Oswald's Ghost

[DroppinScience]

I'm a tad ticked I missed this PBS special from the "American Experience" series. Click the preview.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/oswald/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWbuw05cGlg

Oh well, I may catch it on DVD at the library sometime.

Anyone see it, though?

[Schmeltz]

Hmmm... any relation between Robert and Oliver?

[DroppinScience]

Hmmm... any relation between Robert and Oliver?

Oliver (Stone) and Robert (Kennedy)? :confused:

[Schmeltz]

No, mang! Robert Stone and Oliver Stone!

Damn, I guess that was even cornier than I thought.

[DroppinScience]

No, mang! Robert Stone and Oliver Stone!

Damn, I guess that was even cornier than I thought.

Oh, whoops!

Well, I don't think the intent of the documentary is to push a belief that there WAS a conspiracy (of whatever players you subscribe to), but outlying the conditions that allow such thoughts (whether they're true or not) to fester. But I didn't watch the documentary, so I wouldn't know. :(

[Randetica]

who shot oswald

[DroppinScience]

who shot oswald

Jack Ruby killed him.

[Randetica]

Jack Ruby killed him.

wow i think youre right!
after all these years you finally lifted the myth

you will be famous in no time!

[DroppinScience]

wow i think youre right!
after all these years you finally lifted the myth

you will be famous in no time!

Case closed and shit, biatches. :cool:

But seriously, thoughts on the effect of conspiracy culture in this post-JFK age?

[Schmeltz]

So far as I can tell, the main "effect" of conspiracy culture has been to fill the internet with the kind of garbage ericg used to spam all over the place, to the detriment of more serious discussion.

[QueenAdrock]

Oh well, I may catch it on DVD at the library sometime.


:mad::mad::mad:

[Documad]

I started to watch it but soon lost interest. The production quality seemed poor compared to similar shows I've seen on PBS. I didn't hang in long enough to hear anything new, but they were apparently going to explain something about his mom.

[Carlos]

:-)

spose it didn't make the news in the US. but Italian scientists and army did tests on the gun used by Oswald: it's official he couldn't have been workin alone.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/06/29/italian_experts_test_jfk_assassination_gun/1113/

but hey it's only science, which happens to fall under a nebulous label as conspiracy theory... so feel free to throw it on that a prior basis; that any CT must be bull... no matter what empirical evidence is found. :D

[DroppinScience]

Oh no, Carlos! And I thought the conspiracy theorists were taking a rest. :rolleyes:

Anyways, right now I'm reading Vincent Bugliosi's (http://www.reclaiminghistory.com/) Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/books/review/Burrough-t.html?ref=books), which is a 1600-page book (with a CD-ROM of ANOTHER 1000 or so pages of endless endnotes and sources) that seeks to counter and refute every single conspiracy theory angle (i.e. CIA, KGB, LBJ, Castro [pro- and/or anti-Castro exiles], right-wing groups, mob, Secret Service, military industrial complex, FBI, etc. etc.) to show that Oswald and only Oswald acted alone.

Now, I've only read the first 250 pages and he hasn't directly addressed the conspiracy theorists yet (something he doesn't do until the last half of the book or so), but reading his introduction alone, there's already enough stuff to show that there isn't much substance with the CT's.

Now, I want to read what he says about the theories for myself and deduce what's what with the assassination before I really feel like getting into it here (which I'll probably make a thread about it somewhere waaaaaaaaaaaay down the line), but it ALREADY feels like it's obvious there was no real conspiracy, and any conspiracy is more our desire to believe that Kennedy died for something much larger, and not that he died from a random killer and nothing more.

[Documad]

Quote from DS's article: "Worse, his research originated with an imaginary trial of Lee Harvey Oswald on British television in the halcyon days of the 1980s. Bugliosi prosecuted. Judge Wapner should’ve presided. Gerry Spence mounted the defense, lost, then vented to Arsenio Hall. Or maybe it was Pat Sajak."

This is one of those things in my life that I think about occasionally and I wonder whether it's true because I can't back it up.

I remember seeing a TV trial about the JFK assassination with Bugliosi v. Spence as attorneys. I remember that my dad was the biggest Spence fan and my mom was the biggest Bugliosi fan before this thing was on TV so they were primed. I remember it being broadcast on HBO. I remember it being broadcast for about 3-4 nights in a row. I swear that Oswald's wife testified. I remember Spence winning and Bugliosi being horrified. Every so often I look for a record of this because you would think that with the whole internet, someone would post a tape of it, right?


There was also a trial regarding the death of Biko. That was much better. I think it was also on HBO. And I sort of liked the Chicago 8/7 trial that they did too.

[DroppinScience]

Quote from DS's article: "Worse, his research originated with an imaginary trial of Lee Harvey Oswald on British television in the halcyon days of the 1980s. Bugliosi prosecuted. Judge Wapner should’ve presided. Gerry Spence mounted the defense, lost, then vented to Arsenio Hall. Or maybe it was Pat Sajak."

This is one of those things in my life that I think about occasionally and I wonder whether it's true because I can't back it up.

I remember seeing a TV trial about the JFK assassination with Bugliosi v. Spence as attorneys. I remember that my dad was the biggest Spence fan and my mom was the biggest Bugliosi fan before this thing was on TV so they were primed. I remember it being broadcast on HBO. I remember it being broadcast for about 3-4 nights in a row. I swear that Oswald's wife testified. I remember Spence winning and Bugliosi being horrified. Every so often I look for a record of this because you would think that with the whole internet, someone would post a tape of it, right?


There was also a trial regarding the death of Biko. That was much better. I think it was also on HBO. And I sort of liked the Chicago 8/7 trial that they did too.

Well, Bugliosi discusses the TV trial a little bit in the introduction to his book and says that it was THE closest thing to a trial on Oswald that one could get without having to dig up his grave and bring him back from the dead and testify on the witness stand (which would have been no guarantee to happen even if he had lived to be put on trial). Anyways, they got as many witnesses (who also testified before the Warren Comission) as they could get and it was Bugliosi who "won" the trial (finding Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) because when one actually examines the evidence, it becomes obvious to anyone that Oswald was guilty.

If I finish the book within the next 100 years, I'd love to discuss it properly. :p

[saz]

nominated for a pulitzer prize, nuclear physicist david s. lifton's best evidence: disguise and deception in the assassination of john f. kennedy (http://www.amazon.com/Best-Evidence-Signet-David-Lifton/dp/0451175735) is the preeminent work on the jfk assassination. lifton conducted fourteen years of research and his book is a necessary read on this subject.

in addition, as a firm believer in science, the "magic bullet theory" made a complete mockery of the laws of physics and the fact that the warren commission sold this ridiculous explanation to the world reeks of unadultered patronizing bullshit. sorry, but a single bullet does not stop in mid air, change direction, zig zag all over the place, then miraculously emerge completely undamaged.

anyways, i'm convinced that oswald did not fire a single shot that day, was a "patsy" as he claimed to be, and that we'll never know the truth about jfk's assassination. what i am sure of though is that organized crime simply did not have the power, reach, influence, resources, or balls to conduct such a complex operation.

[Documad]

Well, Bugliosi discusses the TV trial a little bit in the introduction to his book and says that it was THE closest thing to a trial on Oswald that one could get without having to dig up his grave and bring him back from the dead and testify on the witness stand (which would have been no guarantee to happen even if he had lived to be put on trial). Anyways, they got as many witnesses (who also testified before the Warren Comission) as they could get and it was Bugliosi who "won" the trial (finding Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) because when one actually examines the evidence, it becomes obvious to anyone that Oswald was guilty.

If I finish the book within the next 100 years, I'd love to discuss it properly. :p

Oooooh. I remember now! When they showed it on American TV -- again I think HBO -- there was a phone poll and the American TV audience voted in favor of there being a conspiracy. That's what bothered him. I suspect that the jury heard more evidence and got to see witnesses close up, so maybe that helped. Plus Spence gave a terrific closing argument. :)

[DroppinScience]

in addition, as a firm believer in science, the "magic bullet theory" made a complete mockery of the laws of physics and the fact that the warren commission sold this ridiculous explanation to the world reeks of unadultered patronizing bullshit. sorry, but a single bullet does not stop in mid air, change direction, zig zag all over the place, then miraculously emerge completely undamaged.

anyways, i'm convinced that oswald did not fire a single shot that day, was a "patsy" as he claimed to be, and that we'll never know the truth about jfk's assassination. what i am sure of though is that organized crime simply did not have the power, reach, influence, resources, or balls to conduct such a complex operation.

Okay, maybe I shouldn't be properly talking about this subject until I actually finish the Bugliosi book, but I can't resist. Before starting to read this book, my extent into the JFK conspiracy world is mostly just the JFK movie (and the documentaries on the DVD itself) and snippets of the documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" off of YouTube, but I'll bite on the "magic bullet theory."

Okay, from what I know so far is Bugliosi is arguing there isn't a "magic bullet theory," but there is a problem of understanding the positioning of the Kennedy motorcade when conspiracy theorists discuss the magic bullet. The theorists say that we are told to believe that one of the bullets zigagged around from Kennedy to Governor Connally who is sitting directly IN FRONT of Kennedy. NOT TRUE. Connally is sitting in front of Kennedy, but he's angled a bit TO THE LEFT of Kennedy. If Connally was indeed directly in front of him, the trajectory of the bullet wouldn't make sense. However, since Connally is angled to the left, the path of the bullet makes sense, it's got nowhere else to go. Oh, and the bullet didn't come out in pristine condition. There's pictures in Bugliosi's book of the "magic bullet" and it's pretty banged up.

Bugliosi has brought up an excellent point that though the Warren Commission is consistently attacked for being a "whitewashing," the vast majority of the commission critics haven't even read it. Makes sense. You probably should read it before you throw stones at it, methinks.

And I'd hardly call Kennedy's assassination a "complex operation." Three bullets from a $12 mail-order rifle isn't really a sophisticated plot. Would you then call the Lincoln, McKinley assassinations and the Reagan assassination attempt (all the work of lone gunmen) complex intricate plots? Hardly.

And this has been something I've been sure of even when I bought into JFK conspiracy theories. Just because Oswald said he was a patsy, doesn't mean he was one. Can't take him at his word since he was a compulsive liar during his interrogation. The guy was playing to the media and lying at the police station to gain sympathy, saying they wouldn't let him shower, wouldn't let him reach a lawyer (they advised him constantly on getting a lawyer and helped him try to contact John Abt, an ACLU lawyer who was continuously unreachable throughout that weekend). All not true. They interrogated him on ownership of the rifle and photos of him with the rifle and his forged Selective Service cards (very pitiful forgeries, I may add). On the first day alone, the Dallas Police Department pretty much amassed glaringly obvious evidences of guilt. There was at least 50 things that pointed to his guilt, yet only in the conspiracy world can a man have so much guilt collected against him and STILL be innocent. It doesn't wash.

And if the CIA or mob or anyone else was REALLY behind the plot, they did a bungled job of it. If it REALLY was him, the moment after the assassination, there'd be a car waiting for Oswald to pick him up and rive him somewhere very far away (and likely it'd have lead to his death) before they'd let their guy fall in the hands of the police. Instead, he was catching buses and cabs out of there, shot a police officer and was apprehended in a movie theater. This is CLUMSY action and not the work of a grand plot.

I know all this just from reading 250 pages. I can only imagine what else is in store for me in the next 1300 pages (not including the endnotes).

[saz]

Okay, maybe I shouldn't be properly talking about this subject until I actually finish the Bugliosi book, but I can't resist. Before starting to read this book, my extent into the JFK conspiracy world is mostly just the JFK movie (and the documentaries on the DVD itself) and snippets of the documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" off of YouTube, but I'll bite on the "magic bullet theory."

Okay, from what I know so far is Bugliosi is arguing there isn't a "magic bullet theory," but there is a problem of understanding the positioning of the Kennedy motorcade when conspiracy theorists discuss the magic bullet.

so i'm in "conspiracy theorist"? thanks.


The theorists say that we are told to believe that one of the bullets zigagged around from Kennedy to Governor Connally who is sitting directly IN FRONT of Kennedy. NOT TRUE. Connally is sitting in front of Kennedy, but he's angled a bit TO THE LEFT of Kennedy. If Connally was indeed directly in front of him, the trajectory of the bullet wouldn't make sense. However, since Connally is angled to the left, the path of the bullet makes sense, it's got nowhere else to go. Oh, and the bullet didn't come out in pristine condition. There's pictures in Bugliosi's book of the "magic bullet" and it's pretty banged up.

first of all, please stop refering to those who believe in science and disregard ridiculous theories that make a mockery of the law of physics as a "theorist". those who argue in favour of, and the plausibility of the "magic bullet theory" are in fact the "theorists" themselves.

second, bugliosi, or anyone else for that matter who attempts to explain away this preposterous theory can do as they like, but it's somewhat troubling when they attempt to re-write history. so, governor connally was angled a bit to the left of kennedy now? yeah (http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3309225.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=BAA3E61C514E7EC6099902A83BBBE059A55A1E4F32AD3138 ) okay (http://www.wired.com/images/article/wide/2007/06/jfk_wide.jpg), sure (http://www.cdo.co.uk/jfk/wiki/images/d/de/Kennedy_Motorcade.jpg).

oh, and although the bullet may not have emerged in pristine condition, it is the furthest thing from being "pretty (http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/magicbullet.jpg) banged up (http://www.fiftiesweb.com/kennedy/magic-bullet.jpg)". the bullet resembles a much more pristine condition, as opposed to being banged up.

i'm sorry, but bullets do not change direction in mid-air, and operate to the extent that it has a mind of its own (http://www.nachtkabarett.com/ihvh/img/nkkennedy_magicbullet.jpg).


Bugliosi has brought up an excellent point that though the Warren Commission is consistently attacked for being a "whitewashing," the vast majority of the commission critics haven't even read it. Makes sense. You probably should read it before you throw stones at it, methinks.

have you read it? i had a few professors in university who actually did read the warren report, and remarkably concluded that it was a great work of fiction. "methinks" you are taking an unnecessary, condescending approach with your reply here.


And I'd hardly call Kennedy's assassination a "complex operation." Three bullets from a $12 mail-order rifle isn't really a sophisticated plot. Would you then call the Lincoln, McKinley assassinations and the Reagan assassination attempt (all the work of lone gunmen) complex intricate plots? Hardly.

the lincoln and mckinley assassinations, and the attempt on reagan's life have nothing to do with the jfk assassination, so please refrain from changing the subject.

again, i highly recommend and encourage you to read david s. lifton's pulitzer nominated mammoth study (http://www.amazon.com/Best-Evidence-Signet-David-Lifton/dp/0451175735) before you conclude your opinion.


And this has been something I've been sure of even when I bought into JFK conspiracy theories.

again, i'm not a "conspiracy theorist", nor am i theorizing.


Just because Oswald said he was a patsy, doesn't mean he was one. Can't take him at his word since he was a compulsive liar during his interrogation.
The guy was playing to the media and lying at the police station to gain sympathy, saying they wouldn't let him shower, wouldn't let him reach a lawyer (they advised him constantly on getting a lawyer and helped him try to contact John Abt, an ACLU lawyer who was continuously unreachable throughout that weekend). All not true. They interrogated him on ownership of the rifle and photos of him with the rifle and his forged Selective Service cards (very pitiful forgeries, I may add). On the first day alone, the Dallas Police Department pretty much amassed glaringly obvious evidences of guilt. There was at least 50 things that pointed to his guilt, yet only in the conspiracy world can a man have so much guilt collected against him and STILL be innocent. It doesn't wash.

you're presuming that i'm only basing my opinion on the fact that oswald proclaimed in front of television cameras that he was a "patsy". there is much more to it than that. in a matter of mere seconds, oswald was supposed to have fired three shots from a bolt action rifle, from an extremely difficult position. this apparent feat performed by oswald, according to the warren commission, is what happened. well, oswald's so-called performance that day has been tested and tested, over and over again throughout the years by top marksmen. it is not an impossible feat to accomplish, but it is extremely difficult to perform. oswald was a former marine, and while in the marines, he was never an even adequate marksmen. he was a very mediocre marksmen, barely passing the minimum qualifications of the marine core.

and, lee harvey oswald defected to the soviet union at the height of the cold war. while residing in the soviet union, oswald lived a very good life, and was treated very well. also, he renounced his u.s. citizenship. then, he emigrated back to the united states, and resumed living a normal life in the united states. i'm sorry, but that to me doesn't wash. but nevermind, because apparently this is all coming from the "conspiracy world".


And if the CIA or mob or anyone else was REALLY behind the plot, they did a bungled job of it. If it REALLY was him, the moment after the assassination, there'd be a car waiting for Oswald to pick him up and rive him somewhere very far away (and likely it'd have lead to his death) before they'd let their guy fall in the hands of the police.

i don't know nor am i going to speculate about who was behind it, but i am sure that it certainly wasn't organized crime, who again, simply did not have the power, resources, or capability to carry out such an operation.

there were several witnesses who saw flashes of light, smoke, and commotion at the now infamous fence on the grassy knoll. but i suppose that all of these witnesses were wrong, that they didn't see anything, that they were experiencing duress, that their eyes were playing tricks on them, that the sun was in their eyes et al. again, i suppose that this all silly "conspiracy world" talk.


Instead, he was catching buses and cabs out of there, shot a police officer and was apprehended in a movie theater. This is CLUMSY action and not the work of a grand plot.

you're presuming and concluding that oswald was the guy, and the only guy involved in this.


I know all this just from reading 250 pages. I can only imagine what else is in store for me in the next 1300 pages (not including the endnotes).

wow, i'm impressed.

anyways, as usual, whether you're just some anonymous contributor on an internet message board, or a figure in the media who questions the jfk assassination, ie someone who is a skeptic of the warren commission and conducts research of the assassination, you will at the very least be patronized, laughed at and ridiculed, and in other instances viciously attacked and blackballed (which strikes me as bizarre, considering that the general role of the media was to be the fourth estate, ask questions and hold governments accountable and not act as official stenographers). i find that to be very troubing, and frankly bizarre.

i'm not proclaiming myself to be some sort of expert on this matter. i just wanted to express my own two cents and wanted to recommend a pulitzer-nominated work on the subject for those who might be interested. i didn't expect to be patronized and treated with smug disdain, just because i have a differing opinion on the matter. i didn't really expect this to transpire. anyways, if that remains to be the case, then i'm not going to continue.

[DroppinScience]

Sazi,

I KNOW you're a very intelligent guy. I wouldn't call you a "conspiracy theorist" per se (those are the drizl/Carlos types), but believing the JFK conspiracy has been pretty mainstream that for every book like Bugliosi that provides the case for the lone gunman theory, there's at least 10 that provide a case for a plot that pretty much involves everybody and their uncle involved in some way.

At this time, 70% of Americans believe that Oswald didn't act alone or didn't act at all, (while it may be plausible to believe there was more than Oswald since there's the ties with the Soviets, the mob, Cuban exiles and the like, it just strikes me as absurd that the latter is true), so I'd argue it's more those that DON'T believe in a conspiracy that get laughed off more than anything.

I'm truly sorry if you feel I was being smug and patronizing (but this isn't anything that you or anyone else have been innocent of in this board, but whatever, it's just a message board, so I can take it), but I'm pretty sure the both of us need to do some further reading before butting heads again.

Tell you what, I'll check your book and you check mine and then we can meet again to discuss the matter. I can tell you with absolute certainty that Bugliosi has a compelling case that is worth at least taking a look at even if you're convinced to the contrary. Your guy Lifton may have a compelling case as well (he sounds more respectable than those Mark Lane types).

And no, haven't read the Warren Comission (and neither have you apparently), but I'd be down for taking a look at that when I have some down time too. Maybe even the House Select Comittee on Assassinations (or whatever it was called) to boot.

One thing I'll address about the positioning of Connally in relation to Kennedy for the "magic bullet": there's a picture in the Bugliosi book of the closest still image of the motorcade seconds before the first shots went off, and I can tell you he's already seated six inches to the left from Kennedy. I should scan it sometime if it's not available online. The picture you linked shows a different position altogether (and appears to be an earlier image... but if you know the exact time stamp for either of the two images we're talking of, go ahead). I'm not using science-fiction that would only appear in a Star Wars movie to explain what happened.

[saz]

At this time, 70% of Americans believe that Oswald didn't act alone or didn't act at all, (while it may be plausible to believe there was more than Oswald since there's the ties with the Soviets, the mob, Cuban exiles and the like, it just strikes me as absurd that the latter is true), so I'd argue it's more those that DON'T believe in a conspiracy that get laughed off more than anything.

then perhaps maybe you're not paying close enough attention. every year around the anniversary of the jfk assassination, the mainstream media trumps out all of the skeptics and talking heads who ridicule anyone who questions the warren report and official version of kennedy's assassination; and obviously, they particularly save all of their vitriol, animosity, and unnecessary venom for oliver stone. and what, his movie was released sixteen years ago, ie who cares, time to move on.

anyways, i'm not laughing off your thoughts and opinions on the matter. everyone is entitled to their own opinion.


Your guy Lifton may have a compelling case as well (he sounds more respectable than those Mark Lane types).

to the best of my knowledge lifton's work is the very best in this area.


And no, haven't read the Warren Comission (and neither have you apparently), but I'd be down for taking a look at that when I have some down time too. Maybe even the House Select Comittee on Assassinations (or whatever it was called) to boot.

that would take eons, and we both have lives.


One thing I'll address about the positioning of Connally in relation to Kennedy for the "magic bullet": there's a picture in the Bugliosi book of the closest still image of the motorcade seconds before the first shots went off, and I can tell you he's already seated six inches to the left from Kennedy. I should scan it sometime if it's not available online. The picture you linked shows a different position altogether (and appears to be an earlier image... but if you know the exact time stamp for either of the two images we're talking of, go ahead). I'm not using science-fiction that would only appear in a Star Wars movie to explain what happened.

even if connolly moved a bit towards kennedy's left, that in no way explains how a bullet could change mid-direction in air, or stop and hover in the air, then zig-zag all over the place.

[DroppinScience]

that would take eons, and we both have lives.

Well, one wouldn't even HAVE to read the full multi-volume report. The bare minimum would be the one summary volume (and then if you were really nuts, you'd delve deeper and read it all).



even if connolly moved a bit towards kennedy's left, that in no way explains how a bullet could change mid-direction in air, or stop and hover in the air, then zig-zag all over the place.

When I get to Bugliosi's chapter specifically addressing the magic bullet theory, I'll comment further, but he is NOT saying the bullet changes direction, zigzags everywhere, or hovers. It is, in fact, a straight (or rather diagonal?) trajectory that goes through Kennedy and then hits Connally.

[saz]

When I get to Bugliosi's chapter specifically addressing the magic bullet theory, I'll comment further, but he is NOT saying the bullet changes direction, zigzags everywhere, or hovers. It is, in fact, a straight (or rather diagonal?) trajectory that goes through Kennedy and then hits Connally.

this isn't about what bugliosi thinks or believes. it's about what the warren commission sold to the world.


The single bullet theory, also known as the magic bullet. An examination from the practical aspect of shots fired in Dealey plaza towards John F. Kennedy and Governor Connally. Showing the improbability that one bullet caused all the wounds. Therefore a conspiracy. This is the best documentary ever made refuting this claim by the Warren report.

part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBX0FZn13Ao)

part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEiyYLW3BzY&NR=1)

part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MTxMl7jUPo)

part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prd5awRWaxA&NR=1)

part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4aOGSQs7Pg&NR=1)

[Documad]

Helter Skelter was a good book, and I even enjoyed the one he wrote on the OJ trial, but he's got a giant ego so he bugs me.

JFK was a terrific movie, but Seinfeld might have been even better.

[Carlos]

Sazi,
I'm truly sorry if you feel I was being smug and patronizing

somehow though, you just can't help yourself :rolleyes: :
...... I KNOW you're a very intelligent guy. I wouldn't call you a "conspiracy theorist" per se (those are the drizl/Carlos types),

--------
I like the way you just completely ignored my post regarding SCIENTIFIC (the irony of you nick.. lol) tests done in Italy, obviously it's not in your little book, so it's of no interest, or maybe going on your comment above, it's more just cos I am too much a fruitcake to address?

Seriously go check my last few posts re. 'Conspiracy Theories' - the one above, and the last few in the 911 threads. All I have done is to raise and show using empirical data that the official (in other words Governement sponsored and led) investigations clearly do not stand up to reality once scrutinised using basic physics.

Obviously you completely lack objectivity, due an a prior (fear it seems) that if you somehow doubt your government/establishment(s) - by acknowledging basic laws of physics - then you will become a froathing at the mouth CT'er... lol sad really.

[abcdefz]

See, what's funny is: in Ibsen's play, Ghosts, the main character is Oswald.

And this was 1880-something.

Coincidence?

[DroppinScience]

Obviously you completely lack objectivity, due an a prior (fear it seems) that if you somehow doubt your government/establishment(s) - by acknowledging basic laws of physics - then you will become a froathing at the mouth CT'er... lol sad really.

Oh no, I have plenty of doubts with the U.S. government. I just have strong doubts that they're able to competently mastermind conspiracies of the scale you speak of (even if they wanted to). I don't give them a lot of credit for coherency.

[Carlos]

cool.. well at least you can admit you are not objective when it comes to such matters..

but there's a difference in be able to discard an official narative on the grounds of basic physics, and THEORISING that specific entitities were in fact responsible.

It is possible to adopt the first position without going that next step: if you are willing to be objective, and scientific.

[Echewta]

After years of thinking there was a bigger machine behind Oswald (mostly fueled by the JFK movie), I'm down with the lone gunman now.

[travesty]

oh, and although the bullet may not have emerged in pristine condition, it is the furthest thing from being "pretty (http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/magicbullet.jpg) banged up (http://www.fiftiesweb.com/kennedy/magic-bullet.jpg)". the bullet resembles a much more pristine condition, as opposed to being banged up.


I'm going to have to go with the "conspriracy theorists" on this one. As an avid shooter I can quite confidently say that the bullet in that picture never went through two people. I have fired steel core, armor piercing rounds in to water and they deform significantly more than that. Unless that is a titanium or some other sort of unobtainium bullet that thing would be much more deformed had it gone through a human, especially had it hit bone as claimed. It does look like a full metal jacket with is a little less brittle than straight lead, but not by much. Even with the rounded nose which helps the bullet penetrate instead of "tumbling" it still seems vastly implausible to my experience.

Just my $.02

[DroppinScience]

I'm going to have to go with the "conspriracy theorists" on this one. As an avid shooter I can quite confidently say that the bullet in that picture never went through two people. I have fired steel core, armor piercing rounds in to water and they deform significantly more than that. Unless that is a titanium or some other sort of unobtainium bullet that thing would be much more deformed had it gone through a human, especially had it hit bone as claimed. It does look like a full metal jacket with is a little less brittle than straight lead, but not by much. Even with the rounded nose which helps the bullet penetrate instead of "tumbling" it still seems vastly implausible to my experience.

Just my $.02

I don't think those pictures of the bullet do justice to the actual condition of it. I've seen photos from different angles of the bullet that do indeed show it went through damage, whereas these photos would lead you to believe it was 100% pristine. I'm not sure if it's online, but the photo can be seen in Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" book. It was likely taken from the gallery of exhibits in the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission, which is digitized in full here:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/contents_wc.htm

If anyone has the patience to wade through it, you're welcome to.

[travesty]

Yes but it still looks like bullet. That's what is so amazing. Anything travelling at 1700 ft./second and impacting a dense, fleshy oject is going to have serious deformation unless it is made from titanium or unobtainium or something really special. I guess in reality anything is possible, I've just never seen it. But then again I've never seen a lot of things.

[DroppinScience]

Anyways, conspiracy or no conspiracy, here's what I've learned when it comes to the assassination and the various debates surrounding it. If your sympathies lie within the conspiracy camp, there are deep divisions within their community as to who might be behind it (i.e. they'll feud with each other bitterly over whether it was the mob, Cuba, LBJ, KGB, CIA, etc.). If your sympathies lie within the "Oswald acted alone" camp, there are similar deep divisions (i.e. they may agree that Oswald and only Oswald did it, but will feud over how the Warren Commission conducted itself and other such minutiae).

Nevertheless, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's a pity that the various demagogues (e.g. Mark Lane and Jim Garrison among the most prominent) did such a horrible job conducting themselves that they even went to the point of fabricating evidence and inducing false "confessions" from witnesses (Garrison is specifically guilty of this). To me, it seemed like it didn't matter what the facts might be, they wanted to fixate on ANYTHING and feed so much misinformation to the point that anything can be disputed.

I'll give you one example. Remember the Oswald rifle photo (http://www.davidgak.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Oswald.jpg) that theorists were completely convinced was fake and were screaming that for 40+ years? Well, that notion was recently debunked (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/hany-farid-dartmouth-scie_n_347862.html). Of course, there was ample evidence that the photo was not doctored for years (e.g. copies of that photo were made and sent to friends, one of which contained his OWN handwriting with a note on the back saying: "Hunter of fascists!"), but facts aren't really a big thing for conspiracy types anyways.

Anyway, that's my spiel.

[travesty]

Frankly I don't know enough about, and never really got interested enough to learn much about it. For all I know the Pope did it.

[DroppinScience]

Frankly I don't know enough about, and never really got interested enough to learn much about it. For all I know the Pope did it.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. Benedict (http://whatthehealthmag.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/pope_benedict_451.jpg) looks like a sinister dude

[saz]

choose physics not magic bullets

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5d4p4FKsY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQLQEYWNOiE

[Documad]

I saw that Seinfeld episode a couple of weeks ago.

[travesty]

choose physics not magic bullets

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5d4p4FKsY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQLQEYWNOiE

That first video is exactly what I'm saying. Even FMJ rounds deform very easily at 1700 ft/second no matter what they hit. The whole idea that they just found this bullet laying on the stretcher is more than a little shady too.

[Randetica]

i still didnt see that movie but i still want to see it

i watch everything jfk related