Did Lee Harvey Oswald assassinate JFK?

Great Debates
321

[QUOTE=Fish]
You could try addressing any points brought up by anybody in the thread. This debate is not all about you. This forum is Great Debates, not Everybody Debunk ngant17’s Latest Brainwave.

Specifically, I want an answer to the seeming dichotomy of an all-encompassing conspiracy of evil geniuses that is, at the same time, completely inept and obvious.

If there was supposed to be a well-organized and widely spread conspiracy, capable of planting misleading evidence, finding and recruiting Communist sympathizers, arranging incriminating photographs of Oswald with his rifle, secretly sending sniper teams to a well-defended area and synchronizing their shots so precisely that nobody could tell where they were from, subverting the government’s investigation, commanding changes in the motorcade route, and so forth, then why did they place an inadequate marksman in such an unlikely location to shoot at a moving target beyond his skill? Why couldn’t this conspiracy have arranged for a more believable shooter, an easier vantage, a stationary target, and more witnesses to finger their fall guy? If the police were deliberately mis-handling evidence at the scene to implicate Oswald, why didn’t those conspiracy cops just kill him instead? If Oswald was a patsy and knew it, why didn’t he finger anybody specific for the two days he was in custody?

It’s true that we don’t have the answer to every question. But a conspiracy makes no sense: every reason why Oswald Couldn’t Have Done It is equally valid as Then Why Did The Conspiracy Put Him There?
[/QUOTE]

This is a good setup for a point I was planning to make today.
There are even more profound problems with all this conspiracy talk.

By far the biggest is the fact that, after forty-odd years, conspiracy theorists have yet to put together a coherent theory of the case that even approaches the official theory in thoroughness and credibility. They cannot agree among themselves how it went down. The CIA did it! No, Castro did it! No, right-wingers did it! No, the Secret Service did it! No, it was the KGB! Anti-Castro Cubans! The Mob! A group of gay guys from New Orleans! Herbert Hoover - excuse me, J. Edgar Hoover! Johnson! Nixon! GHW Bush! (Have I missed anyone?) How may shooters? Where were they? What real evidence is there of other shooters beyond some bystanders saying, “Well, it sounded to me like the shots came from over there”? Et cetera ad naseum.

Another problem: any conspiracy, especially one as large as most CTs posit, would surely have cracked by now. I think it was ol’ Ben Franklin who said, “Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead.” Whenever someone I know gets miffed because word of something or other has “leaked out”, I always say, “There’s no such thing as a secret.” We all know from personal experience that the only secrets we can truly keep are the thoughts we keep to ourselves, and then not always. If there was a conspiracy, by now someone would have admitted to it, or bragged about it, or let something slip. We all see this every day. Why should this matter be any different?

By now, most conspiracy theories have grown too cumbersome to be workable in real life. Not only were there however many gunmen involved, but various other folks to plant this piece of evidence or that piece of evidence. Furthermore, the conspirators had to be prescient, anticipating problems for their cover-up that would not appear until decades later. Most conspiracy theories, objectively considered, simply collapse under their own weight like a poorly-maintained bridge.

Finally, some evidence against conspiracy has been shown to be sufficently bullet-proof (if you will forgive the term) that CTs are now compelled to resort to the lamest of rebuttles: “Somebody tampered with the evidence!” This, of course, produces for CTs the same problems stated in the previous paragraph. To judge from my own experience, omniscience and foreknowledge aren’t nearly as easy as they appear to be. . . .
A word for JFK assassination “agnostics”: Don’t fall into the trap of supposing that there is some sort of balance between, say, the Warren Report on the one hand, and the Conspiracy Theorists on the other. There isn’t. There is not one conspiracy theory, but many, mutually exclusive.

322

[QUOTE=ngant17]
What I think the physicists did, although I don’t have their raw data at hand, but it would seem logical to think that they used an analysis of variance test (ANOVA) to determine whether the variances in lead contaminants of the bullets fall within a reasonable ‘confidence interval’. Their variance tests did not support the hypothesis of the Warren Commission, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that the bullets (which supposedly originated from the MC carbine that Oswald allegedly used) were all part of the same batch of ammo.

IOW, based on that statistical test, yes, it is reasonable to conclude that there were different sources of ammunition which killed JFK. It is NOT reasonable to conclude that Oswald could have or would have used different bullets for making the 3 precise shots in the course of the assassination. Professional snipers would tend to use the same kind of ammo for a consistent MOA (i.e., Minute Of Angle, a mathematical term for measuring accuracy of rifles/ammo).
[/quote]

How many times do we have to point out that Oswald was not a professional sniper?

And your cite doesn’t imply what you think it implies.

You think your cite proves that the bullets came from different lots. It does not. It simply says that we cannot prove that the bullets came from the same lot.

And even if the bullets came from different lots, what would that mean? Does it prove that there were two snipers? Of course not! Why is it so hard to believe that Oswald didn’t open a brand-new box of ammunition to load his rifle the day he killed Kennedy? Why is it so hard to believe that he had a couple of boxes of ammo and loaded his rifle with whatever he had? He was not competing in the Olympics, where a millimeter spread can mean the difference between a Gold medal and a Silver medal. He was taking pot shots at the president, and it took him three shots to do the job. His first shot missed the car completely! Reducing the variation in his ammo was hardly Oswald’s biggest problem.

323

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Why is it so hard to believe that Oswald didn’t open a brand-new box of ammunition to load his rifle the day he killed Kennedy? Why is it so hard to believe that he had a couple of boxes of ammo and loaded his rifle with whatever he had?
[/QUOTE]

Because, according to ngant’s understanding of Occam’s Razor, since we can’t prove that Oswald used bullets from different batches, and the alloy analysis somehow proves the bullets were from different batches, therefore we have to reject that hypothesis and say definitively that Oswald would have used bullets from a single batch and that there were multiple batches used, so there had to be another gunman.

See?

324

Of course the use Occam’s Razor means we must not multiply entities needlessly to solve a problem. This means we do not believe in additional snipers unless there is reason to do so. Nor do we believe ngant’s theory of teams of snipers using identical weapons and synchronizing their shots so precisely that modern science cannot discern the overlapping sonic waveforms on the Dictabelt evidence.

95% of the earwitnesses who heard the shots on the day of the assassination say the shots all came from a single direction. Some of them spotted Oswald in the window on that day. That’s Occam’s Razor for you in a nutshell — there was one sniper, antimony be damned.

Unless… oh no! William of Occam was in on it too!

325

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
That video is about 9/11 conspiracy theorists, though it has some commentators in common with this video about the JFK assassination, which suggests to me they were segments in the same episode.
[/QUOTE]
Hijack here, but is that “they take the new President into a room and show him a video of the JFK assassination from a new angle” stuff that one of the nuts is spouting not a Bill Hicks routine originally? Did he really steal material from a standup comedian to make his point, or am I misremembering? I know I’ve heard/read that somewhere, almost word-for-word.

326

[QUOTE=Priceguy]
Hijack here, but is that “they take the new President into a room and show him a video of the JFK assassination from a new angle” stuff that one of the nuts is spouting not a Bill Hicks routine originally?
[/QUOTE]

I’m not watching the video, but Hicks did do that routine.

327

[QUOTE=Fish]
…so precisely that modern science cannot discern the overlapping sonic waveforms on the Dictabelt evidence.
[/QUOTE]

Pssst! The dictabelt might be eidence, but it’s evidence for something that happened a few minutes after the assassination, and in a different location.

328

Oh? Even so, the point remains — nearly all earwitnesses report only one set of shots, coming from a single direction. A small minority report shots from multiple directions.

It seems as if the conspiracy theory is built on strategically ignoring the 95% of matching data and focusing on the 5% of deviation. Occam’s Razor, indeed.

329

Checking out the Dictabelt evidence more thoroughly, I retract my retraction. The conspiracy theorists claim the Dictabelt is evidence of four shots; therefore, if it is, then the conspiracy set up the snipers so precisely that the sound waves from the synchronized rifles confused the crowd and the Dictabelt evidence, a feat which, given the variance of the speed of sound through the atmosphere, is virtually impossible.

330

[QUOTE=Fish]
Unless… oh no! William of Occam was in on it too!
[/QUOTE]
I’ve said it before, but after reading CT books the only people I’m pretty sure weren’t involved are me and my brother, since he was with me when it happened. And I’m not totally convinced he wasn’t in on it–he was a wily six year old.

331

I think I wasn’t involved, being -5 at the time, but I can’t prove it.

332

I was two and a half, so I guess I can’t be ruled out either.

333

is that Oswald was not the shooter. The public record indicates he was involved with some local New Orleans politics, such as Fair Play for Cuba, but I’m not convinced he was ever a real and dedicated Marxist, I’ve seen nothing to convince myself he ever understood or appreciated classical Marxist theory like dialectical materialism and class struggle, ect. OTOH I don’t think he really was much of a rightwing shill either and he likely was tired of all the rightwing extremism that was rampant at that time. Oswald actually admired JFK. His marriage with Marina was entering an unstable period.
--------excerpts from Ophra interview with Marina Oswald Porter, 1996-----------
Tell me this: do you believe that your husband had nothing to do with the killing – or – do you believe . . .

MOP
Absolutely nothing.

OW
You believe he had nothing? Zero?

MOP
Okay, for 20 years I agreed with the Warren Commission. …So 25 years after (the) assassination, I knew he was not guilty,

Well, at least Marina isn’t a Lone Neuter anymore!

As for myself, I believe there were multiple shooters, skilled assassins from several areas around Dealy Plaza.

When I read about all the different things that Oswald could have done, would have done, might have done, it is something like making him into a pliable, play-dough doll that the Lone Neuters use to shape, manipulate and counter all the logical and rational theories which have been introduced to challenge the WC.
Oswald’s shots were the result of one-in-a-million luck shots. Unable to duplicate but theoretically possible. Oswald made mutiple purchases of MC ammo during different times of the year and happened to mix them up all together to shoot JFK. And one of these mixed-up bullets became a “magic bullet”. Eventually you have to call all this BS for that is exactly what it is. Because it isn’t rational thinking.

I don’t have any problem assuming Oswald behaved in normal, predictable ways.

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
It easier to believe in multiple snipers than Oswald buying bullets from different stores, or boxes of bullets being assembled from different batches with trivial variation in alloys?

What is the logical minimum you have arrived at? A succinct theory of the crime in 300 words or less will suffice.

It’s impossible that in nine months Oswald bought several boxes of rifle bullets, conceivably from different stores and by different manufacturers, or from manufacturers without super-tight tolerances for antimony content?
[/QUOTE]

334

ngant17, do you believe that Oswald had anything to do with the shooting? If not, why did he leave work in the middle of the day? Why was he carrying a pistol when he was arrested? (I assume you will concede at least these two facts). What role do you think he played in the assassination?

Also, what basis do you give to establish that LHO was an admirer of JFK?

335

[QUOTE=ngant17]
Because it isn’t rational thinking.
[/QUOTE]

Clearly, you’re working off a fairly unique definition of “rational.”

336

[QUOTE=ngant17]
is that Oswald was not the shooter. The public record indicates he was involved with some local New Orleans politics, such as Fair Play for Cuba, but I’m not convinced he was ever a real and dedicated Marxist, I’ve seen nothing to convince myself he ever understood or appreciated classical Marxist theory like dialectical materialism and class struggle, ect. OTOH I don’t think he really was much of a rightwing shill either and he likely was tired of all the rightwing extremism that was rampant at that time. Oswald actually admired JFK. His marriage with Marina was entering an unstable period.
--------excerpts from Ophra interview with Marina Oswald Porter, 1996-----------
Tell me this: do you believe that your husband had nothing to do with the killing – or – do you believe . . .

MOP
Absolutely nothing.

OW
You believe he had nothing? Zero?

MOP
Okay, for 20 years I agreed with the Warren Commission. …So 25 years after (the) assassination, I knew he was not guilty,

Well, at least Marina isn’t a Lone Neuter anymore!

As for myself, I believe there were multiple shooters, skilled assassins from several areas around Dealy Plaza.

When I read about all the different things that Oswald could have done, would have done, might have done, it is something like making him into a pliable, play-dough doll that the Lone Neuters use to shape, manipulate and counter all the logical and rational theories which have been introduced to challenge the WC.
Oswald’s shots were the result of one-in-a-million luck shots. Unable to duplicate but theoretically possible. Oswald made mutiple purchases of MC ammo during different times of the year and happened to mix them up all together to shoot JFK. And one of these mixed-up bullets became a “magic bullet”. Eventually you have to call all this BS for that is exactly what it is. Because it isn’t rational thinking.

I don’t have any problem assuming Oswald behaved in normal, predictable ways.
[/QUOTE]

This isn’t (or at least the first half isn’t) what I meant by a theory of the crime, so I shall try to be clearer: I’m asking for a theory of how the crime was carried out, namely where you believe the shooter(s) were, what kinds of weapons they used and how they left the scene without detection. Although I don’t believe there is anything magical about the second bullet, you repeatedly describe it as such, so I assume you believe the (initial) wounds inflicted on Kennedy and those on Connally came from different sources, suggesting a second shooter. Where do you theorize that second shooter was specifically located and how do you theorize he managed to avoid detection? If there were “multiple” shooters, where specifically were they and where did their bullets go?

The issue of duplicating Oswald’s shots (going with the theory for now that he was the lone shooter) is of dubious relevance. Under any circumstances you choose, give a man a rifle and three bullets and tell him to fire at a target as fast and accurately as he can. Give a second man the same (or similar) rifle and three bullets and tell him to duplicate the shooting of the first, and simple logic says that while he might hit the target, he won’t do so in exactly the same places with exactly the same timing. This in no way proves the first shooting didn’t happen.

Incidentally, does the use of “Lone Neuters” contribute in any meaningful way to the matter at hand?

337

You forgot Wernher von Braun. I’ll admit that, prior to this thread, I had never heard anyone putting him forward as a suspect.

338

As for Oswald being a Marxist, you do realize that he, you know, DEFECTED TO THE SOVIET UNION, right?

339

[QUOTE=ngant17]
the Lone Neuters
[/QUOTE]

I’m done with you. You obviously have no interest in real debate; you’re only interested in slinging insults.

340

[QUOTE=Atomicktom]
…why did he leave work in the middle of the day?
[/QUOTE]
That one is easy: he was a fuckoff who was on–what was it?–his fourth job that year and he was only still at this one as a temp because the full timers were doing maintenence work and they needed someone to handle the leftovers from the start of the school year. Perhaps the question should be, “How many fuckoffs saw the Kennedy assasination as an excuse to ditch work?” (we need a :shrug: smilie)

:confused: Isn’t that required in Texas? :wink:

Supposedly, several friends said so, but I’m still looking for verification.

Dealey Plaza, with the sharp left turn that slowed the limosine down to a crawl, was the perfect place to shoot JFK, and several people heard more than three shots. Might Oswald have acted alone, yet was not the only shooter that day?

You see, one reason the conspiracy theories stay alive yet point everywhichaway is because LHO was not the only guy with a grudge against JFK. You’ve got the CIA and the anti-Castro Cubans pissed about Bay of Pigs. You’ve got the Mob pissed about Bobby. You’ve got the Right-Wingers pissed about, well, they’re usually pissed about everything but there’s this eeeeevul librul in the WH, though JFK was liberal only by comparison. You’ve got LBJ pissed that he’s likely to be dropped from the ticket in '64, screwing his chances of ever being elected POTUS. (Me, I’m liking LBJ, though that supposed “match” of Mac Wallace’s fingerprint is as lame as I imply it is.) But my point is that Dealey Plaza was an obvious place at a dangerous (for JFK) time and ALL of those groups could have had representatives there, for all we know. To quote one character in the Illuminatus Trilogy, when faced with a plenitude of assasins there, “How the fuck many people does it take to kill a President these days?”

Just a thought on a friday night.