It was a moving target…
It was a slow-moving target.
And at the point of the head shot (which was the most accurate of his three shots), not only was it slow-moving, it was slow-moving in a direction almost directly away from Oswald, so there was hardly even any tracking to do.
Ah, the famous “make people who don’t accept every conclusion of the Warren Report seem like whackos” dodge. :rolleyes: You want to insult me? Take it to the Pit. I do not appreciate your insults.
In the mean time I will continue to try to make heads or tails of one of the pivotal moments of recent American history, fully accepting that my investigation may leave various theses I or others hold in its wake. I have not entered this sideline trying to prove a belief that there was or was not a conspiracy and do not dismiss the ideas of others because they do not fit into my views, which I fear cannot be said about many on both sides of the argument.
I have been to the Sixth Floor Museum recently as well. A must-visit if nothing else but for the historical value.
I agree that the more interesting question here is “Why so many conspiracy theories?” I think it has a lot to do with the way in which we view history and especially recent history. The Kennedy Assassination was An Important Event in our recent history. Far too “important” to have been carried out by a lone mug like Oswald.
We’ve all learned from our history books at school that, although Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination at the hands of Princip, another lone mug*, may have sparked off WWI, but the Great War had causes rooted in bigger economic, political, and social causes. So, we’ve learned to look for “root causes” of important events of world history. But, sometimes, they just aren’t there. Much as we try to believe that history is logical and that every event can be foretold through the study of previous events, randomness enters history as it does life. So, some of us, grasping at straws, try to invent root causes that never happened, to try to connect prior events into a new story.
Granted, some of the Kennedy conspiracy stories are entertaining (see James Ellroy’s American Tabloid for a good take). But they are, in the end, stories.
*OK, OK, Princip was part of a Serbian anarchist movement. But I’m convinced his group was just a bunch of morose students who got their hands on a couple of pistols and thought it would be neat to shoot the Archduke.
The JFK files we supposed to be released 30 or 40 years after the assination, but the release has been postponed by recent presidents Bush. After a few decades, the hope was that those involved would be dead. Unfortunately, those involved, and their family dynasties, are ever-so prevelant in our government - hence the continued secracy - which spurs alternate theories.
“A newly discovered FBI document reveals that George Bush was directly involved in the 1963 murder of President John Kennedy. The document places Bush working with the now-famous CIA agent, Felix Rodriguez, recruiting right-wing Cuban exiles for the invasion of Cuba. It was Bush’s CIA job to organize the Cuban community in Miami for the invasion…”
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/kennedy.html
I agree completely. Anybody who pays attention to how the world works understands that Sometimes Bad Shit Happens For No Good Reason. But human beings, with whatever psychological motive, are unsatisfied with this, and are happier believing in invented causes than in no cause.
We have to have a Why to fill in the gaps in our understanding, and if we don’t have one, we’ll make one up. We always have.
Anybody know WHAT Roselli DID for the CIA? I hear there is a good book out on him…anybody have the title?
Yeah, back to the OP!
Did the CIA kill JFK? Probably not but some people more or less associated with it may have been involved to one extent or another if there was a conspiracy.
Why so many conspiracy theories? Many reasons:
-
The sentimental “Death of Camelot” people may have that inability to accept such a “great” man being cut down by a loser.
-
Evidence on the body was somewhat messed up, leading to contradictions between the immediate post mortem and the formal autopsy.
-
Some evidence was and some still is being held from the public in the interest of “sparing the feelings of the family.” If you do that you invite suspicions.
-
There are differing opinions as to LHO’s shooting ability and his weapon as well as what was required to perform the act. The difficulties point out why most successful assassinations are done with a handgun at very close range.
-
The FBI was involved in some heavy CYA in the days following the assassination, in part because they had lost track of LHO for some time before it. Because of that some evidence appears to some people as having been ignored or suppressed.
-
The CIA and the Mob apparently worked together in assassination attempts on Castro. As the CIA was helping whack folks all over the world (Trujillo and Diem, for instance) and there was no love lost between the Mob and the Kennedys a connection to the JFK killing is easy to conclude. It comes almost naturally, even.
-
J Edgar Hoover’s refusal to publicly accept the existence of the Mafia meant that the FBI had a blind spot toward organized crime.
-
The Warren Commission seems to have ignored or coerced the testimony of witnesses who did not agree with the commission’s foregone conclusions.
-
Many witnesses, be they present in Dealy Plaza, doctors who worked on JFK, or people who had contact with the principals or many suspects, have denied the results of the Warren Commission. This includes the House Select Committee on Assasinations, whose conclusions that there was a conspiracy were not solely based on the motorcycle cop’s recording.
Where there is smoke there is not always fire but the best and safest course is to assume there is until fire has been ruled out. Those who first investigated the assassination left holes that others have filled with beliefs in a conspiracy. Perhaps they were covering their asses; because they had screwed up the president was dead. Perhaps they had wanted to get the investigation over quickly so the nation could heal. Or, perhaps, they had been involved and wanted to deflect interest onto someone else. It is not tin hattery to want to know what the answers really are.
So, let’s see, akrak01. Your site claims:
-
GHWB was *directly * involved in the assassination because, what? He worked for the CIA at the time. Sounds like an open-and-shut case to me.
-
That Oliver Stone has an “excellent new movie” about the assassination.
-
James Earl Ray didn’t shoot MLK, and Sirhan Sirhan didn’t shoot Bobby Kennedy.
-
Hunt and Sturgis, players in the Watergate break-in, actually shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll.
-
Nixon, Hunt, and more of the Watergate crew, or was it Cubans, were the “umbrella man,” holding an umbrella near where Kennedy was shot as a signal, not a guy named Louis Witt staging his own two-bit political protest.
-
The Watergate investigation went into secret session to hear some of Nixon’s tapes, because on it Nixon admits to hiring Hunt to kill JFK. Add more congressmen to the list of conspirators.
-
Jack Ruby had worked as a spy and hit man for Nixon since 1947.
-
The assassination was demanded by Pepsi, Ford Motor Company, Standard Oil, as well as the mafia.
However, this is pretty representative of the quality of research that goes into conspiracy theories.
His first shot was almost certainly obscured by an oak tree. Posner speculates that it was deflected by a branch, which is a pretty good explanation of why the first shot missed not only the occupants, but apparently the entire vehicle. A spectator near the triple underpass was nicked in the cheek by a bit of flying something, likely flying concrete from where the deflected bullet struck a curb well in front of the car.
Please, provide evidence of this complaint so that it may be subjected to critical examination. Vagueness gets us nowhere.
Only somewhat true. The most gruesome autopsy photos, to which I think you refer, are available to researchers at the National Archives. Some have even been leaked and are now in the public domain.
“Opinions” are worthless. We deal in facts around here. Please provide facts that demonstrate Oswald was a poor shot, that his rifle was crap, or that the shot was difficult. None of the three claims are supportable.
Please provide evidence of this complaint so that it may be subjected to critical examination. Vagueness gets us nowhere.
Opinions" are worthless. We deal in facts around here. Please provide evidence that the conclusions of the Warren Commission were wrong and that there was a conspiracy to kill the President. I do not believe those claims are supportable.
Of course the surest sign of a conspiracy is when well-meaning joes are set upon for merely hypothesizing. What is it that people are so afraid of? What is the big deal about throwing ideas around? If there is no conspiracy, what is everyone so defensive about…
OW! Damnit minty, that HURT!
Enjoy,
Steven
It’s no big deal to throw ideas around. Just don’t complain when they get rebutted by the facts or it turns out there are no facts in support of the hypothesis.
I do have to admit, though, that it’s a whole lot of fun when the JFK threads make their semiannual appearance. Now this is what the Straight Dope is all about! I kind of agree with Marley’s observation in his recent thread that this is exactly the kind of topic Cecil would ordinarly sink his teeth into, except for the obvious problem of fitting it it all into a 20-inch column.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mtgman *
**Of course the surest sign of a conspiracy is when well-meaning joes are set upon for merely hypothesizing. What is it that people are so afraid of? What is the big deal about throwing ideas around? If there is no conspiracy, what is everyone so defensive about…
I think it relates to how another’s idle speculation if accepted as fact, in some circumstances, requires one to alter ones world view in order to assimilate it.
This brings to mind a childhood experience of mine. When I was in 4th grade our class was visited by a teenager who spent an hour telling us how the moon landing was faked by NASA using special effects and a film set. This bizarre event made a big impression on me. I think his desire not to be tricked was one of his motivations in believing his conspiracy. I think another one was his way of interpreting the phenomenon of man’s landing on the moon gave him an answer he could fully understand, whereas if he were to subscribe to the belief that it really happened then he would need to spend quite a lot of time and money getting a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering ,or the like, to get a equally comprehensive grip on the same phenomenon.
“I don’t want knowledge, I want certainty”. -Unknown
I’m not insulting you; I’m ridiculing you. It’s a subtle difference, I grant you, but I don’t take you or your theories seriously enough to open a Pit thread about you. Besides, your whacko-ness is demonstrated by your casual and groundless dismissal of the entire Warren Report, not by questioning a few points here and there.
Besides, it’s amusing to see you accuse me of using straw men by using straw men of your own. Maybe we televise the battle and call it “Scarecrow Wars”.
And God bless you for your noble efforts.
Possibly harder than you think. A bolt action 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano is not an easy gun to fire accurately in a short time frame. It requires the user to hit the bolt hard to chamber a cartridge. You completely lose the target between rounds. It would be like firing a pump action pellet gun. Certainly not something you would choose for the task at hand.
CBS produced a documentary in 1967 that included a test of the gun under the same conditions (at Dallas). They built a tower and constructed an electric rail to move at the same pace of the motorcade. Although they couldn’t prove it was impossible, it was difficult to get 3 rounds off in under 6 seconds with a Mannlicher Carcano. Their test mirrored the Warren commission in that only about 1/3 of the shooters could match the time frame. At least a third of the CBS shooters were classified as sharpshooter or expert. As a Marine, Oswald, was not able to attain a “marksman” badge, which is a lower rating than “sharpshooter” or “expert”.
An interesting book on the subject is “Mortal Error”. The author reviewed the Warren Commission and came to the conclusion that one of the shots came from behind and at near ground level. He also concluded that the final shot was from a different weapon due to the nature of the head shot and the size of the entrance wound (6mm vs the Carcano’s 6.5mm).
His conclusion was that the SS agent in the left rear seat of the follow car accidentally discharged an AR-15 when he stood up with it (while the car shot forward). He actually names the SS Agent in the book (who was alive at the time it was published).
I’m not sure why, but Jackie Onassis sealed her personal papers until 2044. I thought I heard that this was related to the assassination but I can’t find any good reference to it.
Wacko presidential assassination conspiracy buffs. How loony can they get? Next thing you know, they’ll even start saying Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by a conspiracy.
Wait, um, never mind…
This is contradicted either earlier in this thread, or in mine. Oswald was in fact able to attain a marksman badge and a sharpshooter badge. A number of the things in this post actually contradict things I’ve seen posted earlier regarding the results of the CBS thing.
I hate to quote from the internet on “facts” because they are hard to verify but here is a link:
What I snipped from the link:
**Oswald was a former United States Marine who had served as a air flight controller. During his military career Oswald scored as a “sharpshooter” in December of 1956, but failed to attain his marksmanship badge. There is debate as to the likelihood of Oswald being able to fire shots so accurately and rapidly with the weapon and from the position he was said to use to kill Kennedy.
**
Certainly, if Oswald had some sense of weapons he wouldn’t have used a bolt action rifle. The Carcano was probably bought because it was cheap. If you look at Oswald’s history, he wasn’t the most stable of persons.
I have to say, I thought the concept of the book was the biggest pile of crap to come along on the subject. I read it with the intent to shred it. I found very little to dispute. I’m not really interested in defending the book or even discussing it. I will say the conclusion was the result of research and not a starting point for a weird hypothesis. It also takes balls to publish a book that names a specific person as an accidental killer (of a President no less).