JFK - Why Oswald is guilty.

First topic message reminder :

As I have just spent the last three months reading the most detailed book imaginable on the JFK assassination I thought I would put that reading to some use and outline why it is pretty clear Oswald was guilty and acted alone in the act. As I know we have some subscribers to various conspiracy theories on here would be nice to hear some of the counter views.
 
1 – The ballistics tests carried out on the bullet fragments found in JFK and Governor Connally were found to have been fired from the rifle owned by Oswald, to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. I should clarify that this is not the model of gun, but the specific rifle found on the sixth floor, which it was proven was owned by Oswald, beyond any reasonable doubt.
 
2 – Oswald had previously made an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate another local politician, General Walker. Obviously not absolute proof he murdered Kennedy but a pretty strong indication that he was more than capable of attempting such a murder.
 
3 – No evidence has ever been found that a bullet was fired from anywhere other than the sixth floor of the Book Depository. No bullet fragments or shells were ever found in or around Dealey Plaza other than those fired by Oswald.
 
4 – The entry and exit wounds found in Kennedy and Connally were consistent with a shot being made from the upper floors of the Book Depository and no other location, as confirmed by the team of pathologists who examined the body.
 
5 - Oswald stayed with his wife the night before the assassination (they lived apart) on a Thursday night. He never stayed with her during the week. The gun used to kill Kennedy was stored at his wife’s address. What possible motivation did he have to break with a long established routine other than to collect the murder weapon.
 
6 – Of all the employees of the Book Depository Oswald was the only employee to leave the building and area after the murder. Would an innocent person act in such a manner.
 
7 – There was no magic bullet. In a presidential limousine the front seat occupied by Governor Connally was what is known as a jump seat and is lowered and set off to the left, thus meaning the bullet that struck both of them acted in a totally consistent manner from the perspective of trajectory.
 
8 – In a related point the idea that the shot was difficult or could not be made with Oswald’s rifle are a myth. Tests were carried out post the assassination where Oswald’s results were not only equalled but even bettered. Should also be remembered during his time in the marines Oswald was at one point classified as a sharpshooter, the second highest grade below expert, and at the risk of stating the obvious the US marine tests are pretty difficult.
 
9 – The only fingerprints found in the snipers nest on the sixth floor in the immediate aftermath of the murder belonged to Oswald, no credible physical evidence has ever emerged that anybody other than him or as well has him has ever emerged.
 
10 – The most popular conspiracy theory, that a shot was made from the grassy knoll does not really stand up to analysis. The grassy knoll is directly across the plaza from the main street where most people had gathered to watch the motorcade, any assassin or shot from there would have been in direct view of up to 80 witnesses, yet no credible witness or physical evidence has ever emerged to support such a proposition.
 
This is a brief run through some of the myriad factors that point to Oswald’s guilt but am always happy to hear the counter views.

JFK made the mistake of having a powerful number 2 in place......All the assasinated Presidents bar Lincoln had powerful VPs...........

Garfield had Chester Arthur............A powerful New York attorney............

McKinley had the great Teddy Roosevelt..

JFK had LBJ.............

Nixon had it best when asked about his lackadaisical attitude to security.....

"Spiro is my Vice president and who the hell is going to assasinate me with that complete idiot waiting to take over !!"

The mystery surrounding his brain is covered in the HCSA report, worth scanning if you get a chance...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/brain.txt

Alistair wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

Alistair wrote:Interesting fact, Lynn 'Buck' Compton, the lead prosecutor in the Sirhan Sirhan case (Man who killed Bobby) was THE 'Buck' Compton from Band of Brothers.

I did not know that.

I knew that. Buck was never the same after seeing Toye and Guarnere shelled at Bastogne

Ahh, Bill Guarnere, he died last year, sadly.

One of my favourite programs, that. I can't remember, when they do the run round of where people ended up during the Baseball match, do they mention it?

I know the scene, I think so. Out of the main characters only Donald Malarkey is still alive. One of my favourite exchanges in the film is when Sobel says 'pass revoked Sgt Bullsh1t'.

seanmichaels wrote:

Alistair wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

Alistair wrote:Interesting fact, Lynn 'Buck' Compton, the lead prosecutor in the Sirhan Sirhan case (Man who killed Bobby) was THE 'Buck' Compton from Band of Brothers.

I did not know that.

I knew that. Buck was never the same after seeing Toye and Guarnere shelled at Bastogne

Ahh, Bill Guarnere, he died last year, sadly.

One of my favourite programs, that. I can't remember, when they do the run round of where people ended up during the Baseball match, do they mention it?

I know the scene, I think so. Out of the main characters only Donald Malarkey is still alive. One of my favourite exchanges in the film is when Sobel says 'pass revoked Sgt Bullsh1t'.

Ha! Yes, that's brilliant.

I was always intrigued as to the bloke who wrote a book on sharks (Webster) went missing.

I also had no idea that Michael Fassbender was in it.

Interesting facts about Jack Ruby..............

A day before the killing he went to mafia man's Joe campisi's rstaurant.....Campisi was a huge figure in the Dallas Underworld..........

His phone calls to the mob increased alarmingly in the run up to the assasination....

Ruby applied for a new trial but not in Dallas because "He couldn't tell the real facts pertaining to my situation"..

His new trial was granted but he fell ill and died conveniently............

I can buy the book depository.............I can buy the lone gun man.........Even buy Oswald to a certain extent..

I can't buy Jack Ruby.........

Ruby was having trouble with competitors in the town who run other clubs. He thought they were running illegal strip shows using amateurs and so was trying to reach out to the mob guys he vaguely knew to try and get them to lean on the unions to shut this down. This throws up a couple of questions. If Ruby was mobbed up himself or a well known mob figure in Dallas as some of the conspiracy authors would have you believe you'd have to believe he would be able to stop competitors operating on his turf or damaging his business. What sort of mob guy can't even intimidate a rival club owner?

Even if Ruby couldn't do it himself it is pretty much widely accepted that all his entreaties to the mob to intercede on this matter fell on deaf ears, so this leaves us in the tricky position that Ruby is well in enough with the mob that they would trust him with such a massively important task of silencing Oswald (not until he has spent two days talking to the police, obviously) but not enough to resolve a relatively trifling dispute with a rival club owner on his behalf.

There is no doubt Ruby knew mob members but lets be sensible about this, he run and operated night clubs for most of his working life, rubbing shoulders with mob types is pretty much an inevitable by product of that career.

If Ruby Turner had married Jack Ruby, she'd have been Ruby Ruby and someone would have written a song about her.

If Ruby Rose married Andy Murray it would really tarnish the name of a beloved singer.

JuliusHMarx wrote:If Ruby Turner had married Jack Ruby, she'd have been Ruby Ruby and someone would have written a song about her.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:If Ruby Rose married Andy Murray it would really tarnish the name of a beloved singer.

Very good.

I did watch documentaries on this case and one thing that suggests someone else was involved was the bullet trajectory. From where Lee Harvey Owald was said to have fired the shots it was damned impossible for him to hit the president at the angle he did. They carried out computer recreations of the scene using the footage and computer generated the exact layout of the area. All very convincing.

As I mentioned earlier Criag, a lot of the time when they re-create these scenes, as in JFK they do it with a regular limousine. The presidential limos are not regular in set up. The seat in the front next to the driver is what is known as a jump seat. It is set slightly off to the centre and lower than the others, for the simple reason that people in a motorcade come to see the president and so having him set off lower and to an angle gives everyone a better view of the president. When this set up is taken into consideration the trajectory of the bullet is not actually that unbelievable. The ballistic tests can track it with pretty decent accuracy, and not one of the experts used by the Warren Commission or HCSA support the theory it travelled in a manner inconsistent with the angle of the shot.

Rowley wrote:Ruby was having trouble with competitors in the town who run other clubs. He thought they were running illegal strip shows using amateurs and so was trying to reach out to the mob guys he vaguely knew to try and get them to lean on the unions to shut this down. This throws up a couple of questions. If Ruby was mobbed up himself or a well known mob figure in Dallas as some of the conspiracy authors would have you believe you'd have to believe he would be able to stop competitors operating on his turf or damaging his business. What sort of mob guy can't even intimidate a rival club owner?

Even if Ruby couldn't do it himself it is pretty much widely accepted that all his entreaties to the mob to intercede on this matter fell on deaf ears, so this leaves us in the tricky position that Ruby is well in enough with the mob that they would trust him with such a massively important task of silencing Oswald (not until he has spent two days talking to the police, obviously) but not enough to resolve a relatively trifling dispute with a rival club owner on his behalf.

There is no doubt Ruby knew mob members but lets be sensible about this, he run and operated night clubs for most of his working life, rubbing shoulders with mob types is pretty much an inevitable by product of that career.

Ruby in collusion with the Dallas police has probably made a simple case appear more complicated.....

Don't know how he thought he'd get credit for killing this guy If that was indeed his aim..

Hmm what does your book say to this Rowley which is on a website looking into the assassination:-

Not only was the Warren Commission unable to demonstrate that Oswald had committed the crime alone, but two important pieces of evidence showed that he had almost certainly not played any part in the shooting:
the poor physical condition of the rifle
and the absence of gunpowder residues on Oswald’s cheeks.

A few hours after the assassination, Oswald underwent a test that was routinely carried out on those suspected of having fired a gun. Liquid paraffin wax was spread on his hands and his right cheek. When hardened, the paraffin wax would extract from deep in the pores of his skin any fine residues given off by the firing of a gun, even if he had washed his skin in the meantime.
Barium and antimony, which are found in gunpowder residues, are also found in several common substances such as printing ink, which Oswald certainly had handled on the morning of the assassination. The presence of these substances is not sufficient evidence of having fired a gun, but their absence is sufficient evidence of having not fired a gun.
In other words:
Firing a gun would deposit barium and antimony on parts of the skin close to the gun.
If barium and antimony were found on Oswald’s skin, they may have been deposited by the firing of a gun. But they may instead have been deposited by other means: for example, the handling of books.
If barium and antimony were not found on Oswald’s skin, he almost certainly did not fire a gun.

he experts from the US Army and the FBI who had tested the rifle discovered that it was actually not usable in its original state:
Shims had to be applied to the telescopic sight before the rifle could be aimed.1
Even after the telescopic sight had been repaired, it proved unreliable and inaccurate.2
The condition of both the bolt and the trigger pull meant that the rifle could not be aimed accurately.3
The rifle discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository could not have caused any of the wounds to Kennedy, Connally or Tague, except by accident.

According to the book I read the test carried out for gunshot residue was done pretty shabbily, but there was certainly evidence he had fired on his hands if memory serves. The issue over the condition of his gun is again one of those things that has been overplayed by the conspiracy theorists, whilst it was not exactly a brilliant gun, various experts have confirmed it was decent enough, nowhere near the second rate rifle it has been made out to be.

None of that matters though, the ballistic reports carried out on the bullet fragments found in Kennedy and Connally's body all concluded that the bullets were fired from Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all others in the world. I have highlighted that and repeated it again because it really is that important, these are scientific tests, this are evidence in the legal sense of the word as Rick confirmed earlier in the thread (he is a lawyer by trade)

Now if we are going to dismiss this it means one of two things, either all of the ballistic experts which examined the fragments were wrong en masse (unlikely) or they were all in on the conspiracy to frame Oswald (again unlikely)

Whilst, as should be apparent by now, they are not views I agree with, I can see why people may think Oswald did not fire the gun, the argument that the gun that fired the fatal bullets was not the gun owned by Oswald is a view simply not suported by the evidence.

What about the tests that found no residue on Oswald's skin - seen as strong evidence he fired the gun. Tests carried out showed no residue on his skin and particles would have been there even if he had scrubbed his face. So perhaps the gun was fired but not by him and left at the scene.

Maybe this has been touched on earlier, but why did Ruby feel so aggrieved at the killing of Kennedy again?

A low dwelling night club owner with connections to the mafia, casual or otherwise - and he's sore about a young fella killing off the brother of one of the Mafia's biggest enemy?

This big guy who just wants to make a buck, legal or otherwise, gets emotional about Kennedy and decides he hates the assassin enough to kill the assassin - knowing his Mafia associates are probably celebrating?

Not really sure secret. He was clearly a bit unhinged. It does seem though his patriotism and in particular his attachment to Kennedy was real though. Those who worked his night clubs made statements that if a comedian was working there and made jokes at the expenses of Kennedy Ruby would shout them down and even go as far as to physically assault them if they carried on.

From the best guess we can make it appears in the few days after the murder he just got to stew on it to the point where he snapped. As I mentioned earlier he had a perfectly good opportunity to kill Oswald in the immediate aftermath of the murder and did not take it. This suggests to me firstly he was not paid or employed by any third parties to commit the murder and secondly his mental deterioration at the murder was not sufficient for him to consider murder.

All speculation of course but as I mentioned earlier the idea of Ruby as a mob killer just doesn't seem plausible. All police and FBI who investigated the mafia scoff at the idea that Ruby was anything other than the most casual associate of theirs.

As I have said countless times if Ruby was employed by the mob to kill Oswald he was doing it for one reason that is to silence Oswald and stop him telling what he knew, if he knew nothing there is no need to silence him, that is just common sense. Now if we accept the common sense in this statement, surely if you're trying to stop someone speaking you would kill him at the first available opportunity. Personally I'd suggest you'd kill him as he left the book depository. However even if you don't do this Ruby had a perfectly good opportunity to kill Oswald when he was first in custody, he was in the police headquarters and Oswald was walked past him within two feet of him. To let him walk past you and spend a further two days talking to the police (potentially telling everything you're meant to be silencing him on) all of the while not knowing if you will even get another chance to kill him makes literally no logical sense.

Rowley wrote:

As I have said countless times if Ruby was employed by the mob to kill Oswald he was doing it for one reason that is to silence Oswald and stop him telling what he knew, if he knew nothing there is no need to silence him, that is just common sense.  Now if we accept the common sense in this statement, surely if you're trying to stop someone speaking you would kill him at the first available opportunity. Personally I'd suggest you'd kill him as he left the book depository. However even if you don't do this Ruby had a perfectly good opportunity to kill Oswald when he was first in custody, he was in the police headquarters and Oswald was walked past him within two feet of him. To let him walk past you and spend a further two days talking to the police (potentially telling everything you're meant to be silencing him on) all of the while not knowing if you will even get another chance to kill him makes literally no logical sense.

Correct on the idea that Ruby's intentions - his real ones - are central to the whole idea of whether or not the Kennedy assassination was carried out by a single man with a grudge or the result of a more organised group decision by a circle of people.
So even if someone agrees that Oswald was a single shooter, Ruby becomes a very central figure in determining whether of not Oswald had helpers/controllers/commanders or acted alone.
Ruby's reasons for prowling around the scenes and then finally acting must be the part of the story that requires most investigation or thinking about.

It seems incongruous that a man even casually linked to Mafia people would not have known the mood of those people about Kennedy.  And even if he harboured a secret or public liking for Kennedy, would he really be so comfortable making his respect known in the company of people who might take a serious dislike to this guy who shoots down comedians having a go at Kennedy.  His nightclubs would be frequented by mafia people, either senior figures or soldiers.  Kennedy was not flavour of the day with these people and Ruby would be taking big risks making public his liking for the man - unless his liking was a front to offer respectability to his image/business.

But to get back to his part.  Was there not a story that a mafia hitman, Frank Sheeran, told a tale that he had a conversation with Jimmy Hoffa.  And Jimmy Hoffa is alleged to have told this hitman that Ruby was tasked with getting police contacts to get rid of Oswald.  (This might explain his hovering around at the early stages)  He just had no need to be hovering unless he was thinking.  The idea that he was really annoyed about the assassination just doesn't sing true with me.  If he was very emotional and quite unhinged then I'm not so certain he'd be waiting days to get the right shot.  He'd have acted that first time - whether successful or not.  Had he been in shock, emotional and a tad unhinged.  That's what I believe an unhinged guy would do anyway.

So why didn't he act that first time when he was prowling around?  Was he irritated and confused, or was he trying to send signals to people as directed by the people mentioned by the hitman?
But going on with the story.  Ruby then supposedly failed in his first task of coaxing police contacts to take care of it and as punishment was tasked with doing it himself.

That kinda rings more true in logical terms as it explains Ruby's quick presence in the immediate aftermath - a nightclub man who must have had other things on his mind - and it would explain why he finally gets round to doing something later.

If he's annoyed and angry enough to kill Oswald on sight then he was angry and annoyed to do it first time - or at least attempt it first time.  There is simply something that feels very wrong about this idea that Ruby (not Oswald) but Ruby acted alone.  It doesn't ring true - not with his life, his contacts or his strange behaviour.  Coincidences happen but there is too much in the Ruby story for me to believe coincidences.
He also allegedly changed his story a number of times about detailed reasons why he did what he did....one of them being that he didn't really have a reason, more an opportunity.

Ruby is the main focus.  Knowing what his real role was - lone or linked - is the real route to whether or not Oswald himself was a lone killer or had acted with assistance or directors.

As I said early the whole idea the mob were going to kill Kennedy as he was going after them is not one that sits particularly right with me. Firstly the idea they got him elected or gave him funding or support is a rumour unsupported by much in the way of evidence that now seems to be accepted as fact. Also think about it sensibly, the mafia is not an incautious, sloppy organisation. Do you really think they would risk killing the president. If they are found to be behind the murder is Robert Kennedy likely to be cowed and back off, or is it just as plausible her would devote the rest of his working life to destroying them. Also, even if Kennedy is cowed, are the other agencies of law enforcement likely to just let it pass. They would destroy the mafia, it would be completely and utterly annihilated. Also, how do the mob actually know LBJ would be less anti mafia? He may be even more hardline than Kennedy and ask his attorney general to redouble his efforts to attack organised crime. All of these are complete unknowns. Seems a ridiculously risky proposition to undertake for an outcome that might not actually happen.

Also the logistics of the day of Oswald's killings do not really support the idea he was a paid killer. Oswald was due to be transferred at 10am, which was reasonably public knowledge. At 10am Ruby was not in the basement or around police headquarters he was running errands. Oswald was eventually transferred a couple of hours later when someone outside the Dallas police had interviewed him and a vehicle for his transfer were located. As such the exact time of his transfer was not known. This was in the days before mobile phones so as Ruby was out and about it was nigh on impossible to communicate the time of the transfer to him, because it was not known and he was not reachable. Now if you're a mafia killer, apparently tasked with killing Oswald on pain of death, would you not be there when he was due to be transferred. Ruby went to the bank in the morning, had there been a longer queue he would have missed the transfer. He seems to have a remarkably cavalier attitude to such an important task. Also seems the mafia have left one of the most important killings in their history to one heck of an incompetent hitman.

He got the job done.  Big unhinged incompetent eejit got the job done.

That's not really incompetence but it is real fine alibis for anyone who might want to clearly and distinctly wash their hands of the affair.

Look at Oswald himself... left a trail reasons why he'd do it in his history and didn't act too bright in the aftermath either - but he allegedly got the job done.  Incompetent hitman - yet job accomplished.

If mafia people wanted the assassination fully pinned onto them, they'd have gotten the job done much more cleanly and efficiently I'm sure - but they wouldn't have escaped the consequences of it being a signposted mafia hit.

Given that we're all here still talking about it fifty years after it happened - and still questioning who did it or who got help, I think the Mafia - if they did it - got their job done just the way they wanted it done.

Rowley, there is just no way I can believe this shady sub-criminal mover-and-shaker nightclub guy had an especial soppy spot for JFK.  It doesn't compute for me.

Fair enough mate, but history is full of people doing crazy things for fairly irrational reasons. John Hinckley who tried to assassinate Reagan did so out of a barely comprehensible tribute to Jodie Foster of all people. Is killing Oswald out of feelings of attachment to JFK any less ridiculous or plausible than that?

Mad people do mad things....but the coincidences and stories revolving around this one just don't put Ruby into the Mad loner department.
He had too many contacts that widen the eyes - the guy looked more unsettled and uptight than unhinged in his evasions and story telling

Kennedy had enemies - public enemies - dangerous ones - he was in a part of the country that didn't have a lot of time for him.  Ruby cruised the circles of these enemies.  He was probably allowed have his clubs because he was paying protection money to these buddies - or they were financing his outfits in certain ways.  He wasn't in with mafia members just because he liked playing pool or cards with them.  There was a connection - business.

So if he was a willing assassin or a poor idiot that got himself wrapped up in a "Couldn't refuse" job.... the well known links just keep pushing me away from this notion that Ruby would have a soft spot for Kennedy or even if he did, that he'd be dumb enough to act on it, given the circle of 'friends' he was surrounded by.

You can argue he was just a deranged psycho but that gives us two deranged psychos in the one event (betting odds would run away from that one).  But you could argue he was a lone killer (Ruby) and you certainly could argue that he very much wasn't.  His history is as loaded as Oswald's. The jury is - as always on this one - still out

Rowley wrote:Fair enough mate, but history is full of people doing crazy things for fairly irrational reasons. John Hinckley who tried to assassinate Reagan did so out of a barely comprehensible tribute to Jodie Foster of all people. Is killing Oswald out of feelings of attachment to JFK any less ridiculous or plausible than that?

But Hinckley wasn't let in through a back door by the Dallas police...

My view on it, as with most conpiracy theories is it takes more leaps of faith to believe the conspiracy theories than it does to believe the official version of events. This is even more the case when the physical evidence (again in the legal sense) such as the fingerprints, ballistic reports etc tend to very much support the official version of events rather than the various conpiracy theories.

Don't put much stock in saying things like Kennedy had enemies, he is President of the most powerful country in the world, of course he did, it is just a statement of the obvious. The more pertinent question is would any of these enemies, be it the mob, KGB, military industrial complex or Cuba risk killing the president or consider the rewards (potentially things being better without him, emphasis on potentially as it is all unknowable) worth the risk, which lets be honest would be complete and utter obliteration from the mightiest power in the world. For me the answer to this question is always no.

An interesting illustration of this is in Castro's reaction to the murder. Everyone interviewed in the wake of the murder who was close to Castro said he was almost beside himself with worry that Cuba might be blamed for the murder, as he knew was any link be it correct or otherwise made his country was looking at being blown off the face of the map. All the agencies commonly linked with the murder surely knew the same fate awaited them were they found guilty.

Lee Harvey Oswald has three names that are both first names and surnames, and indeed both of Jack Ruby's names are first names and surnames. Coincidence?

Rowley wrote:My view on it, as with most conpiracy theories is it takes more leaps of faith to believe the conspiracy theories than it does to believe the official version of events. This is even more the case when the physical evidence (again in the legal sense) such as the fingerprints, ballistic reports etc tend to very much support the official version of events rather than the various conpiracy theories.

Don't put much stock in saying things like Kennedy had enemies, he is President of the most powerful country in the world, of course he did, it is just a statement of the obvious. The more pertinent question is would any of these enemies, be it the mob, KGB, military industrial complex or Cuba risk killing the president or consider the rewards (potentially things being better without him, emphasis on potentially as it is all unknowable) worth the risk, which lets be honest would be complete and utter obliteration from the mightiest power in the world. For me the answer to this question is always no.

An interesting illustration of this is in Castro's reaction to the murder. Everyone interviewed in the wake of the murder who was close to Castro said he was almost beside himself with worry that Cuba might be blamed for the murder, as he knew was any link be it correct or otherwise made his country was looking at being blown off the face of the map. All the agencies commonly linked with the murder surely knew the same fate awaited them were they found guilty.

It took a leap of faith to assume the President and some of his top aides were involved in the Watergate conspiracy....So we know conspiracies happen so that argument is a non starter...

Plenty in this case to show it isn't straightforward................Bullets found on stretchers.....Corrupt policing.....botched autopsies....Mafia involvement...

Watergate involved getting rid of a couple of tapes and they botched it, believing the same agencies could carry off a conspiracy of greater complexity and importance and carry it off for over 50 years, when it has been investigated to the point of saturation by both official agencies and every amateur sleuth in the world is a leap of faith, too great a leap for me I'm afraid.

Conspiracy theories isn't a sport.

Some people seem to think you have to get down and support one side or the other - pay your season ticket.

Everything is always how the authorities say it is - perfectly true, every time OR everything the authorities tell you is forever spin and lies.

The truth is in the middle.

So let's just deal with a single issue in a single moment and let's not be brushed off track by labelling people conspiracy theorists of gullible clowns.

The issue is Kennedy and his assassination. Some believe it was just Oswald, mad Commie Oswald on his own - and some don't believe it for a second.

Now, why does anyone have to get annoyed by either swing? People will look at and read and come to their own conclusions - which might be totally opposite after having looked at and listen to the very same evidence (Pistorious case a recent example) We all heard what went down - some think he's a poor guy that made a mistake others think he's a cold hearted killer. We listened to the same evidence presented.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Lee Harvey Oswald has three names that are both first names and surnames, and indeed both of Jack Ruby's names are first names and surnames. Coincidence?

Few bookies would take seriously two Nuts turning up for the one show, both getting their shots in, both being called Nutcases by the courts, and both with first names AND surnames??!!!!

They'd laugh that wager out of their offices.....

Jackie Kennedy was caught on tape saying she thought LBJ had her husband knocked off and that he had a bunch of Texas tycoons set it up...

A coup d'etat..

Like I said Ruby is pivotal....If you believe a mobster killed LHO because he made Jackie a widow and that the DPD were just incompetent then a lone nut seems resonable...

[quote="Rowley"]
 

10 – The most popular conspiracy theory, that a shot was made from the grassy knoll does not really stand up to analysis. The grassy knoll is directly across the plaza from the main street where most people had gathered to watch the motorcade, any assassin or shot from there would have been in direct view of up to 80 witnesses, yet no credible witness or physical evidence has ever emerged to support such a proposition.
 

.... Apart from that darned pesky ol' 16mm film recorded by Abraham Zapruder on the grassy knoll, that clearly shows the shot impacting on Kennedy's head from IN FRONT.  For myself and, I suspect millions of people who have seen that snippet of cine film, there aint no way in the world that shot was fired from above and behind Kennedy.  It came from in front of him on a low, flat trajectory and all the spin and fancy theoretical physics in the world won't convince me anything different to the evidence of my own eyes.  I have used firearms in anger (military service) and I can assure you that bullets fired less than 20 or so yards from their target, travel in a straight line.  The angle of that bullet hitting Kennedy, as evidenced by the film, puts it coming directly from the area of the picket fence.  You will never, by any means or machinations or bluster or spin doctoring ever  convince me otherwise.

I remember reading at the time of the publication of the Warren Commission report, that when the document was placed on the desk of the speaker of the US House, an (unknown) individual somehow managed to place a lemon on top of it.   Putting a lemon on something is an American way of saying that something about an object just isn't right.   Perhaps that person knew something.

Falsified witness statements..... people coming forward afterwards to say that the statements attributed to them weren't even made...... Depositions "signed" by notaries when it was established that notaries weren't even present........ the convenient deaths of a number of witnesses by single road traffic accidents which occurred late at night on lonely roads such as that of Henry Bowers who had initially told police that he saw men behind the picket fence and that he saw what looked like rifle smoke coming from there at the time of the shooting.  He was prepared to give his testimony to the commission but he never got the chance.  Convenient, that.

There is so much more to it than that but it would take far longer than I'm prepared to commit to arguing the toss over this.   In the opinion of a large number of people, the Warren Commission Report was a crock of (ahem) guano and I'm inclined to give credence to their statements.  I've read On The Trail of the Assassins (note the plural) and found that to have cogent arguments for the conspiracy theory but then again, it was written by Jim Garrison, a man with an interest in getting his version of events across.

I might suggest the book you have read was written by an individual who also had some sort of vested interest in making the case he has.  I haven't read the book but in my experience, such works are often produced with an agenda rather than motivated by a search for the truth.   It might just be somebody who wants to milk the cash cow that is the JFK Assassination. Who knows..?

The bottom line for me is that Zapruder film.   There's your evidence.

The problem with the theory that there was another shooter from the front is the ballistic and forensic evidence simply does not support it. As I have said seemingly countless times on this thread the only bullet fragments found in Kennedy or indeed anywhere in the limo were fired by Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other guns in the world, not all other models but all other guns. Now everyone accepts Oswald's gun was on the sixth floor of the depository. As such for another shot to have been fired from the front Oswald's gun would have had to be in two places at once (preposterous and impossible) or the possibility that those that examined the body performed their examinations or Kennedy so incompetently they missed every fragment from the other gun (highly unlikely) or that they were in on a conspiracy to cover it up (again unlikely)

The ballistic evidence simply does not support the supposition there was a second gun that fired any of the bullets that hit Kennedy.

Rowley wrote:The problem with the theory that there was another shooter from the front is the ballistic and forensic evidence simply does not support it. As I have said seemingly countless times on this thread the only bullet fragments found in Kennedy or indeed anywhere in the limo were fired by Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other guns in the world, not all other models but all other guns. Now everyone accepts Oswald's gun was on the sixth floor of the depository. As such for another shot to have been fired from the front Oswald's gun would have had to be in two places at once (preposterous and impossible) or the possibility that those that examined the body performed their examinations or Kennedy so incompetently they missed every fragment from the other gun (highly unlikely) or that they were in on a conspiracy to cover it up (again unlikely)

The ballistic evidence simply does not support the supposition there was a second gun that fired any of the bullets that hit Kennedy.

Complete nonsense Jeff. Perhaps we would have given that evidence more credence had it arrived in a calmer frame of mind.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Lee Harvey Oswald has three names that are both first names and surnames, and indeed both of Jack Ruby's names are first names and surnames. Coincidence?

Same with JFK:
Elton John
Christiane F
Nigel Kennedy

John the Baptist
F Scott Fitzgerald
Kennedy Bakircioglu

Galted wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Lee Harvey Oswald has three names that are both first names and surnames, and indeed both of Jack Ruby's names are first names and surnames. Coincidence?

Same with JFK:
Elton John
Christiane F
Nigel Kennedy

John the Baptist
F Scott Fitzgerald
Kennedy Bakircioglu

And who was head of the Warren Commission - Earl Warren. Need I say more?

Rowley wrote:

Galted wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Lee Harvey Oswald has three names that are both first names and surnames, and indeed both of Jack Ruby's names are first names and surnames. Coincidence?

Same with JFK:
Elton John
Christiane F
Nigel Kennedy

John the Baptist
F Scott Fitzgerald
Kennedy Bakircioglu

And who was head of the Warren Commission - Earl Warren. Need I say more?

It's a good thing this thread was started by a cinema snob as it's sure to be turned into a film and it won't do to have some t1t like Oliver Stone directing it.


speaking of which:
Oliver Twist
Stone Cold Steve Austin (sorry to mention a wr*stler)

Jamie Oliver (sorry to mention a c*nt)
Steve Stone

Earl Warren was played in the film by Jim Garrison. Mentioned this previously, but don't kid myself for a split second you'd be masochistic enough to have read the whole thread and as fellow film snob thought you'd appreciate the bit of trivia. Might make sitting through the 3 hours of guff that is JFK a little more tolerable.

I've read through the thread many times, it's long been a dream of mine to contribute. And I have often written a post of my own only to lose my nerve at the last moment.

P*ssy.

From what I gather, it would have been impossible for Oswald to fire three accurate shots in the timeframe that the real shots were fired.

No way he did it on his own.

And just to annoy jeff -

"back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left"

Pr4wn wrote:From what I gather, it would have been impossible for Oswald to fire three accurate shots in the timeframe that the real shots were fired.

No way he did it on his own.

He didn't fire three accurate shots. He was aiming for Kennedy's head, the first missed him all together, the second hit his body, the last hit his head. He fired one accurate shot.

And even the Army's best marksmen could not even come close to replicating that amazing feat.

That also doesn't even begin to explain the total number of wounds to all of those in the car. Surely you can't support the "magic bullet" explanation??

Even if he was involved, there's just no way he acted alone.

Remind me again over what period he fired those 3 shots? How long did it take from the first report to the last one?

I believe the timeframe was between five and six seconds, something like that.

From the Warren Report:

the time span between the shot entering the back of the President's neck and the bullet which shattered his skull was 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. If the second shot missed, then 4.8 to 5.6 seconds was the total time span of the shots. If either the first or third shots missed, then a minimum of 2.3 seconds (necessary to operate the rifle) must be added to the time span of the shots which hit, giving a minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the three shots.

From Wikipedia re. the so-called 'Mad Minute':

A Mad Minute event was held in Soknedal, Norway, on May 30, 2015, featuring some of the best stang shooters in the country.[3] The competition is called the "Mad Minute Challenge"[1], and was shot at a round 40 cm diameter target at 200 meters (6.9 moa / 2 mils), making the target smaller than original. The winner, Thomas Høgåsseter, scored 36 hits. The average score, of 11 shooters, was 29.

and re. a 1913 Pattern Lee-Enfield:

Rate of Fire: 20–30 aimed shots per minute

Could Oswald have got off 3 shots in the time claimed? Yep.

navyblueshorts wrote:and re. a 1913 Pattern Lee-Enfield:

Rate of Fire: 20–30 aimed shots per minute

Could Oswald have got off 3 shots in the time claimed? Yep.

Wrong gun. It was an Italian rifle not a British one.

I know that. I used the Enfield as a decent, old bolt-action rifle for which those sorts of facts are easy to find. By all means look up the numbers for the Mannlicher-Carcano that Oswald used - his was a 1938 rifle (I think), rather than a 1913 Enfield, so I would imagine it may well have been easier for him to operate, for all that the Enfield is so famous. The fact remains though that a decent shooter (I think Oswald was considered decent) had every chance to get off 3 rounds in or around the time it took to do so.

Rate of fire is an accurate stat for an automatic weapon but not really a bolt action rifle. And each mechanism is different, so you really have to have the right gun not 'suppose' that it's quicker to operate.