Well I think that the question says it all.

I urge people to talk about what they believe happened and who was involved. Anything, just try and have some credible evidence.

I started this thread per Nighttimer's post in another thread and it seemed like something we should debate her because I read an ABC poll that said 81% of Americans don't buy the government's story.

I'll give a few pages to get started:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sites.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/jfkconspiracy.

http://jfkennedy.8m.com/

http://www.jfk-online.com/nbctranscript.html

The thing that most stikes in my mind about the Kennedy assasination is the head wound itself. The wound in the back of his head definitely strikes me as an EXIT wound. That places the shooter in front of him, not in back. Also, I find the whole Ruby thing very interesting--what would be his motive if there weren't some sort of conspiracy (he didn't strike me as someone that politically motivated)?

However, I heard an interesting story tonight from one of the reporters that originally covered the story. Apparently, all the reporters of the event got together a few years ago, and hashed over their stories--many had done years of research on the subject. It ended up with someone suggesting they do a secret ballot as to whether any of them supported the conspiracy theory. Not a single one of them did.

I was ten years old when it happened. At the time, Dad was very suspicious of the Warren Commission Report, especially when Lyndon Johnson ordered the documents sealed until the year 2000, ostensibly to protect innocent people.

I remember seeing a report on television showing a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle. The expert who was examining it (I don't remember the name) pointed out that the shadows were wrong; the photograph had been "doctored."

I saw on CBS live television Jack Ruby come up to Lee Harvey Oswald and shoot him. Once again, scanty details to the public. It looked suspicious.

There were many possible organizations to suspect. Kennedy was Catholic; there was a segment of the population that believed that the Pope was going to be running things if Kennedy was elected. Robert F. Kennedy, as Attorney General, had incurred the wrath of J. Edgar Hoover. The mob was believed to be against the Kennedys. And Castro, against whom there had been unsuccessful assassination attempts by the CIA, was also suspected.

I don't know who finally did it or to what organization he was (they were?) tied. But it could have also been the angry husband or father of someone with whom Jack was playing around.

So many years have passed, and it still smells fishy...

something like 70% of people believe the official story is a lie. I have done plenty of target shooting myself, and when ever I hit a target, it tends to fall away from me (oranges, watermelons, cans, etc...) this makes me convinced that kennedy was shot from the FRONT. (JFK's head falls back and to the left, indicating the fatal shot cam from the came from the front) I have also read (sorry no link) that ladybird johnson recorded in her diary that LBJ was calm when the shots were fired. (ladybird johnson was a 50% stock holder of companiess that provided ammo dumps and such. she was profiting of the vietnam war, which kennedy was trying to get out of by '65, johnson stode to make millions. ) it has also been shown that in the summer of '63, kennedy and castro were talking PEACE. (according to the discovery-times channel)

The gun Oswald supposedly used was a bolt action, Italian war surplus rifle, a Mannlicher Carcano, nicknamed (in Italian) "the Humanitarian" for its lack of accuracy in World War II.

There were reportedly 3 shots fired, "bam, bam, bam" quickly, according to reports. Except a bolt action rifle would take longer to shoot. Also, the accuracy factor has to be taken into consideration. That was literally a long shot, a very difficult one even for an expert marksman.

This adds to the suspiciousness of the Warren Commission's findings.

(Edited to say: My dad suspected Lyndon Johnson, too.)

Fact 1: The Kennedy's were responsible for Marilyn Monroe's death.

Fact 2: There has been documentation of possible mafia involvement in Kennedy's death. Think Italian.

Fact 3: Marilyn's ex-husband who obviously still loved her at the time of her death was Italian. In his baseball career he struck out a mere 381 times while hitting 369 home runs nearly a homer for every strike out. He had an excellent eye. It was an Italian rifle and he was famous enough that he could move about without drawing suspicion.

Now that Joe D. is dead the truth can come out.

The fact is every conspiracy theory I have ever read I have also seen refuted. The sime rifle has been tested and shown quite capable of getting off three accurate shots in the time period involved. Testing also showed that Kennedy's head movement was also, due to the whiplash effect, a natural reaction to a shot from behind.

ABC News just did a two hour special on the JFK assassination (as I posted in that other thread...)

The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy

As Hugo said, every conspiracy theory has been disproven.

Not one credible evidence has come forth having first hand knowledge of any conspiracy.

The human body reacts to a gunshot in unpredictable ways. Ballistics experts will tell you that you cannot predict how someone is shot will react (due to muscle contractions and other factors). How can a person shot in the stomach fall toward the shooter? His stomach muscles contract, causing him to "hunch forward" and fall forward.

The autopsy, although poorly done, was consistent with an entrance wound in the back of the head.

The fact that people hated Kennedy does not mean that they would have him killed. Castro is on record as saying it would have been the stupidest thing to attempt, since the US military was itching for any excuse to invade Cuba. Why would he give them the excuse they needed? Castro did threaten US leaders for backing "terrorists who want to kill Cuban leaders" about a year before the assassination. But why would Castro use a known Cuban sympathizer (there was TV footage of Oswald handing out pro-Cuba propaganda on the streets), which would only allow the US military to flatten Cuba?

There have been hundreds of mobsters who rat on their bosses over the last 4 decades. However, not one has ever said that the mob was involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK.

If you believe it was the FBI or CIA, the question must be asked why subsequent administrations would not uncover the plot. Why would Nixon or Ford or the ever-so-honest Carter not expose such a heinous conspiracy? There is no evidence against the CIA or FBI and there never will be any (one way or the other). So to believe that, it must be on faith and not on hard evidence. There is no way to disprove an argument which has no evidence FOR it to begin with.

There is simply no evidence of a conspiracy in JFK's assassination. Now RFK, I haven't looked into as deeply.

Not surprising. A large percentage of people seem to find conspiracy theories of any kind convincing. This is from disinfo.com:


So, with something as controversial as this, of course some people believe in a consipracy. Doesn't mean it actually happened.


I have also done a lot of target shooting (competitively). And my brother is a homocide cop for a fairly large city. What you are forgetting, is that your oranges and watermellons are not attached to anything, the way a skull is attached to the spinal column. This attachment provides a "pivot point" and a whiplash effect, that when combined with damage done to nerves and muscles, could absolutely cause the effect seen in the Zapruder film. Nothing seen here is inconsistant with being shot from behind.

The other thing I hear most often, is that the back of Kennedy's head was blown out, proving "the shot from the front" theory. This is incorrect. A look at the Zapruder film, again shows that this just isn't the case.

Oswald is shooting at a target car that is pointing "down", as the road they were on slants downward to go under the overpass they are approaching. Kennedy's head is already tilted down as well, chin almost to his chest, from the first shot. The second shot hits him in the back of the head, and actually exits the top right of his skull, between the top of his right ear, and the orbital socket of his right eye. Again, totally consistant with a shot from the rear. Proof of this can be seen in a loop of the Zapruder film here. NOTE: This film clip in NOT for the faint of heart. Note the last couple of frames before the film loops again, however, and you will see what I am talking about. The top right-hand side of the President's head is gone, indicating an exit wound, caused from a shot from behind. And at this point, of course the President is already dead, his body just doesn't know it yet.

Anyway, the point I am making is that all of the evidence, forensic and film, is completely consistant with a sole shooting from behind, and not from in front. No conspiracy need be involved at all. Add to that all of the bullets recovered came only from Oswald's gun, and it's "case closed", at least for me.

For those of you who believe in primary source accounts, Lee Oswald's own brother has officially said on the Atlanta area news today that Lee did in fact committ the murder, and un-aided at that. He seemed one hudred percent confident that the clues in body language he received from his brother when he was first being held reveal that his attention starved brother Lee, put into an orphanage since age 3, was murdering the high-profile not for political reasons but for attention.

In Jim Garrison's book "On the Trail of the Assassins" he relates a meeting with a federal agent that got himself thrown into a Federal prison because he didn't want to be implicated in what he called 'project mongoose'. What he did was walk into a bank, fire a shot into the ceiling and walk outside and sat on the sidewalk. This was some kind of a paramilitary group planning to assassinate Castro, some think they ended up shooting Kennedy instead. There were two guns found at the school depository and at least one shot fired from the grassy knoll. Most of the wittnesses at the scene said that the shots came from there and there were two people arrested in the trainyard that look identical to Howard Hunt and Frank Struggis both of whom were key players in the Watergate scandle. Oswald was seen seconds after the shooting in a cafateria calmly drinking a coke.

There are good reasons why American's by and large do not believe the offical position of the Federal government, it just doesnt fit the facts. Lee Harvey Oswald not only didn't act alone, I doubt seriously that he even fired a shot.

I'm not sure where y'all have been for the past twenty-odd years, but is no one here familiar with the findings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979???

The House Committee was established in 1977 to "conduct a full and complete investigation and study of the circumstances surrounding the assassination and death of Martin Luther King, Jr." with "a subcommittee on the assassination of President Kennedy". two years later, they found, in both cases, evidence of a probable conspiracy. The twelve member Committe reached their conclusions with a support staff of over one hundred attorneys, research attorneys, investigators, and administrative personnel and with more evidence and resources than were available to the Warren Commission - and without the pressure to rush to judgement. This - the findings of the US Congress - is now the "official" version.

From their Report:
The Committee also found that, in the JFK assassination, "Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties" and that, in the MLK assassination, "The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation performed with varying degrees of competency and legality in the fulfillment of their duties".

Having read their report in full, the real "official version" is good enough for me. Yes, there were conspiracies in at least these two assassinations. How anyone can doubt the evidence - or have any faith whatsoever in the thoroughly discredited Warren Report at this point in history is beyond me.

The "accoustical" evidence has since been debunked. It was based on the fact that a motorcycle cop with an open radio microphone was in a particular place at a particular time. It has since been proved that he was not at the location specified by the accoustics "experts". The difference in locations puts him out of the range needed for the mic to have picked up the shots correctly, as well as a glitch in the dictabelt that recorded the sounds. That story (and the backing evidence) is here.

Jim Garrison was a delusional crackpot who saw conspiracies in just about everything. That story is found here. For proof of this assertion, here is a listing of all the people and organizations he considered part of the "plot" to kill JFK. He names practically everyone but me in this list (and probably would have named me, except that I was only 7 years old at the time).

And if Jim Garrison's evidence was so hot, why with everyone he implicated, was he only able to prosecute only one man, Clay Shaw, only to have a jury aquit him in less than an hour? Don't tell me, let me guess. The jury was in on the cover up too.


No, these stories, too, have been debunked. See here.



Then why were his the only fingerprints found on the rifle, including in spots that only he would have gotten them, like inside assembly points? Why only his fingerprints on the cartridges?

And if there were so many other shots being fired from different places that day, where is the evidence? No other casings were ever found, no other bullet fragments, other than from his rifle, anywhere in the car or persons shot?

Nothing whatsoever except the contention by a half dozen or so witnesses that shots were fired from the grassy knoll. Contentions that were disputed by others standing in the same area. And yet, they are to be believed above all the empirical evidence, because we know that eyewitness testimony is so accurate.

About the only "conspiracy theory" I have yet to see seriously proposed is that Abraham Zapruder, who filmed the assassination, was himself the shooter. But I'm sure someone out there will eventually try to prove this true, as well. Doesn't mean that it is, though.

Just to add to your excellent post....Here's a link for a bit about the eyewitness testimony.

The Mauser was described in testimony to the Warren Report.



Of course Weitzman was questioned about this but it was off the record. This is typical of the JFK inverstigation and the Carcano may well have been substituted for the Mauser.



Wietzman testimony

The conspiricy Garrison was trying to establish between Perry Raymond Russo, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw. Russo identifies Shaw as Clem Bertrem which was an alias Clay Shaw admitted to having used but the admission was thrown out. However he was positively identified by Russo.


Raymond Russo testimony

Its important to realize that he did prove a conspiricy and the crucial evidence that implicated Clay Shaw was never heard by the jury. The case against Shaw hinged on this fact and on the rare occasions that a jury disagrees with a judge in a criminal trial is usually over evidence that the judge threw out.

phaedrus,

Look at your own quotes a moment, concerning the rifle, will you? According to the first quote, Weitzman looked at the rifle closely. But I don't know who's saying this, because you don't give us the name of the person testifying.

Even so, look at the second quote, from Weitzman. He says it looked like a Mauser on first glance, and says nothing of inspecting the rifle closely. Nothing at all. Every time he talks about the rifle or the scope, he talks about what it looked like "at a glance". And this is from his original testimony link you provided:







So, since he was just seeing it "at a glance", and was also positive of the scope on it at the time, and turned out incorrect on that identification, isn't it also possible he got the exact make of the rifle wrong too? After all, the two weapons, if you've ever seen them, are remarkably similar, and the Mannlicher does use a Mauser-style bolt action.

So, who are you going to believe? Somebody else at the scene, or the guy who actually "glanced" at it?

Also, you say that this was all off the record? I think you are reading the transcript wrong. Anything said by them in the transcript is on the record. Anytime the court reporter stops their machine for "off the record" comments or discussions, it must be noted, to account for the fact that the court reporter was not taking testimony.

The questioner was required to account for the obvious stoppage in questioning to clarify a point, or whatever. You will note that there are two times that this is done in the transcript you provided. It's not the author telling you that these questions were off the record, but that other comments or whatever, were made off the record. Everything else you see there, is on the record, by the fact that they ask him to either wait for him to sign it, after it's transcribed, or to waive his signature, and let it go, as-is.

Your absolutly right, I forgot to cite the source of that qoute, my apologies. The qoute is from Roger Craig, Dallas Deputy Sheriff who was on the scence immediatly following the shooting. He was the subject of the Mark Lane documentary "Two Men in Dallas". You may be more familar with his documentary "Rush to Judgment". The source of the quote is from "When They Kill A President" by Roger Craig

Unpublished transcript of a man who did not change his story

He there with Weitzman when the rifle was discovered and identified it as a 7.65 German Mauser this was confirmed by one Capt. Fritz who examined the weapon as well. At this point an unknown officer came in and reported that Officer Tippit had been murdered and he places the time at 1:08 which would have only given Olwald a few minutes to cover the 10 blocks between the Depository and the murder scene. He also investigated the area around the grassy knoll and after wittnesses told him they believed the shots to came from there. In the parking lot beyond the picket fence he found a women in a parking lot that was reserved for Dallas Deputies. The parking lot was closed with a bar, chain and a lock that only Deputies authorized to park there had. He arrested her and had her car impounded. Later he found that her and her car could not be found and never had a explanation how the Dallas Sheriffs dept had lost both the woman and the car without so much as a search or even getting her name.

There is a great deal more to be learned from Roger Craig in this transcript, the investigation, the conspiricy, cover-up and the Garrison investigation. He is by far the most credible wittness from the actual shooting to the New Orleans investigation that eventually got him fired from the Dallas Sherriff's dept.. Between him and the Russco testimony in the trial of Clay Shaw I find the official position of the Federal Government and the Warren Commision to be completely unbeliveable.

And you still ignore the fact that Weitzman says he never looked at it closely. Why is that? Doesn't fit into the theory?

These people saying this and that is all fine, but when it doesn't jive with what other witnesses, like Weitzman say, who's to say who is actually right? In my mind, Craig is no more credible witness than Weitzman. Maybe less so, since Weitzman, whom everyone agrees saw the weapon, says he only had a quick glance at it. He never says anywhere in his testimony, at any time, that he inspected the weapon closely. So, he never changed his testimony either.

As for Tippit, according to the timelines I've seen, Oswald leaves the Depository building at 12:36 to 12:38pm. Tippit is shot and killed anywhere between 1:08 and 1:15pm, which gives Oswald 30 to 37 minutes to get to where Tippit was. Hardly a major chore. He walked seven blocks, got on a bus. It's only 12:42pm. When he realized the bus, because of the traffic jams caused by the shooting, was jammed up, he gets off the bus, and is seen doing so by his landlady.

He walks 4 blocks, and hails a taxi. Time now is 12:58pm. Oswald arrives at his rooming house at 1:02pm. Oswald leaves the rooming house a couple of minutes later. Tippit arrives on post. A few minutes later, he spots Oswald, as Oswald approaches the police car, and Tippit exits the vehicle. Oswald, identified by witnesses, is seen shooting Tippit. He then runs, leaving the scene. He ducks into a shoe store entrance, and then into the Texas theater. When he is captured there, he has the revolver on him that was used to kill Tippit.

It's absurd to say he couldn't have gotten that far in 30 minutes, when he obviously could. And then to have all kinds of witnesses see him arrive at his rooming house, leave again quickly, and shoot Tippit, follow him, and notify police, who capture him.

The timeline is totally doable.

Questions of the JFK Assassination by Bertrand Russell

Mauser affidavit, news conference and announcement...etc

Weitzman did change his story, and his ambiguise answer to the Warren commission was probable due to pressure to tow the party line. You may want to consider Craig's take on the events. Craig does not insist that Oswald did not shoot Tippit he simple contends that he had a get away car that Craig had seen earlier and reported, his main contention is that this by definition is a conspiracy.



Craig investigated the Grassy Knoll, Depository, arrested a woman who subsequently disappeared, was fired during the Garrison investigation, suggested that the Mauser was deliberately lost under sworn testimony and never changed his story once. I consider his credibility unimpeachable and Weitzman's questionable at best.

I was watching a documentary on The History Channel about LBJ and the Vietnam war. I go to the part where it was talking about the events that led up to the catalysm that started the war. Suddenly, the narrator said that LBJ was impatient and wanted to go to war in Vietnam and so on while Bobby Kennedy kept trying to tell him not to.

Anyways, i think LBJ was somehow part of the assassination of JFK because JFK really didn't want a war in Vietnam but LBJ did

I have always thought that it was Oswald acting alone; I think conspiracies about this are easy to come by - for one, conspiracy theories by nature are easy, because life is messy, and there are aways strange happenings, coincidences, and anomalies, and secondly, many people want to believe that there was something more, that this beloved figure couldn't have just been killed by one man, without some significant conspiracy.

Of course, now I know the truth - and I'm surprised no one has brought this up, because it's there in full color film: it was the Cigarette Smoking Man, shooting from that storm drain by the grassy knoll. Duh.

I grew up in the 70s and popular discussions were UFOs, bigfoot and the JFK conspiracy. Later in life I decided that UFOs were either a modern mythology or some kind of a military gadget and bigfoot was just a fun story to tell tourists and kids around a camp fire. For some reason the events on Nov 22, 1963 simply don't lend themselves to this kind of a conclusion. Its not that every single shred of conspiracy and cover-up have not been dealt with exaustivly, because they definitely have. 51 people in Delany Plaza have sworn for forty years now that they heard shots from the Grassy Knoll including the people closest to it. Craig arrested a woman in the parking lot above the Grassy Knoll and had the car impounded. The next day a prime suspect was lost without trace, explanation, or even a clue who she was. Two men arrested bear an uncanny resemblance to Howard Hunt and Frank Sturggis, compare photos from the Watergate scandal and the JFK assassination and they are identical.

Many people find it amusing when it is suggested that this could be the work of a protracted conspiracy with roots deep within the industrial military complex. Conspiracy theories, the thinking goes, like conspiracy buffs are the work of overactive imaginations and sloppy scholarship. Or perhaps just the effect of some misguided sentiment. Dismissing the very real possibility of a conspiracy, cover-up and complicancy is, in my opinion, naive. I'm aware that a fair amount of baseless speculation has been generated but the lone gunman theory makes about as much sense to me as Al Gore inventing the internet.

This evaluation of Craig's "stories" comes from mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm.

Statement Was he saying this in 1963-64? Evaluation
Was standing on Main Street near Dealey Plaza at time of shooting — heard three shots Yes Entirely plausible.
Saw officer running up Grassy Knoll Yes Supported by photographic evidence
Talked to Arnold Rowland who saw second man on 6th floor of Depository Yes Almost certainly true. Consistent with Rowland's testimony to Warren Commission.
Saw .45 slug in Dealey Plaza — with piece of Kennedy's head No Absolutely zero supporting evidence. Claim contradicts his own Warren Commission testimony, and the testimony of everyone else in the area..
Heard shrill whistle, saw Oswald run from direction of Depository and get into Rambler station wagon on Elm Street with dark complected man Yes Implies absurd escape scenario — both reliable testimony and a transfer found in Oswald's pocket show him to have been on a bus at this time.
Saw three hulls in Sniper's Nest — lined up an inch apart, all pointing in the same direction. Click here for illustration from video "Two Men in Dallas" No Flatly contradicted by officers who discovered Sniper's Nest. Hulls were photographed in place, and Deputy Luke Mooney marked photograph showing their locations.
Looked at his watch upon hearing of the Tippit shooting, and saw the time was 1:06 p.m. No Contradicted by other evidence, and by Craig's own 1968 interview.
Saw inscription "7.65 Mauser" on recovered rifle No Contradicted by testimony of all officers present — newsfilm at scene shot by Tom Alyea shows rifle to be Mannlicher-Carcano. Here is one frame from his 16 mm. film, and here is another. In 1968, Craig gave a contradictory account.
Confronted Oswald in Fritz' office — Oswald said Rambler was Mrs. Paine's station wagon Yes Contradicted by officers present in Fritz' office. Dallas Police documents show that Mrs. Paine's station wagon was a Chevrolet.
There were attempts on his life No No supporting evidence has been produced. If attempts described were real, they were extremely lame (end of quote)

A bit more on Craig's changing estimate of the time of the Tipett murder from the same site.

In When They Kill a President Craig claims that Tippit had to have been shot before 1:06.

At that exact moment [of the discovery of the rifle] an unknown Dallas police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 p.m. A token force of uniformed officers was left to keep the sixth floor secure and Fritz, Day, Boone, Mooney, Weitzman and I left the building.
The first problem with this is that the rifle was in fact discovered about 1:22 p.m. (7H109). Yet Craig describes the officer announcing the death of Tippit after the discovery of the rifle.
But another problem is the fact that this "1:06 p.m." account seems to be a late addition to his story. In the March 1968 Los Angeles Free Press is an interview with Craig and Penn Jones:

RC: Tippit went to Oak Cliff, and subsequently was killed. Why he went to Oak Cliff I can't tell you; I can only make an observation. He was going to meet somebody.
FP: Do you know what time he was killed?

RC: It was about 1:40 —

PJ: No, I think it was a little before 1:15.

RC: Was it?

PJ: Yes, Bill Alexander —

RC: Oh, that's right. The broadcast was put out shortly after 1:15 on Tippit's killer, and it had not been put out yet on Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy.

So Craig, rather than saying that he knew that Tippit had been killed before 1:06, estimates it was at 1:40 — and then accepts Penn Jones' correction that it was "a little before 1:15." (end of quote)

The man who never changed his story,eh? The man was quite a teller of tales. like most liars his stories tended to change.

Evidence on the Rifle

Looks like we'll have to "agree to dissagree" on this Phaedrus.

Hugo and I are not going to change our minds about Craig's lack of credibility, and his changing stories. You aren't going to change your mind about the two rifle theory. The only thing I can say about that, is that the one person everybody says got a good look at it when he pronounced it a "Mauser", denies having got a good enough look to authoritatively declare it as such. He says he made a mistake in his initial identification.

The only difference between the two rifles, physically, is the barrel diameter, so I can believe that he made a mistake in his identification, without further, close examination. And unlike a lot of people, I don't attribute to malice, that which can be explained by a mistake. After all, he also mis-identified the scope, with just a cursory look at the rifle.

And if all of the bullet fragments in the bodies and limosine match the Mannlicher that Oswald had, and so did the casings, somebody sure used that rifle to kill the president. Considering Oswald was in the building at the time, I'm going to have to need a lot more than the contradictory stories of Craig, and the rantings of Jim Garrison.

I never really expected you guys to come around to my way of thinking but I fail to see this supposed contradiction. What interview was this taken from?




Everyone, including the CIA, said that it was a Mauser and then changed it. The FBI was unable to duplicate the accuracy Oswald demonstrated with a rifle that was dubbed "the humanitarian" because it was so inaccurate. That's not my the ravings of a conspiracy nut, its from the WC report (notice the citation in the quote). Garrison's rant was about an association I have already described and the only reason Clay Shaw was not convicted was because his own admission that he was Clem Bertrand was thrown out. Four people were detained and released in connection with the assassination of the President of the United States and no one even bothers to get their names? That dog don't hunt. The eye witnesses including the Dallas Police officer following the motorcade said they heard the shot from the Grassy Knoll. Not one or two but 51.

Think what you like but something was rotten in Denmark, this wasn't just an assassination it was a coup.

What about this?

JFK's killing is a case closed, ABC News says

October 28, 2003







DAVID BAUDER
ASSOCIATED PRESS




ABC News has conducted an exhaustive investigation of the Kennedy assassination, complete with a computer-generated reconstruction, which irrefutably confirms that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, the network said Monday.

A two-hour special about the event is scheduled to air Nov. 20, two days before the 40th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's killing.

"It leaves no room for doubt," said Tom Yellin, executive producer of the special, narrated by Peter Jennings. He called the results of ABC's study "enormously powerful. It's irrefutable." (end of quote)

It is amazing how these conspiracists were able to foresee new technologies 40 years in the future and still make it look like ole Lee did it.

Its amazing that these lone gunman theorists can baffle so many with special effects so easily. I'll see what I can find on the report but I think I've allready seen the animation simulation and while I find it entertaining it lacks substance. Case closed? I need more then fancy graphics to buy this.

A bit more from mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms.htm

Factoid: The rifle recovered on the sixth floor of the Depository was in fact a Mauser, and not a Mannlicher-Carcano, such as Oswald owned.
The recovery of the rifle was filmed by Tom Alyea of WFAA-TV, and his footage shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher-Carcano. Here is one frame from his footage, and here is another. In fact, a Mannlisher-Carcano could easily be mistaken for a Mauser.


Factoid: Oswald's rifle had a "hair-trigger" and would have been very difficult to fire accurately.
The rifle did not have a "hair-trigger," and could indeed be fired accurately.


Factoid: Oswald had to have taken time to wipe the prints off the rifle, making it impossible for him to have made it downstairs soon enough for his confrontation with Officer Baker.
There were in fact two smudged prints on the trigger guard of Oswald's rifle, and the wooden parts of the gun were too rough to take prints. It is not, in fact, very common to find usable fingerprints on firearms used in crimes.


A few more refuted "facts" from the same site:

Factoid: The Mannlicher-Carcano was inaccurate.
Ronald Simmons, of the Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory, bench tested Oswald's rifle for the Warren Commission, and found the dispersion to be .29 mils — a figure typical for high-powered rifles — and described it as "quite accurate" (3H442-443).


Factoid: Commission Exhibit 399 (the "magic bullet") is "pristine."
In fact, the bullet is quite misshapen when viewed end-on.


Factoid: Even if it is not pristine CE399 could not have caused all the non-fatal wounds and emerge in such good condition.
Ballistics tests by Lattimer and Fackler showed that a bullet like Oswald's round could inflict damage similar to what the Warren Commission's "Single Bullet" inflicted and emerge in similar condition. (end of quotes)

A lot of debateable "facts" presented by conspiracy theorists.

I am certainly no expert on the JFK assassination but theres just been a documentary on the bbc about the JFK assignation and it seems goes a long way to proving that Oswald did indeed kill him. Unfortunately there is no in depth report complementing the documentary but here’s a link to what there is so you can catch it if its ever sent over the pond. JFK Documentary

The basics as I remember them are:

The rifle used was easily capable of firing three shots in eight seconds. To demonstrate this they had an 89 year old man fire off three shots even pausing to take longer over firing the third bullet.

LHO wasn't a bad marksman. On the contrary his rifle range records show that he was an excellent shot. The shooting of JFK was well within his limits.

The magic bullet theory isn't needed. The passenger in the front was sat lower and to the left of the president which means that where the bullet ended up was completely consistent with being fired from the book depository. Also JFK was turned to his left which explains the entry wound.

Staying with the magic bullet theory the type of bullet used was designed to be highly penetrating. It was cased in a material which prevented the bullet from being damaged too much. And there was some damage to the tip of the bullet from when it broke the passenger’s wrist. Also don't forget that the bone it broke was a very thin one and wouldn't have done much damage to the bullet anyway. The markings on the bullet created by it's travelling down the barrel of the rifle are exactly the same as those on the test bullet fired from the same weapon.

The government in a bid to help clear up the conspiracy theories has released over 4,000,000 pages of documentation relating to the assasinantion.

The programme doesn't try to explain the motives but the evidence supporting the claim that LHO kill JFK does seem pretty conclusive.

It wasn't my quote, Phaedrus, but I looked it up. The interview was done by the Los Angeles Free Press, March 28, 1968. The reporter interviewed Penn Jones and Roger Craig, concerning their actions on the day of the shooting, and their belief in a conspiracy. And I think it shows rather clearly that Craig's story changes as it suits him, until he is confronted with the actual facts.

NiteGuy, Notice the hesitation, the exact time was not an issue. There is nothing in the context to indicate that the change in time suited some alterior motive. The actual fact is that when a cop is killed exact times are confirmed and Oswald was blocks away just minutes before the shooting. Craig was trying to remember the exact time, he wasn't trying to fashion an answer to suit the context of the question. You are implying alterior motive, what motive could he possibly have?



mule, The facts are not conclusive in this case or the Warren Commision would have concluded that a notoriously inaugurate rifle could not have done what it was supposed to do. First off, the scope was not set. The FBI told the WC that it could not even be set, without shims. Second, the FBI could not duplicate LHOs accuracy and they promptly reported it to the WC. The case is far from closed but, thanks for the link.



Hugo, a muzzle loaded squirrel gun is quite accurate in the hands of someone who knows what he is doing. I qualify on the M-16 once a year and I'll tell you the truth, if the sights are not set right you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from inside, let alone fire with the precision that LHO was supposed to have had.

The Conspiricy is clear even if some of the details are sketchy, and thats only because the cover-up distorted the facts.

Just because you couldn't do it, Phaedrus, only shows that you couldn't do it. Once a year to qualify is a lot different from being truly proficient with a weapon. As you say, a muzzle loader could have done the job, if the person using it was an expert. it has been shown time and again, that Oswald was an expert marksman. And he had the rifle plenty long enough to have gotten proficient with it.

I do competitive shooting with both handguns and rifle. I practice a lot. I daresay I could have done this shooting without the need of a scope in plenty of time. And so could Oswald. One of the sets of shooting tests done was using the iron sights on the rifle, and not the scope. The verdict was that in these tests, the shooter did no better, but no worse than the guys that tested with the scope.

The weapon in question had a scope, unless Oswald was used to shooting without ajusting the sights. The question of the use of the iron sights is mute since Oswald obviously had one. Unless the weapon was a plant, or Oswald was in the caffateria drinking a coke while this was going on.

A CNN story today discusses the Kennedy assassination with Dr. Robert Grossman, the neurosurgeon who was present when Kennedy was brought to the hospital after the shooting.



Just thought that would be another interesting piece of information...

No one has yet agreed with my stance that it was the CSM, in the storm drain, with the rifle.

Hmm. I'm generally all for accusing the right-wing of conspiring to do, really, everything bad that happens, but, its not as if there must have been a conspiracy.

Lee Harvey Oswald was a socialist, a "Revolutionary Marxist" specifically (like, Castro, Ho, and the Sandinistas). Perhaps he was just doing his patriotic duty to Cuba by killing the man who was trying to murder the leader of his movement?

Jack Ruby loved Kennedy and his family and thought of himself as a patriotic American. Perhaps he was just doing his patriotic duty to his country by killing the man who was accused of murding the leader of his country?

Couldn't both of these people have more or less been self-motivated assassins? What if Lee Harvey Oswald had a friend who shot Kennedy from a different angle and got a way, anouther American Castro supporter (which would have been a less than satisfying conspiracy of two people).

I'm sure its possible that the CIA or whomever had Kennedy killed, but I don't see any reason why the goverment explaination couldn't be correct, or close to correct.

My feelings are that Lee Oswald was set up to be the patsie for the killing of JFK.

There are just too many question left unanswered concerning how many bullets were shot and how many hit JFK, and from what angle.

There were so many groups that could have wanted JFK dead.

My own belief is that LBJ and J Edgar Hoover were involved.

I still want to know why the Zapruder film shows LBJ sticking his fingers in his ears right before the shots . What lunacy, there is film of the rifle when it was discovered. It was the same rifle Oswald owned..

Pictures and evidence are mute, real evidence has been ignored, marginalized, and fabricated. Points left unaddressed in the thread bear meantioning:

• There is also a picture of two hobos that ended up involved in the Watergate scandle. Three people were taken into custody in the investigation of the assassination of the President of the United States and they don't even get their names, fingerprints or a statement.
• Oswald did not take the bus, because he had a getway car, the same way the other conspiritors did which to my count is at least 5 on the scene immediatly following the shooting in the same parking lot and no one is even slightly concerned about this.
• Clay Shaw was overheard plotting the assassination and retained an attorney for Oswald, under an alias he admitted that he used. Again this is ignored.

It was at the very least a conspiricy and probably even a coup. There's a reason why so many people do not believe the Lone Gunnman theory, they don't believe it because it's obviously bogus.

The three tramps were arrested and booked. Dallas police records recorded their names as Harold Doyle, Gus Abrams and John Gedney. Gedney and Doyle are still alive and have stated they were at a local rescue mission the night before and were sleeping in a railroad car when arrested.

Clay Shaw was never overheard talking about a plot to kill JFK and he never arranged an attorney for Oswald. More Garrison garbage....

The bus driver and his ex-landlady who was on the bus identified him. He also had the dated/timed transfer on him when he was arrested....

GDR, You made two releativly interesting points about the bus driver and the hobos. The fact that two of these guys you claim to know the names of, look identical to Howard Hunt and Frank Struggis, probably doesn't interest you. More to the point, I'd like to know where you get your information? I'm not trying to be facitious, just asking, what are your sources for this. A Dallas police report with fingerprints would do it for me.

Now this buisness Clay Shaw's association with Oswald should not be dismissed too easily, there is a great deal more to this then two sentences can cover.



What can I say to this except, did to, did to, and thats your opinion. What follows is from his last in depth interview on the subject of what he knew about the relationship of Oswald, Shaw and the anti-Castro Cubans.



The Last Testement of Perry Russo

There are photos of the bus transfer ticket and eyewitness testimony by the bus driver.

A bit from totse.com

At the time of Oswald's arrest he had a bus transfer in his pocket. He admitted this was given to him by the bus driver when he rode the bus after leaving the building. One of the officers told me that a cab driver, William Wayne Whaley, thought he had recognized Oswald's picture as the man who had gotten in his cab near the bus station and rode to Beckley Avenue. I asked Oswald if he had ridden a cab on that day, and he said, "Yes, I did ride in the cab. The bus I got on near where I work got into heavy traffic and was traveling too slow, and I got off and caught a cab." I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said he remem- bered that when he got in the cab a lady came up who also wanted a cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another cab."

The evidence that Oswald took the bus is irrefutable. Craig's story on the make and color of the car Oswald supposedly got in also changed.

From "Inside the Garrison Investigation:The Thomas Bethel Diary

When Billings had finished telling me this, I started to say, "Well, that means that Sciambra..." when he interrupted me: "Sciambra's a liar," he said. He added that he considered that Sciambra was the most dangerous person in the office, because he was, among other things, stupid. I am forced to agree. It now looks as though there is no alternative to the clear cut conclusion that Clay Shaw is completely innocent. It is now clear that the sodium pentothal and hypnotism sessions which intervened between the meeting in Baton Rouge and Russo's testimony at the Preliminary Hearing were used not to "objectify" Russo's testimony, as Garrison claims, but to elicit it.

It is of course still conceivable to argue that the hypnotism, etc. was necessary to get Russo to recall what did in fact happen, and that he was unable to recall events through the unaided use of his memory, but this is clearly grasping at straws. The simpler hypothesis (Occam's Razor) is that his testimony was suggested to him. The transcripts of the hypnotism sessions very much bear this out, incidentally. Billings remarked that he was appalled at the extent to which Russo was "prepared" as a witness before testifying. As he said, it ought not to have been necessary, if only because Russo's original story -- seeing Ferrie and Shaw together once -- was by itself interesting enough. But he was finally so prepared by hypnosis, etc., that he reached a point where he was no doubt unable to distinguish between what he had originally recalled and what had been suggested to him. (I am prepared to believe that by now Russo is genuinely unable to make this distinction.)

Billings pointed out a further conflict. When Russo first said he saw Shaw and Ferrie together at the gas station he said it was before the assassination. When Billings later interviewed Russo he had changed this to after the assassination, which was more in harmony with the facts, because Ferrie did not get the gas station (from Carlos Marcello) until ‘64 or ‘65. Billings also said that he was having dinner with Garrison, Sciambra, and Russo on the night of Feb 26th, I think, and at one point the name Bertrand came up. The name meant nothing to Russo because he said, "Bertrand, who is that?" or words to that effect.

Shaw was arrested on Wednesday, March 1, 1967. Billings has a clear record of the events which led up to this arrest, and he briefly outlined them to me. (Billings evidently has a very good memory, because he was able to rattle off exact times and dates without looking anything up.) Basically, the sodium pentothal session and the hypnotism sessions intervened between the Sciambra interview and the arrest. Billings said that after Garrison heard of Russo's amplified testimony by these means, he demanded the immediate arrest of Shaw, right on the street as he came out of his house. (Shaw's house was being staked out at the time.) Garrison's assistants demurred at this, however, especially in view of the presence of a Life reporter. They insisted that Shaw be brought in to the office. Garrison acquiesced, Shaw came to the office and requested an attorney when they started talking about taking a lie detector test or sodium pentothal, or undergoing hypnotism. The lawyer arrived and he requested a delay of one day before taking the lie-detector test. At this point Garrison ordered the arrest of Shaw. I had been told earlier by someone in the office that Shaw's somewhat precipitate arrest was motivated by this consideration: that if he had been allowed to return to his apartment he would undoubtedly have destroyed whatever incriminating evidence there may have been there. (Snag is, Shaw had already been brought in to the DA's office for questioning on Dec 23, 1966, and asked if he had ever used the name Clay Bertrand. Presumably he would have destroyed the evidence at that time, if there had been any.)

Thus, Billings leaves me with no alternative but to conclude that there was no basis for Shaw's arrest. I note the following three points: 1. At the time of Shaw's arrest there was only one witness against him -- Perry Russo. 2. Russo's testimony is not credible when considered in the light of Phelan's and Billing's criticisms. 3. Dean Andrews, the only person who ever claimed to know who Bertrand was, says Shaw is not Bertrand, and there is no reason to assume that Andrews is "protecting" Shaw other than by making an ad hoc assumption to that effect. (I notice that people who want to believe that Shaw is guilty do make this assumption.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a series of articles for the Chicago Daily News, Richard Billings outlined the story of the Garrison investigation. He confirmed that Sciambra failed to mention any "assassination party" in Russo's testimony in Baton Rouge. Billings also told author Edward Jay Epstein that Sciambra's oral account to Garrison matched the Sciambra Memo, but failed to mention the "assassination party" that later became the key part of Russo's testimony. See Epstein's The Assassination Chronicles (New York, 1992), p. 281.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And a bit about Perry Russo from a memo by Sergeant Edward O'Donnel after he interviewed Mr. Russo.

I then told him, you know the questions that I intend to ask you during this test, is there anything you would wish to clarify with me. I then asked him was Clay Shaw at this party, he replied do you want to know the truth, I stated yes, he said I don't know if he was there or not. I told Perry that Shaw was the type of a man that if you were to see him, he would stand out in your mind and I asked him if he would give me a no or yes answer to this question. He stated that if he had to give a yes or no answer, he would have to say no. I then asked him why he went into court and positively identified Shaw as being at this party at David Ferrie's apartment. He stated that Dymond turned him on. The first question Dymond asked me was, do I believe in God. This is an area which I am highly sensitive about. He further stated that prior to going to the preliminary hearing, he was going to state that he did not know if Clay Shaw was at this party or not at this party. He was then asked if this conversation he heard at Dave Ferrie's apartment sounded like a legitimate plot to assassinate Kennedy. He stated, no it did not, it appeared to him like another bull session, like they were always having. He stated that quite frequently he and other people would sit around discussing such topics as the perfect murder or ways of defrauding insurance companies and getting away with it, but this doesn't mean that they would actually do such a thing. He was then asked to describe the conversation which he heard at David Ferrie's apartment and he stated that this was very vague in his mind and at this time he could not say who was saying what. He then expressed a desire to me to meet with Clay Shaw. I asked him what reason he would want such a meeting and he stated he would like to talk to Clay Shaw to size him up to determine if he was the kind of a person that would take part in such a plot. He then expressed a desire to me to know the contents of Mr. Garrison's complete case against Shaw. I asked him why he wanted to know this and he stated this would help him to come to a decision. I then told him that regardless of what Mr. Garrison has or does not have, he should make his own decisions after examining his conscience and determining what the truth is. He then asked me if he could leave and that he would call me later on in the week and he would come back by himself and I could go ahead with the test. I agreed to this and took him outside into the Traffic Office, where he met Mr. Sciambra. I then went upstairs to the District Attorney's Office, where I met Mr. Garrison and Assistant District Attorney Mr. Alcock and informed them of this interview and what I had learned while conducting this interview. (end of quotes)

Mr Russo seems about as credible as Mr. Craig.

Hugo, excellent retort. I have to admitt that the evidence for a conspiracy is weak but I don't think its a question of credibility. Garrison didn't have much of a case and Russo seemed to change his story from time to time depending on who he was talking to. Still, I find it impossible to accept that Oswald acted alone.

I was considering the magic bullet theory as another point but I don't think the truth about what actually happened will ever come out.