Considering how bad eye-witnesses are, in general (let alone how bad human hearing is, especially in a city with all the weird acoustics) I’d certainly be willing to discount it in the face of the mountains of evidence available.
He acted alone. Now that we’ve cleared that up, maybe we could have another moon landing hoax thread or a nice 9/11 CT…
-XT
YOu’re probably the person who goes to a party and says “Beetlejuice” three times. 
Except you are - you’re discounting the majority of the ear and eye witnesses. They say that the shots came from the book depository.
Yes, a handful said that they heard / saw something elsewhere. I can’t recall the exact numbers, but those who claimed shots came from somewhere other than the book depository are clearly in a minority.
If there’s a large crowd of witnesses to an event, and (taking an arbitrary number for an example) 85% of them claim one thing, and 15% another, then no matter who you believe you have to discount some witnesses. The question is whether you believe the 85% or the 15%.
(And in this case, the forensic evidence backs up the majority of witnesses, and contradicts the minority.)
]
I’ll dispute that eye witnesses, to a Presidential murder, are as egregiously bad as you say they are, esp. in such tight quarters. I, like probably 80% of the people posting, I’m sure, have been to Dealey Plaza. Kennedy was practically inside the TSBD; eyewitnesses could probably taste what he had for breakfast that day, so, the claim about whatever bad eyewitnesses you are making is just too over the top to be taken seriously. Except for the ‘eyewitnesses’ that back up the Warren Commission study. If you read their testimonies* in toto,* you will get a laugh.
Read Rush to Judgement, by Mark Lane. Now, I know others, who believe in the WC report will say “Read Case Closed.” I say do that, as well. The writing is good. Unfortunately, Case Closed isn’t substantive, just a rehash, or expansion, of the WCR. And, re-read Rush to Judgement afterwards, and you will see that Posner is wrong.
Oswald didn’t even do it, let alone with a co-conspirator.
Best wishes,
hh
I don’t think that the differential was the 6-1 margin that you let on. Irrespective of whatever analogies you’re making, the case is that there is some reason to give credence to the witnesses that you are not in agreement with.
This wild hyperbole is one of the reasons that there is so much confusion about the case.
I’ve read both, actually. Sorry, but I don’t find any compelling evidence that Oswald acted anything but alone.
Well, I suppose it could have been the Comedian…
-XT
He’s also a perfect example of someone who would actually be a lone gunman.
And all the physical evidence points that way.
RFK was killed by a mentally disturbed Palestinian who was upset that RFK had spoken out in favor of Israel and was convinced RFK was a Zionist puppet. RFK had supported the Six Day War and made a public statement that, if elected, he’d send Israel fighter jets. Sirhan had written all sorts of nasty stuff about RFK in his diaries, and said that he had to die. So, on the one year anniversary of the war, Sirhan had seen some pro-Israel demonstrations, got upset, got drunk, realized that Kennedy would be in town that night, and shot him.
From Sirhan’s last diary entry:
That leads me to believe he wanted to see RFK assassinated.
That could be about any Robert F. Kennedy.
It also depends on one’s definition of ‘assassinated’. Perhaps he meant it in a more playful way, and people are just jumping to the wrong conclusions…
-XT
I recently read the skeptical Voodoo Histories, by David Aaronovitch, which very persuasively debunks (and in many cases psychoanalyzes) many conspiracy theories and the means by which they are perpetuated – the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Soviet show trials under Stalin, the whole “Grail Blood”/Da Vince Code thing. His dissection of all the flaws in the Kennedy Assasination conspiracy theories is very thorough. He makes a very compelling, practically unchallengeable case, that Oswald acting alone is the most parsimonious and plausible theory.
But he never once mentions Jack Ruby.
I cannot think why not.
I would be entirely willing to believe Oswald was purely and simply a lone nut, like John Hinckley, Jr., or Squeaky Fromme, if he had not been himself assassinated while in custody by a man with known Mob connections.
I never said I didn’t think Sirhan wasn’t a gunman. Clearly he was, just as Oswald was a gunman in JFK’s murder.
So given that Sirhan was the gunman, and given that Sirhan had a pathological hatred of RFK, believing he was a Zionist agent, and given that Sirhan had written about how he wanted to kill RFK, what doesn’t add up? What’s so weird?
There’s not much evidence that Ruby had mob connections, beyond the low level connections that nightclub/stripclub owners tend to have.
President Bush was in on it too? How knew? I mean, I’ve learned that the whole Bush family are actually son’s of the devil over the last few years, but they really get around. And the Bush family is from Texas and NASA is in Houston, so you know they are behind the moon hoax . . .
It’s surprising that from reading the board here, one is certain that the federal government of the United States is the most fucked up entity in the history of the world. The census is screwed. Voting – corrupt. Congress and the While House (at least when a Bush lives there) completely screwed. And the military can’t get out of its own way.
But even with this complete and total incompetence, the govmt has managed to keep this one conspiracy (or three is you count RFK and King) under wraps for damn neat half a decade.
Boggles the mind really.
Have you ever been on a criminal jury? I’ve been on three, and I can tell you that eyewitness testimony can be all over the place. As a juror, you have to piece together their stories, throwing out what can’t be reconciled with the other stories. And I don’t see what difference it makes whether the crime you’re talking about is a Presidential murder. Is a person who saw that somehow more reliable of a witness than the person who just saw his friend’s throat get cut with a pocket knife?
Right. About half the earwitnesses identified the depository as the source. Fewer than that, maybe about a third, said it was from the knoll. But hardly any said that the shots came from more than one direction, which I think says a lot. The witness testimony is pretty darn strong that the shots all came from the same place, even though they couldn’t all tell where that place was.
I don’t really have a strong opinion on whether Ruby acted alone, or was somehow put up to shooting Oswald. However, by extension of my theory stated above, I would consider it possible that the CIA could have recruited him for the task through organized crime proxies – Oswald would have been killed because he knew too much, not about CIA involvement in the assassination, but about CIA incompetence in failing to prevent it.
Not necessarily contradicting any of the above, but I think there was an added layer in that (I’m guessing) the people conducting the investigation were afraid what they might find out. There had very nearly been a nuclear war with Russia just two years before, and now what if we find out that Oswald was definitely a KGB agent acting on Kruschev’s orders? Best to let sleeping dogs lie.
In my view, that just muddied up what should have been a clear & straightforward case, that it really was Oswald acting alone. Official reluctance to consider the alternative made the thing unnecessarily mysterious.
Dude? I was very clear that that was a made-up number in order to illustrate a point.
And that point was: when witness accounts differ, you’re going to have to discount something. It makes more sense to tentatively accept the relatively larger number of witnesses as opposed to the smaller number. That should be the default position, and should change only if evidence warrants it.
That there is a question of whether the shots came from where he was standing and why he denies remembering doing any of it when he clearly participated.