The President Was Shot...

Finnforest wrote: Watching the cleaned-up version of the film on YT is certainly intriguing....I hadn't watched it for years.   It doesn't appear the car slowed during the head shot but lots of people swear it did, almost to the point of stopping.

There is a video on YouTube which (apparently) shows the brake light on JFKs car going on. Of course this doesn't show how much the car actually slowed.

The.Crimson.King wrote: Padraic wrote: The.Crimson.King wrote: Writing a blog hardly carries any fiduciary responsibility to only write properly researched and scientifically provable truth.   OK, then pick one of the many books devoted to the subject that makes the case for Oswald being the assassin.  I hear Bugliosi's book is fairly comprehensive. And I can find just as many books that make the case for a conspiracy. "The only people that agree with you are people that already agree with you" - Frank Zappa

I'm sure you can find a printed book that claims JFK was killed by Extraterrestrials - all it means is that someone wrote a book, dun't make it real.

Dean wrote: When countless eye witness accounts state 3 gun shots then why does dictaphone recording that lacks any veracity, traceability and proven provenance throw all those accounts into doubt? They cannot prove that the 4th noise is a gunshot, they're not certain about the time or the location where it was recorded. They are not even sure it was a recording from the Policeman it is claimed to be, even he does not believe it was recorded with his microphone because the motorcycle engine note was wrong for his type of bike. When the "evidence" is that shaky it does not warrant being called "evidence".  Similarly, there is no real reason to doubt that Oswald could have fired three shots with the Carcano rifle in the time required and his marksmanship was sufficient to have hit the target with two of those three shots. He'd owned the rifle for 7 months, he knew how to use it and knew its idiosyncrasies. Taking into account that Oswald was an above average but not exceptional shooter, the gun was deemed "a very accurate weapon" by the FBI and that with the speed of the car and the angle from the window meant that it was not a difficult shot, then it is very plausible that he was the lone shooter, it also does not discount the possibility that pure dumb luck was involved. The quality of the evidence for a second shooter and a forth shot is too tenuous, too unsound and too fanciful by comparison.

Well described.   We needed a visit from Ockahm.   Though I admit I often feel it is unusually difficult to apply his razor in this case.   The "hypothesis with the fewest assumptions" would probably be that Oswald acted alone.   But that could also be the theory with the most assumptions.   At least the 'Oswald Alone' notion is the simplest.

Senseless acts of violence don't make sense... Wu'd a thunk it?

The T wrote: On the contrary, senseless acts of violence make a lot of sense... for the perpetrators. That's why they get done.

The T wrote: Yes but let's remember Ruby lived on for a while after this so a proper conspiracy shouldn't have left such an obvious living liability. Yet he lived on.

The T wrote: I really don't know if in your last statement you are being sarcastic or not. Anyway, I've always thought that the JFK case is one of the few cases where you don't have to be a nutcase in order to believe a conspiracy theory; but evidence still overwhelmingly favors the lone man alternative.

dr wu23 wrote: what's your take on why Ruby went after Oswald? At that point it wasn't even clear if Oswald had indeed shot Kennedy. So why would a small time hood throw his life away and shoot him in front of the whole world? Was he some kind of Kennedy freak or was there more going on there? And then he goes to jail and eventually dies from cancer and never says much about it all. A conspiracy minded person would think he was getting rid of Oswald (a loose end...)so the whole case would be blamed on the patsy and since he was dying from cancer anyway it didn't matter to him.  Did Ruby do this for some one else...like the Mob..?

It is a mystery and yet, at that time, it seemed to somehow make sense.   The whole country was angry, sad and outraged.   The climate in Texas was reactionary and often violent.   Here was a ganster from the east coast who'd been running numbers, guns, and ladies his whole life, finally wound up being the "man to see" in Dallas if you wanted to conduct some action, and ends up gunning down LHO in a police basement no one other than cops should've been in (had the DPD gotten Oswald into a car and away, he might've been much safer from that point on), and ruining his life by being the man who killed our only chance to hear from the accused and see justice done, instead of becoming the hero he thought he'd be.   That is assuming he wasn't put up to it.  

Personally I'm convinced ~ as convinced as one can be in this case ~ that Ruby and Oswald not only knew each other but were actively involved in local Dallas crime.   Whether Lee Oswald was some sort of Federal informer or provocateur does not negate the probability that these two were hanging out and up to all sorts of sticky business.





Edited by Atavachron - November 26 2013 at 20:53

Having just read it, it makes perfect sense it was closed--  the consensus seemed clear, what more is there to say   The likely outcome would be a dark discussion about why Charlie was such a mean guy.

'nuff said about it in this thread, me thinks.