Again, I'm amazed at how such otherwise skeptical people such as yourselves can be utterly unskeptical and trusting of the official story. It's as if no amount of evidence will shake your belief and faith in organizations like the CIA, the Pentagon, and the US government. Amazing, and nutty.Cuthbert a good skeptic always employs Occams Razor. "among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected." That's why most of us usually look askance at conspiracy theories. They generally require a long list of suppositions in order to be true and there is often a much simpler explanation that is better supported by the facts we actually have. Conspiracies often depend largely on the facts we don't have in order to be believed.I agree, unfortunately that's not always true in real life, non-scientific realms. Or better yet, what you consider an assumption may in fact not be. For example, many people assume the assassination attempt in Dallas was a lone event. In fact there were two others, with similar MO's, one in Chicago foiled, one in Tampa foiled. To assume the government is just some big dumb animal incapable of advanced coordination again, is beyond belief. What about the coordination of WW2, Vietnam, overthrow of several Latin American countries? Highly sophisticated coordination. Now none of this proves anything, but it does cast complete doubt on the simplistic and "tidy" notion that there was one guy who carried it out. Some folks just don't want to believe in complicated, "not just one bad apple" scenarios. They're scared to acknowledge what their government is capable of. Which is also why I think you see so many folks glomming onto Snowden and Assange. Those two expose things for what they are.
Again, I'm amazed at how such otherwise skeptical people such as yourselves can be utterly unskeptical and trusting of the official story. It's as if no amount of evidence will shake your belief and faith in organizations like the CIA, the Pentagon, and the US government. Amazing, and nutty.Speaking for myself, I am skeptical of all conspiracy theories, especially those that would require the iintricate involvement and silence of many people. It goes against human nature to stay silent for very long. All of those people in the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon and other parts of the government, working in concert, and not one speaks up in 50 years? Many media sources would have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars or more for an interview with someone who was in on such a conspiracy and would spill the beans. All of the people who would have had to be involved are unlikely to turn away from large amounts of money and surely one of them would talk just out of guilt. Most of the supposed conspirators would now be dead and any one of them might have decided to record or write about his involvement to be revealed after his death, yet not one person had done so, not for money for his family, not for posthumous glory not to relieve himself of guilt. Those are the reasons I am skeptical about all conspiracy theories. They require too many people to act with faultless precision and nearly perfect timing and to keep complete silence for years. It goes against what we know about human nature and human abilities. To accept a conspiracy theory like that you would have to believe that not one credible person would break his silence for any reason. In addition, all of the investigators would also have to have been in on the conspiracy with not one person in a position to know what actually happened willing to tell what he or she knew. I put such a scenario in the category of fantasy. LoisAgain, you need to read Overthrow by Steve Kinzer, or The Shock Doctrine. The government IS very capable, especially the CIA, or carrying out highly coordinated plans without public knowledge. And witnesses and direct enablers do in fact speak out. But once the label of conspiracy is applied, they know they're in the clear. There are too many other sources of counter evidence. And of course, same goes for the unskeptics here who buy into the "government is innocent" theory. Any evidence presented now is prima faciea faulty, coerced, tainted, etc. Here's a start though for those who aren't so naive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_Waldron Naivete is in the eye of the beholder. Lois
I think the same driving force inside most people to be religious or believe in a god is the same thing that drives some â but not all â conspiracy theories, and especially the myriad of Kennedy conspiracy theories. A lone, angst-ridden, violent-tempered, extremist ideologue troubled young male with a gun in his hand and a chip on his shoulder like Oswald just doesnât feel âsatisfyingâ enough of an answer for the who and why behind something as big and as far-reaching as Kennedyâs death. A large, hidden, well-orchestrated âsomethingâ with a grand plan and near god-like powers to pull off something so big, so important and keep themselves hidden from the public fits both the concept of god and any random Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. Not only does a conspiracy seem more "satisfying, but only a god could manipulate, control and counterfeit all the different sciences that points to Oswald and 3 shots. Just how god planted all those dinosaur bones and manipulated the light from distant stars we see in our telescopes to try and fool us into believing in evolution and trick us into think the Earth is older than 6,000 years old. 
That, too is a conspiracy that only a god could pull off.
To assume the government is just some big dumb animal incapable of advanced coordination again, is beyond belief. What about the coordination of WW2, Vietnam, overthrow of several Latin American countries? Highly sophisticated coordination. Now none of this proves anything, but it does cast complete doubt on the simplistic and "tidy" notion that there was one guy who carried it out. Some folks just don't want to believe in complicated, "not just one bad apple" scenarios. They're scared to acknowledge what their government is capable of. Which is also why I think you see so many folks glomming onto Snowden and Assange. Those two expose things for what they are.Ok so the government isn't one big dumb animal. I agree. Then what is it? I can start by saying that the government is everything from a postal inspector, to a Senator, to a clerk in a regional IRS office, to a security guard at the Lincoln Memorial, to a part time census taker, to a mechanic in the Air Force etc etc... It is "The People"! So all of these types of people were in on the Kennedy assassination? That's government! Or are you talking about a specific group of people you are labeling "government"? You don't even know what government is! Yet you throw the word around like it has meaning. I see you evaded Rocinante's points. Just labeled them irrelevant...I was hoping you would have addressed those. So tell me what secret government cabal was in on the assassination of JFK. And why? Once that took place would those individuals really be "government" anymore? No! Not by definition.
For example, many people assume the assassination attempt in Dallas was a lone event. In fact there were two others, with similar MO's, one in Chicago foiled, one in Tampa foiled.What? Someone wanted to try and kill a President of the United States? I'm shocked! That's never happened before or since. Oh wait: Successful assassinations Abraham Lincoln James A. Garfield William McKinley John F. Kennedy Failed assassination attempts Andrew Jackson Abraham Lincoln Theodore Roosevelt Herbert Hoover Franklin D. Roosevelt Harry S Truman John F. Kennedy Richard Nixon Gerald Ford Jimmy Carter Ronald Reagan George H. W. Bush Bill Clinton George W. Bush Barack Obama Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots
Now none of this proves anything...I agree.
but it does cast complete doubt on the simplistic and "tidy" notion that there was one guy who carried it out.No it doesn't. Each individual event has to be judged on its own with evidence and facts that relate to each event. Neither conspiracy to kill nor individual lone gunman plots require a paradigm shift in how we view the world. Each is possible. Each has happened in the past. So when something like this does happen, we must weigh the evidence for that event, not just say since conspiracies and/or lone gunmans happened in the past, it must be one of those. We have to go where the evidence leads us. And in this case, all the evidence points to Oswald firing 3 shots from his rifle from the 6th floor of the TSBD -- a building he was, undoubtedly, in that exact day at that exact time. There is NO evidence to the contrary. It's as simple as that.
Some folks just don't want to believe in complicated, "not just one bad apple" scenarios. They're scared to acknowledge what their government is capable of.I agree the government is bad. I don't trust the government. I agree the government can, has, and will continue to do bad things. But that doesn't mean the government is therefore automatically responsible for every bad event. Individuals can do bad things too. I accept Oswald as the lone gunman not because of anything the government says. I accept it due to all the objective facts and evidence. Facts and evidence that no one, not even the government, can manipulate or change. In this case, the government just so happens to be on the right side in their conclusion. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :-)
And while weâre on the subject⌠today marks the fiftieth anniversary of his assassination. I do agree with Roci that evidence clearly shows that Oswald was the only assassin. No government could keep a lid on contrary evidence for that long and not have a leak somewhere. And If it happened today a thousand cell phones would have caught the action, not to mention survaillance cameras on every light pole. No room for conspiracy theories in this age, except for the tin foil hat guys.
So, just a musing on a personal milestone, a âwhere weâre you whenâ post especially for the over 50 crowd. I was 15, a freshman sitting in French class listening to the teacher droning on about the conjugation of verbs in her lisping accent when the principal announced that the President had been killed. We were stunned, some girls teared up , the teacher sat down and just stared at us. We stared back, and sat there until the dismissal bell rang. Remember that we had also witnessed the Cuban Missle crises the October before and we all wondered if this was the end of the World. Everybody blamed the Russians. Then we watched Ruby shoot Oswald live on TV, at least I remember it as being live. Another shocker. Killing Kennedy changed our World; it made it more unstable. This was the guy that put us on the moon and now heâs dead. Now this generation has to cope with Columbine, Newtown, the Boston bombing, Aurora, ⌠. Makes you wonder about the next fifty years.
Capât Jack
I provided a link to an author who has evidence that contradicts the official story. Part of that evidence includes the fact that while Oswald did work there, he was not on the 6th floor at the time, and was in fact, as testified by two witnesses, in the cafeteria waiting for a phone call about him getting called into an operation in Mexico (he was a shady commando wannabe afterall). Other witnesses stated he was not seen in the stairways down either, at the time when he was supposed to be exiting the 6th floor. The same author, based on evidence released recently I think, indicated that the southern mod boss Marcello admitted while in prison, during a conversion to an FBI plant who was NOT asking about it, Marcello said to the effect âI had kennedy killed, but now I wish I had done the job myselfâ. Now I know exactly what the response to this will beâŚa long list of why that canât be, why itâs just CT crap, etc. Oh well.
I provided a link to an author who has evidence that contradicts the official story. Part of that evidence includes the fact that while Oswald did work there, he was not on the 6th floor at the time, and was in fact, as testified by two witnesses, in the cafeteria waiting for a phone call about him getting called into an operation in Mexico (he *was* a shady commando wannabe afterall). Other witnesses stated he was not seen in the stairways down either, at the time when he was supposed to be exiting the 6th floor. The same author, based on evidence released recently I think, indicated that the southern mod boss Marcello admitted while in prison, during a conversion to an FBI plant who was NOT asking about it, Marcello said to the effect "I had kennedy killed, but now I wish I had done the job myself". Now I know exactly what the response to this will be...a long list of why that can't be, why it's just CT crap, etc. Oh well.None of this is evidence Cuthbert. Its just a lot of hearsay written by someone who wanted to sell a book. If your book says the standard theory is true it doesnt sell as many copies as it would if you claim its all a big conspiracy. As far as the mob boss in prison claiming he did it, is this really a surprise. Criminals are as likely to brag about things they didnt do as they are to deny the things they did do. no surprises there and certainly not proof of anything.
With the lawsuit in the news about the gov releasing the final trove of Kennedy assassination docs, I thought Iâd revive this thread a little. I watched a documentary, canât for the life of me remember if it was Netflix or Prime, but it really opened my eyes. Spoiler alert - it provides support for the idea that in fact all the conspiracy theories are untrue, and that the truth is, it was an accident caused by the Secret Service. Obviously thatâs something theyâd want covered up at the time. Hereâs a story I found about the basic idea. If anyone knows the documentary reply here.
Doesnât make sense, in the tunnel seconds after first shots,
Or because cars slammed on breaks immediately after first shots.
What about Mrs. Kennedy, you donât think sheâd notice something like that?
Even after years of the memories rerunning themselves in her head.
Wouldnât a shot from an automatic rifle at that distance go through him at that angle and wind up in the car, or through the windshield?
If benign neglect of fulfilling oneâs security duties is an accident, then guess it could have been an accident.
I see a similar situation in the Bush/Cheney administration, who neglected their national security chiefs, because maybe a little incident, could become a big political tool.
Surprise, surprise, surprise when a self-fulfilling prophecy (perhaps, calculation is closer, itâs not like Oswald wasnât on the SSâs screen.), blows up ten times bigger than hoped for. Although in Kennedyâs case, one thing history has taught me is that there were actually surprisingly many special interest types, who were hoping someone would blow off Kennedyâs head. There is that.
I guess you misread the story. I wish I remembered the documentary, it was really compelling. The documentary at least doesnât say LHO did not fire shots. He did,but missed or maybe hit someone. But the fatal shot, after all the confusion started, was from a secret service guy in the trailing car. Afterall, theyâre on the ready with the weapons ready. A shotâs fired at the POTUS so of course the secret service springs into action, grabs his gun, etc. And of course Mrs Kennedy wouldnât notice anything like that with confusion reigning everywhere. You have to remember, back in those days the secret service folks were revered, and there was an aura of protection they provided. The country would have gone bananas if they found out it was an accident. Kinda like if we found out Jesus wasnât nailed to a cross and died there, but tripped on something and clunked his headâŚa little too âsmallâ of an explanation for the saviorâŚsimilarly for JFK who many adored almost AS a savior.
Ah I donât think I missed anything, your second comment is consistent with your first.
How can you say âof course.â
But she was there, holding the presidentâs head after it was flung into her lap.
What are you saying, just because she was a woman. she would, of course, lose her all senses and no longer absorb what was happening in the moment. I donât think so, she was aware enough to react and engage and then to get up turn and climb and to help a Secret Service guy climb onto the back of the car. Thatâs what was happening in the second after the first shot.
You saying her body/brain/senses wouldnât have noticed the difference between the shots coming for the building and a unmuffled shot coming from a couple dozen yard away?
Not to mention the decades of having that memory playing through her head?
For the record, she was more aware and sharper that all of todayâs Republican leaders put together.
Bananasâs how? Like you said they were revered, accidents happen, Toss enough PR at them, and theyâre good to goâŚ
Indeed they did. So what?
Beyond that, itâs sort of like looking up someoneâs scholarly paper and seeing that in fifteen years itâs been used as a citation a handful of times. Doesnât say much for the veracity of said paper.
Iâm aware of claims three shots were heard, all within a moment of each other. One canât quicken draw a rifle like ya can a revolver.
And the more I try to run such a scenario through my head, the more problems it runs into.
Needs evidence before it can rise above the (hearsay) of a lost documentary.
So youâre saying, you would keep a clear head and observe whatâs going on around you if heaven forbid shots were fired at your spouse while you were driving along? Um, I doubt it. And from your comment about âjust because sheâs a womanâ, oh brother. If thatâs the kind of thing that comes to mind for you then forget it, no sense trying to discuss with you. And same with bringing in Repubs. Ugg. Thatâs like the guy who when asked how he likes his new lawnmower, launches into a diatribe about global climate change. Double ugg. Sometimes the lawn in just the lawn.
Well okay. Mia Culpa.
But considering the Republican attitude towards woman, itâs not that crazy to wonder why I might have grabbed for that clump of mud.
I do stand by this comment
From what the Zapruder film shows, it sure looked like Mrs. Kennedy DID keep a clear head.
Also from that film, which I avoid like the plague, but have just viewed for your sake, the fatal shot happening within moments (well 9ish seconds) of the first shot, still, well before they got close to the tunnel.
Your ears pick up the sound of shots, your brain registers the sound, all while other aspects of your brain is dealing with other aspects of the moment.
Yes, I do believe the difference in the sounds from Oswaldâs rifle would sound significantly different, from a shot of a high powered rifle thatâs a few yards away.
Accidents donât get any freakier. Think about it. A stationary marksman aiming a rifle misses with his first shot, but a federal agent in a lurching car just happens to fire at the perfect up-down, left-right angle to hit Kennedy in the head? Isnât it much more likely that at least one of Donahueâs estimations was off-target?
No solid witnesses. McLaren makes a big deal of trusting witnesses, but more than 100 peoplethere that day thought shots came from the Book Depository or the infamous grassy knoll. No one claimed to see Hickey discharge his weapon directly at the president.
Hickeyâs car had two administration officials inside, and seven other Secret Service agents aboard, counting four on the running boards, while at least two Dallas motorcycle cops rode alongside. Behind them were more cars full of agents and officials. Yet no one was sure that Hickeyâs AR-15 was fired in Dealey Plaza? Kennedy aide Dave Powers said, âSomeone a foot away from me or two feet away from me couldnât fire a gun without me hearing it,â according to Mortal Error .
A coverup might produce such post-event denials, but what explains a lack of immediate reaction in the followup car? Wouldnât a trained agent have snatched the gun, or knocked Hickey down, in case he was a real assassin? Or to prevent this klutz from killing someone else?
Itâs dubious to use a gaping hole to calculate a trajectory. If Donahueâs trajectory is wrong, his whole theory falls apart.
Published Nov. 13, 2013 - By Peter Mucha, Philly.com.
Kennedy was great man, truly if he should of had 2 term he would of done more good for the world !
Indeed, I fully agree with that sentiment. To think a president that actually cared about people, that read books and mused on the thoughts of great men and so on.
Iâm convinced he would have also dealt with the Viet Nam thing much more sanely, before it snowballed into such an atrocity.
To have gone from Kennedy to Nixon, Reaganâs Hollywood facade, Bush, the big âDâ Cheney (greed and war are good for the economy), to the pinnacle of the Ugliest of Ugly Americans the Trumpster fire.
Still remember Hope is a survival strategy for hopeless times. 
1 Like