You’re all wrong, - it was me, I did it
And I’m Sparticus
Come on, guys. We all know what happened. Kennedy was cleaning a gun in the car at the time, and it went off.
That great investagative journal, “The Onion”, discovered conclusive proof that over 80 people were responisible, and that they fired almost 250 shots over a period of 5 minutes, and that, in fact, Kennedy was only one of 7 fatalities.
I thought Sparticus was banned! 
Diceman. I wish I could comment on the specifics of the program, but I was distracted and had to leave in the middle of it. I would hate to think that a coup d’état could occur without our being aware of it. What I was pointing out is that the History Channel disclaimed any belief in the theory but presented it along with others for consideration only.
I didn’t like Johnson, but as I said, innuendo is not proof, and similar “evidence” could be assembled against anyone depending on people’s willingness to believe. I remain a skeptic as regards this or any other theory. Computer models are easily manipulated, so I don’t regard them as proof either. After all, didn’t we all “see” Keanu Reeves dodging bullets?
It’s once again time to bring out the truth about the assassination. No other conspiracy theory comes any closer to the truth than this one. Note: When confronted by the iron-clad logic and well-researched facts of this, Gerald Posner, author of “Case Closed,” wrote me to say, “Case Re-opened!”
A New Insight into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy.
by Chuck Rothman
Introduction
The controversy over JFK’s assassination has raged for over thirty years, and there is still no consensus over what happened in Dallas that day. People have been proposing many theories, but there’s one possibility that has been seriously overlooked. The silence about this is suspicious; as people propose wider and wilder conspiracies, they (deliberately?) ignore the possibility I am about to outline. It may just be too unthinkable – or are the very people who profess to be concerned about the “truth” actually part of the plot?
I am not afraid of the consequences and am prepared to name names. JFK’s assassin can only be one person – Superman.
I can understand your skepticism at the prospect. Superman holds the highest regard among most Americans, much the way the government and the CIA held our regard back in 1963. It seems unthinkable that he was involved in such a crime. But the evidence is there, if you look at it without preconceptions.
Who is Superman?
It is apparent that Superman is not what he seems. He is, after all, a “strange visitor from another planet.”(1) In other words, an alien. How can we expect to understand the motives of an alien? Oh, sure, he may CLAIM to fight for “truth, justice, and the American way,”(2) but how do we know he’s not an alien agent, pretending to be our friend in order to secretly conquer us? This is a well-known tactic of aliens.(3)
And how does he bill himself? “The Man of Steel.”(4) Is it mere coincidence that this nickname translates into Russian as the name of one of America’s greatest enemies: “Stalin”? Obvious proof that Superman has communist leanings. And, of course, the very term “superman” was beloved by the Nazis.
We know little of Superman’s life. He has a “secret” identity – or, in legal terms, an alias – one he refuses to reveal. What might he be doing when submerged in this false name? Rumor has it that he’s a reporter. What better way to use his influence on the media to keep the story secret?
Some reports have indicated that he goes under the alias of “Clark Kent.” This is obviously a lie. Has anyone ever met this “Clark Kent”? Can anyone produce him? Of course not. And is it mere coincidence that the last name is the same as the famous criminal Harvey “Two-Face” Kent(5), who no doubt has links to organized crime?
Motive
This has been a sticking point with those looking for conspiracies and no motive postulated has stood out as an obvious reason. With Superman, however, the motive is clear and very simple.
JFK had learned his “secret” identity.(6)
This, of course, put the president in immediate danger. As anyone knows, once you learn a superhero’s secret, you have very little chance of survival, as Joe Chill(7) and others have learned to their regret. Superman has gone to great lengths to protect his secret over the years. Lois Lane, an award-winning reporter for the Metropolis Daily Planet, has been trying to discover it ever since Superman’s career began and has been thwarted at every turn(8). It’s highly unlikely he’d let JFK discover it and not take some kind of action.
Evidence
Of course, there’s little evidence connecting Superman with the crime. But that proves nothing. After all, Superman has alien powers. With super speed, for instance, he could fly around Dealy Plaza too fast to be seen, and change the direction of the bullets in midflight. (Accounts agree that he is faster than a speeding bullet.) Critics of the conspiracy theory have pointed out that there was not enough time to convincingly fake all the evidence discovered, but with super speed it isn’t a problem. A precise usage of his x-ray vision can strategically fog the Zapruder film to remove all evidence of his presence. He can return to Metropolis in seconds – or quickly turn into his “secret” identity in Dallas (perhaps even pretending to be a witness! Even Zapruder himself!) – and have a perfect alibi. And who knows what other alien powers he may have that he has managed to keep a secret all these years? Has anyone ever conclusively shown where Superman WAS at the time of the killing? Of course not. So that proves he must have been involved. The lack of evidence PROVES the thoroughness with which he completed his nefarious deeds.
In addition, the Warren Commission report NEVER ONCE MENTIONS THE PLANET KRYPTON!(9) Obviously there has been a cover-up at the highest level. A search reveals nothing Superman was never even called as a witness(10), a sure sign that the facts of the matter have been suppressed.
Quibbles
A few people, most likely alien disinformationists working for the “Man” of “Steel,” have suggested that Superman is merely a fiction and does not exist. Who do the think the’re fooling? There are hundreds of books detailing his exploits(11) – much more wordage than has discussed any conspiracy. Do you really believe that this much detailed information could be produced if Superman didn’t exist? No one could have made up all of the thousands of tales of Superman that have appeared. A few may be fictional or exaggerations, but that leaves thousands more. And, of course the people who publish the books will PRETEND that Superman doesn’t exist. If Superman’s true nature were revealed, they’d be out of work!
Conclusion
It should be obvious that this is a new and rich area of investigation. Everything about the assassination can be shown to be the work of Superman. There’s at least as much proof of his involvement as there is of any conspiracy – maybe more – yet people continue to overlook the truth of the matter and insist a conspiracy did the deed. They are too cowed by the so-called “superhero’s” powers and reputation to admit to the truth.
Any serious investigators of this theory may contact me.
(1) Superman Radio show, c. 1940
(2) ibid.
(3) V, War of the Worlds, The Invaders, et. al.
(4) Superman Magazine, c. 1940-1994 passim.
(5) The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heros, Vol. 1: Batman. Some accounts give Two-Face’s real name as “Harvey Dent,” but the Encyclopedia shows conclusively that it was actually “Kent,” and states that later version is an error (Error? Or deliberate alteration to blur the connection between the names?). It is interesting to note that volume 6 of the Encyclopedia – scheduled to cover Superman – has never been published. Another attempt to suppress of the truth?
(6) Action Comics #301, 1963.
(7) Batman Comics #47
(8) Lois Lane Comics 1950-1970 passim.
(9) Warren Commission Report
(10) ibid.
(11) Action Comics, Superman Magazine, World’s Finest Comics, Lois Lane Comics, Jimmy Olsen Comics, Superman: the Man of Steel and other titles, 1938-present.
You left off a word: “theory”, as in “jet effect theory”, concocted by Luis Alvarez using melons as the target material. Alvarez was hired to find a reason why Kennedy’s head snapped back. Since the conclusion was already there, he only had to find a theory to fit it.
This site attempts to debunk Alvarez’ theory and does a fair job of it. He doesn’t dispute the “jet effect”, only the forces as they apply to the weapon’s ballistics, the material being struck, and the reaction of the head once hit.
I thought the other special was a better one. I was unaware of the extensive drug therapy and the disease that Kennedy suffered from. The taped conversations and the story of his presidency was very interesting, as were the disclosures from his medical history. But how the heck was he able to carry on all those sexual liasons with so much constant pain?
Hoo-boy, the Szamboti site. I was wondering if this would show up.
OK, so without taking us into great debates, let me comapre the two authors in question here:
Alveraz is a Nobel Laureate in physics with a publications list that goes for ages, the jet effect was already known but never applied to frorensic situations before. There was no invention of theory to fit the fact, he merely explained a likely premise. More to the point, his worked passed peer review in the Journal of Applied Physics
By comparison, Mr Szamboti is a BSME. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that). But he’s bit outclassed here. His work has definately not passed peer review and sits on a geocities website. Szamboti has also claimed that the Zapruder film was altered and that he belevies in the Moon landing hoax.
There are other technical problems,you might want to read his arguements with Ben Hayes on a.a.jfk. Some of the problems were ‘fixed’ since those back-and-forths, others were not. Either way, I am not impressed.
Let’s apply a little logic here. For a conspiracy theory to be believable it should make more sense than the orthodox view of what happened.
In order for virtually any of the Kennedy assassination theories to make sense, you have to assume that a number of high ranking members of Congress, the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, United States Armed Forces, and the Dallas Police Department were in on it. For example if some organization like the KGB or the Mafia had been solely responsible, the CIA or FBI would have been happy to present the evidence of this and use it.
So if there was a conspiracy it had to have been with the approval of a substantial portion of the American government. Now think about the implications of that. Suppose that all these people were in agreement on a plan to kill Kennedy. Now ask what kind of plan they would form.
Would a conspiracy of this magnitude decide to arrange a shooting in the middle of a public street? On film? With hundreds of witnesses watching?
No, if these people wanted Kennedy killed they would have arranged to get Kennedy in an isolated location and killed him in a manner that looked like natural causes. The man had a history of illnesses and there wouldn’t have been anywhere near the amount of suspicion that an assassination caused.
So there is no reason to question the facts about JFK’s death. However, you should now consider that the scenario I described is exactly how FDR died.
Emphasis added. By who, pray tell ?
And, by formulating the story in this fictional way, you rather nicely evade the point that the business with the melons were a test of his calculations, not something they were “concocted” from. A test they passed, at that.
You haven’t read the original American Journal of Physics article at all, have you ?
Nope. I was just referring to a site that I found when looking for information on the jet effect, which I wasn’t familiar with. Also not familiar with the author of the article, but if he thinks the moon landing was a hoax, then I have to seriously discount his writings. Sorry for the red herring.
Good to hear. An just so you don’t think I was making that bit up, here he is!
Interesting. However, I don’t see where he actually says he believes it was a hoax, only that he watched some Fox Network drivel and had some questions. Giving any credence at all to that old chestnut makes him suspect, though.
I can’t locate his actual arguments since he was using a different accolunt, but a google groups post has him claiming that he was never defeated on the moon hoax issue.
How do you arrive at that, the assumption that forms the basis of your entire argument? Certainly there are folks who would like to believe that there was some kind of grand, sweeping conspiracy involving all the above mentioned institutions (oh and you forgot the Mafia and the Cubans 
) - but you also chose not to address the much simpler, small-scale scenarios proposed by perfectly intelligent thoughtful people that involve, say, a couple of guys on the grassy knoll as the result of a meeting in a smoke-filled hotel room somewhere.
(Please do not trouble yourself to pick apart my random example - it’s intended as a simplified representation of the types of ideas presented more completely elsewhere.)
IMHO you’re making some of the the same tiresome generalizations that crop up in every SDMB discussion of this topic; by highlighting only the most extreme conspiracy theories and presenting them as the generalized Belief Held By Those Wacky Conspiracy Buffs, you polarize the entire discussion into “common sense” (those who think like you do) vs. “tinfoil hat nut jobs” (those who think differently), and propose to lump the “not entirely decided and still willing to discuss it” group into the latter. Because, your choice of example dictates, surely no right-thinking person could go along with that. Personally, I think it still makes for an interesting discussion.
I understand your logic, and logic as such sure beats the alternatives - I just think your premise is kind of silly and self-serving, and at least part of your conclusion is suspect as a result.
I don’t think that we should dismiss this Szamboti guy so quickly. Whatever he might believe about the moon landings, his criticism of Alvarez’s work seems to be pretty solid.
Szamboti correctly points out that Alvarez’s equation only works if a large fraction of the impact force goes into creating the jet (as opposed to pushing the head forward) and if the amount of matter expelled in the jet is a large fraction of the head’s total mass. Alvarez assumes that 10% of the bullet’s momentum expels 10% of the head’s mass, but if you assume different numbers then his equation doesn’t work. And even if these numbers are accurate for a mellon, who’s to say that they’re accurate for a human head? Szamboti points out that the shear strength of bone is much, much greater than the shear strength of a mellon rind. This means that the bullet would have to expend more energy to penetrate someone’s skull than it would to penetrate a mellon rind, which leaves less energy available to cause a jet of goo.
It’s worth noting that the army tried this experiment in the 1970’s, but using real human skulls stuffed with imitation brain matter. Out of 10 skulls, none were propelled towards the shooter; all were propelled away. So Alvarez’s theory remains unproven. (BTW, there is footage of this experiment. It was shown on an assassination program years ago, when they addressed the subject of the Jet Effect.)
Because by virtue of the Warren Report, the government is usually judged to be part of the cover-up, why would the government be covering things up if they weren’t responsible?
I would only point out that Alvarez is a Nobel Laureate whose work was published in a peer reviewed journal. Szamboti leaves his work on a geocities page and has had (according to several a.a.jfk discussions) problems with his own math as well as a misunderstanding of momentum vs. kinetic energy. He has had revise it a few times as a result.
In short, it fails to impress me.
Contrary to that is Dr. Lattimer’s test on a human skull that does demonstrate this effect.
The jet effectis not a consistant thing. But it does happen.
Woman on top. Seriously.
How about
-
Aranging for basic Secret Service procedures to be bypassed and allowing the President’s car to pass beneath a slew of open windows? How hard would it be for Oswald to arrange that?
-
Plopping Kennedy in an open bubble-top when he’d received death threats in that very city?
Stand by what you’d like regarding number of shots and movement of the head, but these are just a couple of points that have never been satisfactorily explained.
Volume Six was published just not under that title. It appeared as
The Great Superman Book at the release of Superman the motion picture.