Conspiracy Theory Kennedy Assassination - 50 years on

[Sublime]

There is a lot of talk about this report and that report. The trouble is that any of these reports can also be giving misinformation, and is exactly why there is so much conjecture on this subject 50 years into the future. So many conflicting reports that are taken as gospel by different sides of the story depending upon which side of the fence you've chosen to stand on.

 

[DIG]

What "lack of ballistic evidence"? There's a mountain of it.

The gun found near the 6th floor window had Oswald's fingerprints on it.
The gun was bought by Oswald.
The bullet fragments recovered (from Connolly, from the car, from Kennedy's skull) all match to that rifle.
The entry and exit wounds are consistent with shots fired from behind (and only from behind).
All 4 commissions agree that two shots hit Kennedy / Connolly and Kennedy.

There's an excellent documentary called "Cold Case JFK" on PBS Nova. It's on YouTube. They don't even mention Oswald, the only focus on the ballistics of the case. Have a look and see what you think.

It was Colin McLaren's novel "The Smoking Gun" that came out last year. Mate I was just reading it in an airport bookstore the other day for 15 mins so am hazy on the specifics. Maybe his theory that the shot that killed JFK was accidentally by one of his own is rubbish, I don't know. Was an interesting argument though the way he came to it. Requires a massive coverup by the FBI.

 

[Partridge]

It was Colin McLaren's novel "The Smoking Gun" that came out last year. Mate I was just reading it in an airport bookstore the other day for 15 mins so am hazy on the specifics. Maybe his theory that the shot that killed JFK was accidentally by one of his own is rubbish, I don't know. Was an interesting argument though the way he came to it. Requires a massive coverup by the FBI.

They are interesting ideas. But given how bad people are at keeping secrets, that to me makes them pretty suspicious.

 

[forwardpocket]

Check out Jesse Ventura's new online video interviews "Off the Grid".

Recent interview with Roger Stone - who served and advised in a succession of Republican presidential administrations starting with Richard Nixon. Now that is hardly the background for a conspiracy theorist who says the US has been taken over by the NWO/Corporatocracy.

But that is where Stone is these days. People of political standing on both sides of the right-left political spectrum in the USA these days are starting to give a lot of credence to conspiracy theories.

Stone has a book out now saying LBJ was the main man behind the JFK assassination. Ventura (former governor of Michigan) has a book "63 reasons they killed our president". As Ventura says "only an idiot would believe the Warren Commission these days".

See http://www.ora.tv/offthegrid/roger-stone-goes-offthegrid-0_3d2nh8m261f2

Surveys show that only in 1954 did more people believe the official Warren Commission story than that it was a wider conspiracy:
http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx

 

[Partridge]

Check out Jesse Ventura's new online video interviews "Off the Grid".

Recent interview with Roger Stone - who served and advised in a succession of Republican presidential administrations starting with Richard Nixon. Now that is hardly the background for a conspiracy theorist who says the US has been taken over by the NWO/Corporatocracy.

But that is where Stone is these days. People of political standing on both sides of the right-left political spectrum in the USA these days are starting to give a lot of credence to conspiracy theories.

Stone has a book out now saying LBJ was the main man behind the JFK assassination. Ventura (former governor of Michigan) has a book "63 reasons they killed our president". As Ventura says "only an idiot would believe the Warren Commission these days".

See http://www.ora.tv/offthegrid/roger-stone-goes-offthegrid-0_3d2nh8m261f2

Surveys show that only in 1954 did more people believe the official Warren Commission story than that it was a wider conspiracy:
http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx

One could easily argue only an idiot could believe Jesse Ventura.

It's great that he has a contrary opinion. It's great that he voices it. Really. But it doesn't make it true. And unfortunately Ventura believes EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.

Jack Ruby wiping out Oswald is the single biggest reason why anyone believes the conspiracy theories (remember it isn't just one; it's dozens if not hundreds). Because there was no trial, the sheer volume of evidence against Oswald was never put forward in a public setting. If it had been a local politician (or General Edwin Walker, who Oswald tried to assassinate in April 1963), I'd say very little fuss and the case would go away. Making it a president makes it bigger, the graphic nature of it bigger still, the details of the ballistics (at first), and of course the assassin himself being assassinated make it self-perpetuating. Couldn't write it any better if it was in Hollywood.

 

[nut]

Why would Oswald kill JFK????

 

[Partridge]

Why would Oswald kill JFK????

Because he was nuts mainly.

It wasn't Kennedy personally. It was what he represented. He wanted to make a mark on history, was convinced he was smarter than anyone else, and wanted to be remembered. The President's car driving by the building he worked at gave him that opportunity on a plate. Commentators have said if he'd been in Moscow he could have easily done the same thing to the Soviet Premier.

 

[Glacier]

One could easily argue only an idiot could believe Jesse Ventura.

It's great that he has a contrary opinion. It's great that he voices it. Really. But it doesn't make it true. And unfortunately Ventura believes EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.

Jack Ruby wiping out Oswald is the single biggest reason why anyone believes the conspiracy theories (remember it isn't just one; it's dozens if not hundreds). Because there was no trial, the sheer volume of evidence against Oswald was never put forward in a public setting. If it had been a local politician (or General Edwin Walker, who Oswald tried to assassinate in April 1963), I'd say very little fuss and the case would go away. Making it a president makes it bigger, the graphic nature of it bigger still, the details of the ballistics (at first), and of course the assassin himself being assassinated make it self-perpetuating. Couldn't write it any better if it was in Hollywood.

Hey mate
A bit of proof that Oswald was involved in the attempt to kill Walker ?
And please, don't pull out FBI or Warren Commission findings which were AFTER Oswald was already dead

 

[Partridge]

Hey mate
A bit of proof that Oswald was involved in the attempt to kill Walker ?
And please, don't pull out FBI or Warren Commission findings which were AFTER Oswald was already dead

House Select Committee on Assassinations actually. You know, the same committee that postulated the "grassy knoll" shooter that conspiracy whackos have jumped on like a liferaft. Plus the testimony of Marina Oswald. She might have known what was going on, seeing as she sort of lived with the nutjob.

Actually, I'll provide the same proof that you offer that Oswald didn't do it. There's photos that show Oswald and Walker at dinner. What do you say to that?

 

[Glacier]

House Select Committee on Assassinations actually. You know, the same committee that postulated the "grassy knoll" shooter that conspiracy whackos have jumped on like a liferaft. Plus the testimony of Marina Oswald. She might have known what was going on, seeing as she sort of lived with the nutjob.

Actually, I'll provide the same proof that you offer that Oswald didn't do it. There's photos that show Oswald and Walker at dinner. What do you say to that?

So are you saying you don't think Oswald had anything to do with this, or am I confused
As for any testimony of Marina, one should look at what duress this obtained under before taking it as gospel

 

[Partridge]

So are you saying you don't think Oswald had anything to do with this, or am I confused
As for any testimony of Marina, one should look at what duress this obtained under before taking it as gospel

I'm saying, as I've always said, follow the least hysterical, least far-fetched, and most likely scenario. And the only one supported by any evidence.

Oswald tried to kill Walker in April, failed, and then thanks to the planned route of Kennedy's visit, had a second chance literally delivered to his doorstep. Unfortunately he didn't fail at that.

 

[Partridge]

So are you saying you don't think Oswald had anything to do with this, or am I confused
As for any testimony of Marina, one should look at what duress this obtained under before taking it as gospel

I'm saying, as I've always said, follow the least hysterical, least far-fetched, and most likely scenario. And the only one supported by any evidence.

Oswald tried to kill Walker in April, failed, and then thanks to the planned route of Kennedy's visit, had a second chance literally delivered to his doorstep. Unfortunately he didn't fail at that.

 

[Glacier]

I'm saying, as I've always said, follow the least hysterical, least far-fetched, and most likely scenario. And the only one supported by any evidence.

Oswald tried to kill Walker in April, failed, and then thanks to the planned route of Kennedy's visit, had a second chance literally delivered to his doorstep. Unfortunately he didn't fail at that.

The trouble with this is once again, there is absolutely no proof Oswald tried to kill Walker at all, not a shred
And also, with the JFK assassination, there is sufficient doubt that Oswald was either
A- solely responsible
B- fired a bullet on that day
That one, I feel anyway, can be 100% sure of his guilt
As for the Tippit shooting that we have briefly discussed and gone in circles on, the doubt is also there
A person need only do a bit of study and think for themselves to question the whole thing
Do I think Oswald new what was going down that day ??
Ha, now that is a different story...
I think Oswald was indeed up to his eyeballs in the plot to kill Kennedy, but did he pull the trigger?...I doubt it
Maybe he was a patsy after all, the fall guy who really did think think he was going to be the man, but was instead used

 

[Partridge]

The trouble with this is once again, there is absolutely no proof Oswald tried to kill Walker at all, not a shred
And also, with the JFK assassination, there is sufficient doubt that Oswald was either
A- solely responsible
B- fired a bullet on that day
That one, I feel anyway, can be 100% sure of his guilt
As for the Tippit shooting that we have briefly discussed and gone in circles on, the doubt is also there
A person need only do a bit of study and think for themselves to question the whole thing
Do I think Oswald new what was going down that day ??
Ha, now that is a different story...
I think Oswald was indeed up to his eyeballs in the plot to kill Kennedy, but did he pull the trigger?...I doubt it
Maybe he was a patsy after all, the fall guy who really did think think he was going to be the man, but was instead used

That's all fine, but the problem is there's no evidence of any kind for anyone else. There's a ton of evidence that is damning for Oswald, both circumstantial and physical. It's just no one wants to look at it or acknowledge it.

I'd say it's extremely arguable that there's sufficient doubt about Oswald, either being solely responsible or firing a bullet (that is hilarious):

- The rifle found in the book depository belonged to him
- He bought it
- HIS FINGERPRINTS WERE ON THE GUN
- His fingerprints were found all over the boxes in the sniper's nest
- He was seen in the window
- He was the only employee not accounted for 45 minutes after the shooting
- Other employees saw him on the 6th floor 30 minutes before the shooting
- The ballistics and trajectory of the bullets from the car lines up like a bullseye to the 6th floor window (no surprise, since that's where the shots came from)
- The entry wounds to Kennedy and Connolly matched bullets being fired from the rear
- The bullet fragments matched the Carcano to the exclusion to all other rifles

But apparently that leaves sufficient doubt? Love to have you on my jury.

 

[nut]

Because he was nuts mainly.

It wasn't Kennedy personally. It was what he represented. He wanted to make a mark on history, was convinced he was smarter than anyone else, and wanted to be remembered. The President's car driving by the building he worked at gave him that opportunity on a plate. Commentators have said if he'd been in Moscow he could have easily done the same thing to the Soviet Premier.

He was arrested and claimed that he was a patsy? didn't even know whay he was arrested ??? that doesn't sound like some one wanting to be remembered.... your post has no substance. How did he know the car was going to go by his building that he happened to work?


This clip doesn't look like some who has just succeded in what you described.... doesn look nuts.... doesn't look happy about being remembered.

 

[Partridge]

He was arrested and claimed that he was a patsy? didn't even know whay he was arrested ??? that doesn't sound like some one wanting to be remembered.... your post has no substance. How did he know the car was going to go by his building that he happened to work?

This clip doesn't look like some who has just succeded in what you described.... doesn look nuts.... doesn't look happy about being remembered.

Because he read it. In this little thing called a newspaper. And they announced the route only a few days before the assassination.

He did claim he was a patsy. He also told provable lies one after another during interrogation. We actually do know a lot about his movements in the weeks and months leading up to the assassination. For one thing he stayed in a rooming house (separate from his wife), and made no phone calls - except once a week to his wife. He had no visitors. Ever. So for someone who was part of a gigantic conspiracy, it seems they communicated via psychic powers that Kennedy was coming to Texas and they wanted him bumped off.

He also got arrested because he shot dead a cop 45 minutes after the assassination. When police approached him in the theatre his very calm and measured response was to punch the first cop and pull his gun out. Sounds like the act of an innocent man hey!

 

[nut]

Because he read it. In this little thing called a newspaper. And they announced the route only a few days before the assassination.

He did claim he was a patsy. He also told provable lies one after another during interrogation. We actually do know a lot about his movements in the weeks and months leading up to the assassination. For one thing he stayed in a rooming house (separate from his wife), and made no phone calls - except once a week to his wife. He had no visitors. Ever. So for someone who was part of a gigantic conspiracy, it seems they communicated via psychic powers that Kennedy was coming to Texas and they wanted him bumped off.

He also got arrested because he shot dead a cop 45 minutes after the assassination. When police approached him in the theatre his very calm and measured response was to punch the first cop and pull his gun out. Sounds like the act of an innocent man hey!

Doesn't answer my question. Why did Oswald kill Kennedy? you said he was nuts and wanted to be remembered. Which is wrong. I as again why did OSwald want to kill Kennedy?

 

[Partridge]

Doesn't answer my question. Why did Oswald kill Kennedy? you said he was nuts and wanted to be remembered. Which is wrong. I as again why did OSwald want to kill Kennedy?

How do you know it's wrong? Have you read anything about Oswald? At all?

I just told you why, which you've ignored. You know what, go and read about it and find out for yourself. You might actually learn something.

 

[nut]

How do you know it's wrong? Have you read anything about Oswald? At all?

I just told you why, which you've ignored. You know what, go and read about it and find out for yourself. You might actually learn something.

you said he wanted to be remembered?


The gun wasn't his anyway.

 

[Partridge]

you said he wanted to be remembered?

The gun wasn't his anyway.

Really? Whose was it then? You've made a statement - prove it.

(I can heard the sound of "reasons for JFK conspiracy" being furiously typed into Google as we speak)

 

[Glacier]

That's all fine, but the problem is there's no evidence of any kind for anyone else. There's a ton of evidence that is damning for Oswald, both circumstantial and physical. It's just no one wants to look at it or acknowledge it.

I'd say it's extremely arguable that there's sufficient doubt about Oswald, either being solely responsible or firing a bullet (that is hilarious):

- The rifle found in the book depository belonged to him
- He bought it
- HIS FINGERPRINTS WERE ON THE GUN
- His fingerprints were found all over the boxes in the sniper's nest
- He was seen in the window
- He was the only employee not accounted for 45 minutes after the shooting
- Other employees saw him on the 6th floor 30 minutes before the shooting
- The ballistics and trajectory of the bullets from the car lines up like a bullseye to the 6th floor window (no surprise, since that's where the shots came from)
- The entry wounds to Kennedy and Connolly matched bullets being fired from the rear
- The bullet fragments matched the Carcano to the exclusion to all other rifles

But apparently that leaves sufficient doubt? Love to have you on my jury.

Partridge, you know there is a lot of doubt on every single point you have given above, from conflicting witness recollection to conflicting ballistics reports, every one
Yet you state the points above as fact!?!
The only FACT in this case is that every point you state as FACT is far from it
One only has to do the slightest bit of reading to find problems with the findings if the Warren Commission
And we haven't even touched on the unbelievable number of suspicious deaths of key figures in the years afterwards

 

[Partridge]

Partridge, you know there is a lot of doubt on every single point you have given above, from conflicting witness recollection to conflicting ballistics reports, every one
Yet you state the points above as fact!?!
The only FACT in this case is that every point you state as FACT is far from it
One only has to do the slightest bit of reading to find problems with the findings if the Warren Commission
And we haven't even touched on the unbelievable number of suspicious deaths of key figures in the years afterwards

Do you think that if you keep repeating things enough they become more true?

There are plenty of eyewitness reports from the assassination. Which we know is infallible. However, the overwhelming majority of witnesses claim they heard 3 shots from the direction of the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

There are also plenty of problems with the Warren Report. Namely that they got the sequence of shots wrong; that they paid far too much attention to what Connolly told them; that they didn't pursue Ruby's potential mob connections (they aren't there but they should have checked); and that both the FBI and CIA lied to them. There's a few problems immediately. Add the gigantic clusterfcuk of the autopsy and very little was done properly.

That's what happens in real life - people panic under pressure and make mistakes.

The only thing unbelievable about the number of suspicious deaths is exactly that. It's bullshit.

Know I how know? There's a photo of Hoover, Johnson, George Bush senior, Castro and others at dinner. They all admitted that they wanted to have him assassinated, but Oswald beat them to it. That proves it!

 

[Glacier]

Really? Whose was it then? You've made a statement - prove it.

(I can heard the sound of "reasons for JFK conspiracy" being furiously typed into Google as we speak)

See, I'm starting to think you refuse to research
You challenge another poster to prove something, they provide you with information, yet you dismiss this information without comment or research
You can do better

 

[Partridge]

See, I'm starting to think you refuse to research
You challenge another poster to prove something, they provide you with information, yet you dismiss this information without comment or research
You can do better

Actually I'll decide what I can do better. I don't need the advice or conspiracy whackjobs. Don't go for a long walk, you might fall off the Earth's edge.

You haven't provided ANY information. You provide anecdotes. Which are not evidence. You keep clinging to the mysterious deaths "argument" like it's a liferaft. So name them. In order, plus the date they died, and how they died. Plus their age. (I have read all this information, it's amazing how a heart attack 20 years after the assassination to someone in their 70s can become a "mysterious" death when your brain isn't in your head)

You want the titles?

"Case Closed" by Gerald Posner.
"Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi (all 1600 pages of it). You want endnotes and references you'll be in heaven. There's a CD rom with an extra 900 pages of notes as well.

I'm tipping you won't look at either, because it doesn't fit into the (obviously very flexible) Cuban / KGB / FBI / CIA / Johnson / conspiracy scenario.

 

[Glacier]

Do you think that if you keep repeating things enough they become more true?

There are plenty of eyewitness reports from the assassination. Which we know is infallible. However, the overwhelming majority of witnesses claim they heard 3 shots from the direction of the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

There are also plenty of problems with the Warren Report. Namely that they got the sequence of shots wrong; that they paid far too much attention to what Connolly told them; that they didn't pursue Ruby's potential mob connections (they aren't there but they should have checked); and that both the FBI and CIA lied to them. There's a few problems immediately. Add the gigantic clusterfcuk of the autopsy and very little was done properly.

That's what happens in real life - people panic under pressure and make mistakes.

The only thing unbelievable about the number of suspicious deaths is exactly that. It's bullshit.

Know I how know? There's a photo of Hoover, Johnson, George Bush senior, Castro and others at dinner. They all admitted that they wanted to have him assassinated, but Oswald beat them to it. That proves it!

It's not about repeating things in the hope they come true
It's about repeating things in the hope you may actually click on and say to yourself " hey, we've got a problem here"
An example
You say on one hand that eyewitness testimony is fallible, and it is, notoriously so, yet you use eyewitness testimony when it suites you to do so
Tippit for example
We have witnesses who say the shooter was Oswald yet we have have witnesses who say it wasn't Oswald and furthermore say the other witness wasn't even there
We have witnesses from the book depository who say Oswald was in the sixth floor yet others who say he wasn't
We have ballistic reports that you say match his weapon yet we have witnesses that say this supposed weapon was actually something very different
Yet you continue to say this case is open and shut
You call bullshit on the deaths of heaps of people connected to that day yet you obviously have not bothered to even check this out yourself
I have stated before about witnesses to breakfast meetings between Ruby, Tippit and Oswald in the weeks proceeding yet you dismiss this, doesn't this seem strange to you at all
Are you oblivious to this, or are you just someone who sees what they only want to see
Quite pointless discussing the topic with you if you just accuse others of not researching the topic and then proceed to show such lack of research yourself