# The case against Lee H. Oswald **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 24, 2023, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643 "2023-11-24T18:35:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/161 "2023-11-27T18:24:22Z")
> [@slicedalone](#): > > Phrased slightly differently, “notes were taken, but some of them contradict what we wanted them to say, so we wrote what they should have said, and tossed the originals into the flames.” By “phrased slightly differently” you mean “I completely changed the meaning of your statement”. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/162 "2023-11-27T18:24:51Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > I cannot understand how the Dallas police could transfer him without completely clearing out that entire area. - Compared to today, security in general was incredibly lax. imagine Oswald trying to get into a tall building on the motorcade route with a long thin package now. The Secret Service would be all over him before he got anywhere near. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/163 "2023-11-27T18:28:24Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Compared to today, security in general was incredibly lax. I certainly can’t argue because they had the President of the United States riding in an open air convertible car traveling at a pretty slow speed. ---
**Author:** ![SunUp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SunUp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SunUp)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/164 "2023-11-27T18:33:30Z")
> [@slicedalone](#): > > Phrased slightly differently, “notes were taken, but some of them contradict what we wanted them to say, so we wrote what they should have said, and tossed the originals into the flames.” If you have evidence for this assertion, you are welcome to share it. Otherwise, this amounts to “well, it _could_ have happened this way!” ---
**Author:** ![slicedalone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slicedalone/32/12515_2.png) [@slicedalone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slicedalone)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/165 "2023-11-27T18:44:33Z")
> [@SunUp](#): > > Otherwise, this amounts to “well, it _could_ have happened this way!” Because, what, you KNOW for a fact that the “transcriptions” are identical to the contemporaneous notes? Have you ever interviewed someone and then later transcribed your notes? I have. For a living. For years. Got pretty good at it. Every time, I screwed some pooch or other. As did everyone who ever did my job. And I wasn’t even trying to be inaccurate. Imagine what I could do with those notes if I had a narrative to peddle. Except for some semi-literate shitkicker Texas cop, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/166 "2023-11-27T18:46:35Z")
Right because you’re able to say that all police in Dallas were semi-literate, to fit your pre-conceived ideas. More « Making Stuff Up » ---
**Author:** ![slicedalone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slicedalone/32/12515_2.png) [@slicedalone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slicedalone)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/167 "2023-11-27T18:49:03Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > you’re able to say that all police in Dallas were semi-literate, to fit your pre-conceived ideas. It’s quite unfair to imply that they were all completely illiterate. Please reconsider the extremity of your post. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/168 "2023-11-27T18:54:12Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Above is ChatGPT’s list for the reasons behind the four assassinations of US Presidents (not sure if they contain errors). Is JFK’s assassination the only one without a consensus reason? Did LHO do it purely for self aggrandizement or to further a political goal? Too small a sample. Ask Chat GPT about Sirhan Sirhan, Arthur Bremmer, Sara Jane Moore, Squeaky Fromm, John Hinckley, Vladimir Arutyunian, Giuseppe Zangara, John Flammang Schrank, Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, the five different assassination attempts on Gandhi before the successful one, and for that matter, everyone who’s tried to assassinate one or another members of the British royal family over the past 75 years See if there’s a consensus reason. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/169 "2023-11-27T19:30:06Z")
Moderating: To all, let’s lower the temperature and raise the collegiality a bit. You’re in Great Debates, not Snark-a-Thon Pit. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/170 "2023-11-27T19:30:28Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > > [@running\_coach](#): > > > > Compared to today, security in general was incredibly lax. > > I certainly can’t argue because they had the President of the United States riding in an open air convertible car traveling at a pretty slow speed. And take a look at this photo of JFK campaigning in 1960 in West Virginia: standing on a high chair, surrounded by a crowd, with a boy behind him holding a realistic looking toy pistol. We have to be really careful about judging events 60 years ago by current security standards. What happened 60 years ago in Dallas **created** our current security standards for public officials. > **[John F. Kennedy campaigns in rural West Virginia, precariously perched on a...](https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/john-f-kennedy-campaigns-rural-west-virginia-precariously-perched-high-chair-deliver-speech-1960/)** > > JFK speechifies from a kitchen chair as, mere feet away, a young boy absently plays with a jarringly realistic-looking toy gun. ---
**Author:** ![SunUp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SunUp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SunUp)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/171 "2023-11-27T19:31:57Z")
> [@slicedalone](#): > > Because, what, you KNOW for a fact that the “transcriptions” are identical to the contemporaneous notes? First off, I don’t contend that the transcriptions as given in the WCR are “identical”, to use your word, to the notes they were derived from. I submit that they are the best record we have of the Oswald interrogation - and keep in mind they don’t exactly show what would be considered perfect evidence for either the conspiracist or the lone-gunman theories. Again, if you have evidence that this is not the case, or that some nefarious force wanted to affect the transcriptions, why don’t you give it? Or, to take this thread on a different and perhaps more productive tack, you mentioned before that you’re fine with Occam’s Razor in other contexts, but not this one. Perhaps you’d like to share some of your mindspace on why you’re attached to the conspiracist viewpoint on this particularly issue? ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/172 "2023-11-27T19:54:48Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > they had the President of the United States riding in an open air convertible car traveling at a pretty slow speed. As I stated in my OP, this was an explicitly _political_ trip, designed for maximum exposure. Kennedy had won Texas narrowly in 1960, and was helped across the finish line by the fact that Lyndon Johnson ran for, and won re-election to, his senate seat (he was replaced when he became vice president). So he was trying to court voters. In fact, this explains (in part) why Jackie was with him (the other reason, perhaps, is that after she lost her newborn, just days after his birth, in August, and JFK felt some level of guilt for his womanizing, so she was getting quality time). In one of the speeches he gave in Texas, he likened the trip to the one he did with her in Paris, where he described himself as “the man who accompanied Mrs. Kennedy.” Point being, there was a reason they had no bubble top, and were driving slowly while waving to the crowds, and it had nothing to do with something nefarious, or even unprecedented. You can see other parades where Kennedy is waving to people hanging out of windows. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/CAkIhf3ZNME/hqdefault.jpg "October 19, 1960 - Senator John F. Kennedy's Ticker Tape Parade in New York City") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAkIhf3ZNME) > [@slicedalone](#): > > Imagine what I could do with those notes if I had a narrative to peddle. If you had a narrative to peddle,‘wouldn’t you make it more favorable to you? Wouldn’t you include things like “he said he hated Kennedy” (he claimed no beef with the president) or even outright “confessed” (he denied the shootings, but lied about things known to be true). The reports aren’t exactly self serving. > [@Kent\_Clark](#): > > Ask Chat GPT about Sirhan Sirhan, Arthur Bremmer, Sara Jane Moore, Squeaky Fromm, John Hinckley, Vladimir Arutyunian, Giuseppe Zangara, John Flammang Schrank, Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, the five different assassination attempts on Gandhi before the successful one, and for that matter, everyone who’s tried to assassinate one or another members of the British royal family over the past 75 years See if there’s a consensus reason. At the time of the JFK shooting, there was recent memory of an assassination attempt against Truman (by Puerto Rican nationalists) and FDR (by an Italian immigrant who may have been crazy). ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/173 "2023-11-27T20:54:02Z")
> [@Kent\_Clark](#): > > Too small a sample. Ask Chat GPT about Sirhan Sirhan, Arthur Bremmer, Sara Jane Moore, Squeaky Fromm, John Hinckley, Vladimir Arutyunian, Giuseppe Zangara, John Flammang Schrank, Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, the five different assassination attempts on Gandhi before the successful one FYI, I wasn’t disputing whether Oswald was the lone shooter, I was just asking whether he did it because of delusions of grandeur or whether he thought he was accomplishing something political/strategic by doing so. e.g. we know that the assassination attempt against Reagan was because the shooter was trying to impress Jodie Foster, so it was not political. What were Oswalds likely reasons? (since he didn’t admit to the shooting, it’s hard to know for sure, but what do people think the reasons were) ---
**Author:** ![Dropo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Dropo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dropo)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/174 "2023-11-27T21:04:11Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > You clearly only objected to the use of your own word “ideal” by putting it in scare quotes, not ‘ideal plan’. I call foul, sir! Those are not “scare quotes.” They are normal, everyday, run-of-the-mill quotation marks whose function is to indicate the words between them came from another source, written or spoken. > [@Dissonance](#): > > In the future you might want to come up with some reasoning behind why the mob considered risking WWIII to be the ideal cover for them to hide behind. I addressed this in post #91: > [@Dropo](#): > > First off, they quite reasonably calculated that the U.S. gov’t would not want to blame the commies for the assassination and risk war. For this purpose, they even provided a “patsy.” More to the point here, as long as people suspected other parties, they would not suspect organized crime. You also seem to neglect the fact that the plan was successful. JFK was clipped, RFK left gov’t soon after and the pressure he was putting on mob operations ceased. No member of the mob was ever charged in connection with the assassination. IMO, these facts make the question of whether or not it was an “ideal plan” moot. > [@Moriarty](#): > > It’s useful to note that the Select Committee Report…was reaching for new material, so anything it concludes must be considered with some reservations. Agreed. > [@Moriarty](#): > > Even if we accept that the committee was credible when it _established_ this (more than a decade after Oswald and his uncle had died), let’s be clear about what is established: Lee Oswald spoke to his wife about his uncle being a bookie. > > And…? You seem to have lost context here. My cite was only meant to rebut your assertion: > [@Moriarty](#): > > Never mind that there is simply no independent corroboration (other than “sources” and this guy Aaron) to confirm this. In addition, you are assuming the nature of the discussion between Oswald and his wife was limited to his uncle being a bookie. How do you know that? Were you there when they talked? Do you have a cite with the verbatim conversation? I have no idea what they discussed, but unlike you, I am not willing to characterize it with limitations. > [@Moriarty](#): > > My point stands: they are asserting a nexus by the weakest of links. And they are _only_ asserting a nexus; any evidence of coordination is completely lacking. Agreed. Nor does the evidence preclude the possibility there was coordination. As such, the SCR’s conclusion on the issue of mob involvement in the assassination stands. > [@Moriarty](#): > > There is absolutely no evidence that he was approached by intermediaries! Even if we accept that he knew people who knew mobsters, there is zero evidence to suggest that they approached him about the assassination. None. You don’t think it’s possible any such approaches escaped detection by the feds? You think they were able to monitor Oswald 100% of the time? > [@Moriarty](#): > > And why would the “men behind the hit” need to be insulated? They offered no assistance. Maybe they wanted to be insulated because they didn’t want to be busted for plotting to kill the president? Just a guess…. > [@Moriarty](#): > > He had no extra money. So you have zero evidence that money was part of the bargain. Or are you saying that a guy decided to **kill the president** on the basis of an IOU? > > I don’t get “ideological reasons”. What - they gave him a heart to heart? Told him that La Cosa Nostra was a collective? Your theory is that the mob facilitated an assassination with a political presentation? Ruby clipped Oswald. No money was involved. He had ideological reasons for doing it. Many assassins are motivated by ideology, not money. > [@Moriarty](#): > > We know all about Oswald’s _personal_ ideology. You don’t think you can figure out what motivated this Marxist who wanted the US to lay off Cuba to want to kill John F. Kennedy? It’s just a big mystery? Sources I looked at found Oswald’s motive too shrouded in uncertainty to make a definitive assertion. Ideological as well as psychological reasons (related to self-esteem) are most often mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/175 "2023-11-27T21:40:37Z")
> [@Dropo](#): > > JFK was clipped, RFK left gov’t soon after and the pressure he was putting on mob operations ceased. What do you base this on, because it’s not really true. RFK stayed on as attorney general until he ran for Senator, a role he held until he was killed. But, you say, the pressure on the mob _ceased_. Tell that to Arkansas Senator John McClellan. > [@](#): > > The **Valachi hearings** , also known as the **McClellan hearings** , investigated [organized crime](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_crime) activities across the United States. The hearings were initiated by [Arkansas](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas) Senator [John L. McClellan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._McClellan) in 1963. Named after the major government witness against the [American Mafia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mafia), foot soldier and [made man](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_man) [Joseph Valachi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Valachi), the trial exposed American organized crime to the world through Valachi’s televised testimony.[[1]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valachi_hearings#cite_note-:0-1) At the trial, Valachi was the first member of the [Italian-American Mafia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian-American_Mafia) to acknowledge its existence publicly, and is credited with popularization of the term _[cosa nostra](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosa_nostra)_ .[[2]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valachi_hearings#cite_note-2) The trial also exposed the hierarchy of the American Mafia, including the [Five Families](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Families) and [The Commission](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commission_(mafia)). It’s funny to me. The very time when the mob killed Jack Kennedy (and not Bobby, who would have had much less security) to ease their pressure, an entirely different government official was exposing all of their secrets. Senator McClellan, by the way, died in 1977 at age 81. > **[Valachi Hearings • Levin Center](https://levin-center.org/what-is-oversight/portraits/valachi-hearings/)** > > The Levin Center Portraits in Oversight provide a historical walk through crucial Congressional investigations and the members behind them. > [@Dropo](#): > > you are assuming the nature of the discussion between Oswald and his wife was limited to his uncle being a bookie. How do you know that? Were you there when they talked? Do you have a cite with the verbatim conversation? > > I have no idea what they discussed, but unlike you, I am not willing to characterize it with limitations. No, of course I have no cite. Nobody does. It’s not documented. _Claims_ it happened are the best we’ve got. I characterize my analysis with limitations to _credible_ evidence. It doesn’t let me imagine as many possible outcomes, but it proves more reliable when navigating the real world. > [@Dropo](#): > > Ruby clipped Oswald. No money was involved. He had ideological reasons for doing it. Many assassins are motivated by ideology, not money. Well, of course. But those people are invariably _lone gunmen_. You were asserting that the mob independently orchestrated the hit. I guess they were sending out leaflets or something. > [@Dropo](#): > > Sources I looked at found Oswald’s motive too shrouded in uncertainty to make a definitive assertion. Well, why am I not surprised? If you are building a conspiracy theory, you need some mystery. In reality, it’s pretty obvious that Oswald was a disgruntled young man. He found salvation in Marxism, but was eternally frustrated by his failure to live in the utopia it promised. Cuba was his newest hope. Kennedy was very publicly agains the Cuban revolution. My guess is that Oswald hoped to get to Cuba, but had no real plan for doing so. But, more than that, he craved importance. Killing Kennedy would elevate him to a famous person that people would want to hear from. At the end of the day, he got what he wanted. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/176 "2023-11-27T21:47:59Z")
> [@Dropo](#): > > > [@Dissonance](#): > > > > You clearly only objected to the use of your own word “ideal” by putting it in scare quotes, not ‘ideal plan’. I call foul, sir! > > Those are not “scare quotes.” They are normal, everyday, run-of-the-mill quotation marks whose function is to indicate the words between them came from another source, written or spoken. So… you decided to use not-scare quotes to quote a single word I used which was quoting you? The other source, written or spoken, was yourself? > [@Dropo](#): > > > [@Dissonance](#): > > > > In the future you might want to come up with some reasoning behind why the mob considered risking WWIII to be the ideal cover for them to hide behind. > > I addressed this in post #91: No, you actually didn’t. You handwaved it away and started using not-scare quotes to quote me quoting you for some bizarre reason. And only the word ‘ideal’. > [@Dropo](#): > > You also seem to neglect the fact that the plan was successful. JFK was clipped, RFK left gov’t soon after and the pressure he was putting on mob operations ceased. No member of the mob was ever charged in connection with the assassination. IMO, these facts make the question of whether or not it was an “ideal plan” moot. No, you seem to have neglected that you have yet to established _that there was a plan_. Your evidence that the mob was behind the ‘hit’ on JFK is that JFK was clipped and that they were never charged in connection to the assassination? Seriously? Here’s another scenario that fits those facts perfectly and has the added bonus of not requiring leaps of faith across the Grand Canyon: The mob had nothing to do with the ‘hit’, Oswald was acting alone, and the reason the mob was never charged in connection to the assassination was that they had no connection to the assassination. It has the added bonus of explaining the reason behind the mob not having any connection to the assassination. Or, using your own logic, I can prove that JFK was assassinated by Cthulhu worshipers. Why? The plan clearly was successful, JFK was clipped, and no Cthulhu worshipper was ever charged in connection with the assassination. QED. ---
**Author:** ![slicedalone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slicedalone/32/12515_2.png) [@slicedalone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slicedalone)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/177 "2023-11-27T23:45:34Z")
I might re-watch the Stone documentary to catch the names of the witnesses who claim they wanted to testify to the WC but were refused because their testimony contradicted the WC’s pre-ordained findings. If I do, I hope the WC’s defenders will respond substantively and not just dismiss these witnesses with “Who’s he?” ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2023, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/178 "2023-11-28T00:12:15Z")
> [@slicedalone](#): > > I might re-watch the Stone documentary to catch the names of the witnesses who claim they wanted to testify to the WC but were refused because their testimony contradicted the WC’s pre-ordained findings. Please do. I don’t have HBO. But please _also_ bear in mind how Stone works; if _one_ person says something he wants, he jumps at it. **That** person is never mistaken, or confused, or wrong. If they estimated a distance or time one way, and if the Commission concludes that they must have been wrong, it’s a _coverup_ and _proof of the conspiracy_. And **everybody else** who might contradict them is ignored, or in on it. That’s not how real investigations, or the real world, works. Eyewitness testimony is sometimes unreliable, and there are always going to be recollections that vary. In this case, especially, people have been heavily influenced by later reporting and discussion (that’s also why the statements made to the House Select Committee on Assassinations - which operated in the late 70s - must be considered less reliable than statements made to the Warren Commission in 1964). Moreover, if you (or Stone) claims to have negated some facet of the official story, you have to follow through on that new development. It’s not enough to say that some witnesses statement means that Oswald was not on the 6th floor, for example. You also have to account for the long paper bag he brought, the rifle he ordered, the presence of those objects on the 6th floor, the alias he used, the fact that he fled, the fact that he grabbed a gun, the fact that he tried to kill the cops who arrested him, et al. Stone wants to poke holes, and question the official story, but he will never be able to account for all of the known facts. Here’s a review that points out several flaws. > [@](#): > > when I look at the Zapruder film, what my eyes see, at that horrific moment, is that the back of JFK’s head is intact. There is no occipital wound. The bullet tore through the side of his head. And if you watch his hands up at his throat just beforehand and watch Texas Gov. John Connally’s movements, the timing and flow of the magic-bullet theory line up perfectly. (Speaking of the throat wound, if it was, as the documentary claims, an entrance wound, caused by a bullet coming from the grassy knoll, wouldn’t that bullet have ripped through the _side_ of Kennedy’s neck?) > > But I have one more question. Near the end, referring to the moment that became the most cataclysmic of the 20th century, Stone says that the president was killed in a “crossfire.” But how could there have been a crossfire if Oswald wasn’t even in the book depository? Was there _another_shooter in the book depository using Oswald’s rifle? Was there a shooter across the street? The film barely even explains its theory. Talk about skimping on details! In “JFK Revisited,” Oliver Stone leads us through the looking glass, all right, but the real question is whether he’s found the truth or an even more hypnotically spectacular lie. > **[‘JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass’ Review: Oliver Stone Doubles Down...](https://variety.com/2021/film/reviews/jfk-revisited-through-the-looking-glass-review-oliver-stone-doubles-down-1235017228/amp/)** > > In a documentary follow-up to "JFK," Oliver Stone takes a just-the-facts-ma'am approach that never belies the grandiosity of his theories. ---
**Author:** ![scudsucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scudsucker/32/14101_2.png) [@scudsucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scudsucker)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2023, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/179 "2023-11-28T06:45:06Z")
I quite liked the Oliver Stone movie. He’s a good director. But his premise that it is a documentary is false. ---
**Author:** ![slicedalone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slicedalone/32/12515_2.png) [@slicedalone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slicedalone)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2023, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/180 "2023-11-28T08:38:46Z")
> [@scudsucker](#): > > his premise that it is a documentary is false. I’m not talking about the movie JFK starring Kevin Costner and a cast of thousands. He made an actual documentary in 2021 that was mostly interviews with witnesses, pathologists, etc., referenced above. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643.md?page=10)