Hey, great comeback. Keep it up. I mean that. Replying to a cite of a scientific paper that demolishes your “fact” by issuing a personal attack on me as a distraction not only demeans you, it helps to discredit the entire species of conspiracy theorist. I’m happy to take all those shots you want to dish out.
I think we can all agree that JFK Assassination EXPERT Oliver Stone has produced the final word on the subject in his factually perfect 1991 documentary.
In other news, we never went to the moon and 9/11 was an inside job… :smack:
The amount of stupidity on this planet is astounding and saddening. 
Getting back to the questions asked in the OP:
- Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter.
- No.
- Because it didn’t.
earl, you post: "Getting back to the questions asked in the OP:
- Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter.
- No."
As question 2 is “Are they still saying there was a single shooter from the TSBD as the Warren Commission said?”, how do you comport your answers to 1 and 2?
I think he is answering no to the question:
"Was the Zapruder film available to the public at the time of the Warren report? "
Ruby killing Oswald doesn’t make much sense if Oswald was the lone plotter. Why throw away your own life when he was probably going to be given the death penalty?
Right. Response 1 covered both the first two actual question. It would have been better rendered as 1&2: LHO; 3: No; 4: There wasn’t.
If Ruby was an agent of some shadowy figures who needed Oswald silenced, why did he run his mouth? If he’s willing to shoot Oswald in broad daylight and then stand trial and be convicted and serve his sentence, all to shut Oswald up, then why can’t he shut himself up?
The problem is, none of the conspiracy scenarios make any sense, when considered as a whole scenario.
OK, so the Illuminati convince Oswald to shoot Kennedy, or they set up Oswald to be the patsy for the shooting, which was actually done by parties unknown. Whatever. Then because they know Oswald would spill the beans, they have to shut him up, so they get Jack Ruby to just walk up to Oswald and shoot him, and get arrested and convicted for murder. And to shut Ruby up, they give him cancer, so he dies four years later.
What part of this plan makes sense?
If you’re going to shoot Kennedy with professional assassins, why not just shoot Kennedy with professional assassins, and then the assassins fade away like professionals, and no one ever finds out anything about them? Why bother with a cover story with a nut like Oswald? What’s wrong with “And to this day, no one knows who shot Kennedy, or why”?
If you’ve set up Oswald as the patsy, why do you have to silence him? He’s the patsy, you don’t silence him, you put him on trial and convict him and send him to the electric chair. That’ll silence him for you. Or you let him rot in jail for the rest of his life and spout whatever bullshit he wants, who’s going to believe the rantings of a crazy guy? Or if you absolutely positively have to silence Oswald, what’s wrong with “shot while resisting arrest”?
If this is the work of a conspiracy, it’s pretty clear that this was not a conspiracy of the shadowy Masters of the Universe. This is a low-rent conspiracy of losers and dunces and nobodies. Losers and nobodies like, you know, Oswald and Ruby. Maybe Oswald had help, but if he did, his helpers were low-rent cranks. Of course they were, because only a crazy person would involve a crazy person like Oswald in their assassination conspiracy.
That is your proof of a conspiracy, a crazy guy’s “rationale” for killing another crazy guy?
Let’s just say I was born during the Eisenhower years.
There’s no maybe about it. He didn’t. Well, unless you count the people who sold him clothing, food, ammunition, etc. over the years. In that case, then he had a bit of help. But in the Realm of Reality[sup]TM[/sup], he was a lone killer.
Not to mention that you can clearly see the ejected matter being carried up and forward from the front of the head on the video.
Seriously, this JFK conspiracy stuff is dumb in the extreme. My opinion of Bill Hicks went way down when I heard his JFK/moon landing bullshit. Mistrust of the government tends to make people believe any old crap that tangentially supports their worldview.
It’s precisely that which leads uniformed viewers to assume it was a frontal shot. They’ve seen people ‘explode’ and spray blood when shot a thousand times in the movies (particularly in movies before today’s hyper-real portrayals). So that must be how it really works…
OTOH, I have a friend who is extremely knowledgeable about the early history of US spaceflight, and he claims the man who sent us to the moon was… LHO. He makes a convincing case that JFK was already preparing to cut NASA’s budget and postpone the Moon effort when he was killed; making him a martyr and NASA his memorial is all that saw the project through as planned.
ETA: NOT saying I agree, but he makes a convincing case using letters and memos from JFK and NA files.
I’m glad that you are happy to take all those shots, because you clearly did not read the post that you are quoting. Had you read said post, you would have noted that I did not reference your ‘scientific paper that demolishes’, but your slam at governmental inquiries/investigations. If I had wanted to reference a ‘scientific..anything.’ I would have probably left it in the quote, which, any casual reader can see, I did not.
Please, save your zinging wit about my rejection of the ‘scientific’ papers for a rejection about a ‘scientific’ paper.
And, BTW, that wasn’t a personal attack on you, anymore than your calling my thoughts ‘silliness’ was a personal attack on me.
I suspect that handsomeharry is truly sincere in his belief of an additional gunman, and if we couldn’t sway him to the lone gunman theoryten years ago, we’re unlikely to do it now, either.
The thing is, a second gunman doesn’t make any sense. You want to kill Kennedy, a guy with a rifle in the Book Depository is all you need. It doesn’t take a marksman, it’s an easy shot. So why would the conspirators bother with two or three gunmen? Even if it’s not Oswald in the depository, say Oswald is an innocent patsy, why not make the actual events match the planned cover story?
This is the same problem with the 9-11 truthers. If your planned official story is going to be that terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, then why would you set up anything beyond your agents hijacking planes and flying them into buildings?
The scenario as a whole has to make sense. You’re an Illuminatus. You’re going to kill the president. You’re going to make Oswald the patsy. So either you put Oswald in the book depository and have him shoot JFK, or you have your professional in the book depository and have the professional shoot JFK the exact same way you’re going to blame Oswald for. Nothing else makes sense. There’s no need for extra shooters, or thermite packed into the limousine, or ordering the cops to stand down. You just go up into the book depository and shoot, and there’s your cover story.
Links to a few would be nice.
Almost none of the CT suppositions do. Every one requires almost infinitely multiplying entities to sustain and most begin with one or more false assumptions about what actually, verifiably happened.
But in the end, they come about for reasons even the most certain of us can understand: we can’t really believe that one disaffected idiot can wreak so much havoc. Especially in those less-cynical days.
The bottom line is that complete nutballs walk among us, and a little push, a little skill and a little luck is all that a JFK, RFK, MLK, Wallace, Giffords, Reagan, Lennon, Columbine, Newtown or whatever takes to happen. I’d like to believe in the conspiracies as something that could be subverted or prevented… but in the end it’s just one idiot, almost beyond reach of any prevention method.
Harry, why don’t you come back when you’ve read Bugliosi’s book? My opinion is that there’s no longer any other road to meaningful, serious debate about the assassination. If it’s not in VB’s book, or if he got it wrong, or if he interpreted ALL the relevant evidence for a point wrong, come back and make your case point by point. Vaguely waving your hands and saying “what about ____?” was exhausted by Oliver Stone 10 years after it was exhausted by everyone else.
VB covers everything, from *every *angle, with authoritative citations for each point, and I can’t find a significant omission or flaw in any of its 1600 pages or 1300 pages of CD notes.
Arguments about a perceived flaw in one frame of the Zapruder film, or an odd comment by a Dallas policeman, or counterfactual claims about the rifle, the shots and their effects, don’t make a worthwhile argument any more.
ETA: Tell you what. Go read the 44 or so page Introduction and come on back.
I can’t find my post in the latest thread about this, but it boils down to the following:
-
Ruby was across town about an hour before the shooting, in bed asleep.
-
One of his former strippers call him and begged him for money.
-
He drove across town to the Western Union office, with his pet dog in tow, to wire her a few bucks and noticed activity around the city jail.
-
He walked inside the Western Union office, and when he was there, the time stamp on his wire transfer was during the time that Oswald should have been in transit to the county jail. NOBODY outside had any knowledge that the transfer was delayed, and it was delayed only because Oswald himself wanted to change shirts.
-
After the wire transfer, Ruby walks into the parking garage shortly before Oswald came out. In a moment of haste, he charged and shot him.
-
Ruby regularly carried a gun because he was a degenerate who ran strip clubs.
None of 1-6 above sounds like a professional hit.