 
2010-08-27 09:04:42 PM
"He'shiat!" Darn these filters.
 
2010-08-28 08:11:35 AM
tirob: "He'shiat!" Darn these filters.

Maybe "He'shiat!" will work...
 
2010-08-28 08:13:55 AM
The fark milters are surprisingly thorough... Compulsively so.

Let's see how compulsive...

¡taihs,ǝɥ
 
2010-08-28 08:28:59 AM
tirob: Giblet: tirob: Giblet:

How embarrassing would that be; you're Secret Service and you accidentally shoot the guy you're supposed to protect. If that's what happened, then Hickey knew what he did.

Refer to the very Boobies in this thread.

"Sorry about that, chief..."

Embarrassing but probably academic, as the President's neck wound would likely have been fatal in and of itself--the bullet clipped one of his thoracic vertebrae, which in turn probably struck his spinal cord, and thereby, I believe, caused his right elbow to fly up as shown in frames 227-230 of the Z film. If the President had survived such a wound, it would have been as a quadriplegic vegetable, according to medical opinion I have read.

Errata in my post before this one:

1) Bennett shouted, "he'shiat!"

2) Bennett was stationed on the passenger's side of the rear seat of the followup car, and Hickey on the driver's side. I had them reversed. This configuration would make more sense assuming that Hickey was right-handed.

If Hickey fired his gun, I suspect that the bullet he discharged slammed into the grassy knoll.



The odds of an accidental hit by Secret Service are astronomical. But if there was an accidental discharge, the person whose weapon discharged likely spent many nights staring into space and wondering.

I just finished reading "Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy (new window)".

I had never read that report, and if Jim Garrison had read it, he would have kept his DA job longer. I recommend it to anyone interested in the case.

It clears up my former doubts about Oswald, but it doesn't change my opinion that "he's innocent but probably the only assassin of JFK".

And a lot of people here say that discussion of conspiracy theories accomplishes nothing....
 
2010-08-28 09:37:20 AM
IMO, the only remaining holes in the case (heh heh) are from the initial examination by the ER staff, where they noted entry wounds in the throat and chest.

I can reasonably ignore the chest wound, based on the photos, as it could be either an entry or exit wound (the photo is poor), but have all the signs of exit (surrounding trauma and bruising, tearing, etc), and the back wound is clearly an entry wound.

I hit a deer with a .308 round once that left a surprisingly smooth exit hole. Death was instantaneous, so there was no apparent bruising around either wound. Looking closely however, it was obvious which was which because the exit hole was not smooth at all.

And the descriptions of Kennedy's throat wound vary:
* Dr. PERRY: This was situated in the lower anterior one-third of the neck, approximately 5 mm. in diameter. (3H372)
* Dr. CARRICO: This was probably a 4-7 mm. wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little to the right of the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage. (6H3)
* DR. CARRICO: There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size, located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple. (3H361)
* Dr. PERRY: I determined only the fact that there was a wound there, roughly 5 mm. in size or so. (6H9)
* Dr. JONES: The wound in the throat was probably no larger than a quarter of an inch in diameter. . . . t was a very small, smooth wound. (6H54)
* Nurse HENCHLIFFE: It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck. . . . About as big around as the end of my little finger. (6H141)

The conclusion was that the throat wound was consistent with a round from Oswald's rifle. But as a former sniper and lifelong hunter, my opinion is no farking way is that an exit wound from either a bullet, bullet fragment, or bone fragment.

Exit wounds are almost always ... catastrophic, even using teflon coated steel boat-tail rounds. There is always tearing around an exit wound, not smooth as reported, and the attending staff deal with bullet wounds all the time. When death isn't instantaneous, severe bruising is apparent around the exit wound caused by the fluid shockwave that precedes the bullet as it passes through the body and hits the surrounding tissue, bursting capillaries as it goes, before the pressure wave and actual bullet breaks through the skin and exits.

The wounds as described are consistent with entry of 6.5mm or smaller rounds. Looking at the Z-film, that wound could have coincided with the shoulder wound (hit in the shoulder and throat at roughly the same time).

It's a shame that the throat wound was destroyed by a tracheotomy before a photo could be taken, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do...

It's also a shame that the limo was destroyed so soon after the shooting. A ricocheting fragment from the "magic" shoulder->chest-Connally wound could have caused the throat wound, although that seems very unlikely.

The bullet that was found on the gurney makes no sense at all.

So maybe the FA is correct. Maybe someone else did try to assassinate JFK. If so, their efforts were redundant and unnecessary, but it would be nice to have the throat wound and gurney bullet definitively explained.

Volunteers?
 
2010-08-28 09:41:11 AM
Giblet: tirob: Giblet: tirob: Giblet:

It clears up my former doubts about Oswald, but it doesn't change my opinion that "he's innocent but probably the only assassin of JFK".

And a lot of people here say that discussion of conspiracy theories accomplishes nothing....


I think that the critics of the Warren Commission made some good points, at least regarding the reconstruction of the assassination. I have alluded to a couple of these here already; two others that have interested me are:

a) The Commission's glossing over the superficial wound suffered during the assassination by James Tague, who was standing near the Triple Overpass. I suspect that the wound was caused by a ricochet fragment from the shot that stuck the Presidet in the head--or a piece of pavement that was knocked loose by such a fragment--, but I have never seen a satisfactory (to me) explanation for Tague's wound in print, even by modern defenders of the Commission's conclusion.

b) The gunpowder that numerous witnesses smelled in Dealey Plaza just after the shots were fired. The prevailing west wind would--in theory--have blown most of the powder from a gun fired from the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD *away* from Dealey Plaza. If SA Hickey had fired his AR-15, however, it would--again in theory--be a better explanation for the gunpowder smell.
 
2010-08-28 10:06:33 AM
Giblet: IMO,

Volunteers?


The best explanation I have read for the small size of the throat wound is that 1) the President was wearing a collar and tie, which prevented the skin of the exit wound from pushing outwards as the bullet exited his neck; and 2) the (rifle) bullet had only clipped the edge of the President's thoracic vertebra, and had therefore not been knocked off its axis very much by the time it exited the President's neck.

The entrance wound on Governor Connally's back was shaped like an ellipse. If this wound was caused by a rifle bullet, that bullet had therefore almost certainly struck something, or someone, before it hit him, and had been knocked off its axis.

Have a look at the Z film--there are a bunch of them posted on YouTube and like sites. Watch Mrs. Kennedy in the frames following Z-230; she reaches for her husband and pulls him towards her just as Governor Connally reacts to his wounds. They appear to me to be acting in tandem--i.e. reacting to the same event.

As for CE 399, the stretcher bullet, the best explanation I can think of is that it fell out of Governor Connally's trousers. A bullet had, after all, entered his thigh.
 
2010-08-28 01:25:21 PM
tirob:

The HSCA findings regarding the sound evidence were debunked a few years after they came out.

Debunked? How about came to a different conclusion? The committee had a second team look at the acoustic evidence as well and they concurred with the first.

That notwithstanding, I would suggest that even if a fourth shot was fired in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, it does not necessarily mean that there was a conspiracy. There were a great many police and Secret Service agents there at the time, and one of them may have discharged his weapon for one or another reason.

There is just too much information that points to one. The WC set out to conclude the lone gunman line and they did. Witnesses said that if their stories didn't fit they tried to get them to change them and if it didn't fit they dismissed them as being mistaken. Dozens of witnesses heard shots from the grassy knoll and were dismissed as mistaken.

Even RFK believed there was one.

That this is still in the public consciousness 50 years after the fact must mean something. The majority of Americans that were alive at the time don't believe the lone gunman theory. They see the WC as a joke.

Critics point to the idea that no one wants to believe that a lone nut could change history and I get that idea. But considering all the nefarious things that sections of the US Govt was involved in back then, is it that much of s stretch to believe that dark forces were behind it?

And then there are Oswald's motivations. There don't seem to be any. Nothing in the records have him rating about JFK. If, as some say he was a loser who wanted to be famous, why deny the killing? if you look at the footage of him in custody, he doesn't look like a guy who's proud of himself.

And finally, why were there no Secret Service agents on the bumper of the car? Why were they pulled off at the airport?
 
2010-08-28 04:25:17 PM
cybernia: tirob:

The HSCA findings regarding the sound evidence were debunked a few years after they came out.

Debunked? How about came to a different conclusion? The committee had a second team look at the acoustic evidence as well and they concurred with the first.

That notwithstanding, I would suggest that even if a fourth shot was fired in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, it does not necessarily mean that there was a conspiracy. There were a great many police and Secret Service agents there at the time, and one of them may have discharged his weapon for one or another reason.

There is just too much information that points to one. The WC set out to conclude the lone gunman line and they did. Witnesses said that if their stories didn't fit they tried to get them to change them and if it didn't fit they dismissed them as being mistaken. Dozens of witnesses heard shots from the grassy knoll and were dismissed as mistaken.

Even RFK believed there was one.

That this is still in the public consciousness 50 years after the fact must mean something. The majority of Americans that were alive at the time don't believe the lone gunman theory. They see the WC as a joke.

Critics point to the idea that no one wants to believe that a lone nut could change history and I get that idea. But considering all the nefarious things that sections of the US Govt was involved in back then, is it that much of s stretch to believe that dark forces were behind it?

And then there are Oswald's motivations. There don't seem to be any. Nothing in the records have him rating about JFK. If, as some say he was a loser who wanted to be famous, why deny the killing? if you look at the footage of him in custody, he doesn't look like a guy who's proud of himself.

And finally, why were there no Secret Service agents on the bumper of the car? Why were they pulled off at the airport?


No, I mean debunked. The guy who did it was a rock drummer from Ohio named Steve Barber, if I am not mistaken. He listened to the dictabelt tape that HSCA used to prove its assertion, and heard the Dallas police chief say, "Hold everything secure" at the time HSCA said the shots were being fired. The chief's utterance was in fact made a minute and a half after the shots rang out, so the tape became irrelevant.

Agreed that the WC probably had a verdict in mind before it started, although that by itself is not enough, in my mind, to dismiss its report.

I don't know what motivated Oswald. Hard to say what motivated Giuseppe Zangara or James Earl Ray, for that matter.

I have read that there were no Secret Service agents on the Presidential limousine's bumper because JFK himself ordered them off unless the car was moving through large crowds. SA John Ready and SA Clint Hill had, however, stationed themselves on the car's bumper while the motorcade was moving through the thick crowds on Main Street in Dallas.

SA Hill's statement, November 30, 1963

As for the nefarious doings of the US government, the pat explanation/motive that I have always heard for government involvement in Kennedy's assassination is that elements of (insert your favorite government agency here) wanted JFK eliminated because he was about to end our involvment in Vietnam. The problem I see with that explanation is that JFK was *not* about to end our involvment in Vietnam. When JFK took office, we had 3,200 soldiers in Vietnam, most of them advisors in Saigon; a little over two and a half years later, there were over 16,000 there, many of them in the field with the ARVN. JFK also created the Green Berets specifically to fight in Vietnam. Furthermore, Kennedy knew and approved of a US-backed coup d'etat to oust South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem (who was killed during the coup) that took place three weeks before he himself was assassinated; the Kennedy administration had hoped that the coup would lead to the strengthening of the local war effort against the Viet Cong.
 
2010-08-28 04:37:25 PM
cybernia: tirob:

Even RFK believed there was one.

It might interest you to know that the idea of hiring Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission was Robert Kennedy's. RFK had met Specter a couple of years earlier when the latter was an assistant DA in Philadelphia prosecuting corrupt officials in the local Teamsters' Union.
 
2010-08-28 07:04:20 PM
tirob: cybernia: tirob:

Even RFK believed there was one.

It might interest you to know that the idea of hiring Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission was Robert Kennedy's. RFK had met Specter a couple of years earlier when the latter was an assistant DA in Philadelphia prosecuting corrupt officials in the local Teamsters' Union.



That's confirmed in the "Brothers" biography of RFK.

You'll note that I avoided citing the Rockefeller Commission's chapter (new) on the grassy knoll theory, and their suspects d'jour: E. Howard Hunt, and Sturgis. Despite Hunt's deathbed confession that LBJ and factions of the CIA and FBI participated in the assassination, this report is conjecture and ignores a preponderance of the very evidence that the commission itself collected. ie, it's no better than the WC report.
 
Displayed 42 of 442 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report