View Full Version : Who killed JFK?
Ben E Lou
10-11-2007, 07:32 PM
Curious what people think about this. Post and also comment.
Crapshoot
10-11-2007, 07:33 PM
I realize its not a popular theory, but I'm fairly sure it was Oswald alone- the motivations behind it will never be completely clear (I don't think it was the CIA), especially Jack Ruby.
Not a popular theory? Only unpopular among conspiracy theorists. (read: paranoid delusionists)
dola:
make sure to ask if the moon landings were hoaxed and 9/11 was an inside job in the next polls!
DaddyTorgo
10-11-2007, 07:38 PM
mafia
Buccaneer
10-11-2007, 07:40 PM
I fully believe that Oswald was the only gunman but he was working under orders. The Warren Commission report was a huge cover-up but exactly what was being covered up, I don't think we'll ever know.
Logan
10-11-2007, 07:41 PM
All I know for sure is it wasn't me.
DaddyTorgo
10-11-2007, 07:42 PM
I fully believe that Oswald was the only gunman but he was working under orders. The Warren Commission report was a huge cover-up but exactly what was being covered up, I don't think we'll ever know.
what about all the ballistics and evidence arguing against this?
Coffee Warlord
10-11-2007, 07:46 PM
Mob hit.
Buccaneer
10-11-2007, 07:48 PM
what about all the ballistics and evidence arguing against this?
That's just it. Ballistics does not give evidence towards motivation and intent. The other major evidences point towards a lone gunman, which is what I fully believe. It was not a random act, no more than Jack Ruby's hit on Oswald. The Outfit wanted JFK dead because his father welshed on a deal to have Bobby lay off. Didn't happen so he paid and the Outfit's man in Texas silenced the major evidence. Much has been focused on the wrong things, like the grassy knoll, which are irrelevant.
headtrauma
10-11-2007, 07:49 PM
Read Posner's Case Closed if you want to see all the tinfoil hat theories thoroughly debunked.
Yes, one nutjob acting alone can change history. Deal with it.
cartman
10-11-2007, 07:51 PM
The "perfect" bullet found on the gurney is a clear sign that someone was trying to cover tracks, or make some sort of misdirection. No way a bullet hits flesh and was as pristine as that bullet was. As to who I think ultimately was behind it, Eisenhower gave the warning in his farewell speech.
The ballistics are pretty clear about there being only one gunman. The motivation and intent is very difficult to prove and is mostly just speculation. The question asked who was responsible for the murder, and the topic asked who killed him. These are potentially different questions, but my answer is the same for both. Option 1.
saldana
10-11-2007, 07:51 PM
i guess i could have gone with the combination vote, but the things i contend were the combination were not any of the other options, so i went with none of the above....
mob hit + cia
Raiders Army
10-11-2007, 07:52 PM
Why is this brought up?
Obvioiusly Oswald was the fall guy and some other person or persons organized it.
Schmidty
10-11-2007, 07:52 PM
I'm no expert, but I think everyone overthinks this thing.
The "perfect" bullet
Some photos of this are misleading. From other (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet3.jpg) angles (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif) the bullet is far from perfect (quite deformed, in fact).
Buccaneer
10-11-2007, 07:56 PM
The Warren Commission was seriously flawed and by the mid-1970s, it had very little credibility. A House investigation said as much at the time but the conclusion still stood, it was a lone gunman. Even Posner's presented convincing evidence that a single bullet could hit two. Posner's conclusions does not rule out that it was a random act.
Buccaneer
10-11-2007, 07:59 PM
The ballistics are pretty clear about there being only one gunman. The motivation and intent is very difficult to prove and is mostly just speculation. The question asked who was responsible for the murder, and the topic asked who killed him. These are potentially different questions, but my answer is the same for both. Option 1.
I break this down into two questions: What killed JFK? Why was he killed?
Buccaneer
10-11-2007, 08:00 PM
Having said that, when I mentioned that people had focused on red herrings was that they answered the latter and try to make for the former fit. In other words, if you wanted the CIA or FBI actively involved in the shooting, then you had find the location of another shooter.
flounder
10-11-2007, 08:11 PM
Where's the "after all, it was you and me" option?
sterlingice
10-11-2007, 08:19 PM
Hm... "combination of elements" is too vauge and an easy cop out. I think if you answer that, you have to explain the elements. :)
SI
sabotai
10-11-2007, 08:21 PM
One nutjob gunman and a steady stream of incompetence leads us to conspiracy theories galore.
Neon_Chaos
10-11-2007, 08:25 PM
If there was a mob option, I would pick that. As it is, none of the above.
jbergey22
10-11-2007, 08:31 PM
CIA acted alone. A combination of elements would be very hard for me to believe. Can you imagine the CIA trying to work with Castro or the mob? I just dont see it. Oswalt was set up and this was planned far in advance as some powerful people in the CIA were worried about which direction Kennedy was leading us.
EagleFan
10-11-2007, 09:06 PM
Vapor trails.... harmless ice or government conspiracy?
lordscarlet
10-11-2007, 09:15 PM
I have no idea.
I agree with the movie JFK.
Senator
10-11-2007, 09:23 PM
Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. In my geekdom, I have read every page of the Warren Report.
EagleFan
10-11-2007, 09:27 PM
Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. In my geekdom, I have read every page of the Warren Report.
Get a girlfriend.... ;) :D
j/k
Senator
10-11-2007, 09:30 PM
Get a girlfriend.... ;) :D
j/k
I was in politics, so it actually helped me in that department. Still, though....
Mike1409
10-11-2007, 09:37 PM
I agree with Kevin Costner
RedKingGold
10-11-2007, 09:38 PM
I'm too young to know for sure, but I'm positive that the media has enough worms that we would have found the "true" conspiracy at this point if one actually existed.
BrianD
10-11-2007, 10:36 PM
I'm too young to know for sure, but I'm positive that the media has enough worms that we would have found the "true" conspiracy at this point if one actually existed.
I don't normally get into conspiracy theories, but the Oswald alone idea just doesn't seem right. Having said that, I agree that a conspiracy probably couldn't be kept secret this long. I guess that means I have no idea what to think.
Abe Sargent
10-12-2007, 12:43 AM
Conspiracies are sexy, so we want them. We also remember the previous conspiracies, like the one that killed Lincoln and was supposed to have killed Seward and Johnson on the same night but the others failed for example.
Axxon
10-12-2007, 01:43 AM
Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. In my geekdom, I have read every page of the Warren Report.
I actually read it in sixth grade. I had an older sister and I would absolutely read anything. A lot of it went over my head, especially the ballistics but my impression was that I really didn't agree with a lot of it. I honestly do not remember why but I did take that impression with me. I found the book interesting because I really didn't know much at all about the assassination at the time and two things fascinated me. One, I was born right before JFK was killed and two, I had written a book report about Bobby whom I still admire very much from said book so I had an interest.
I have to answer a combination to the question because I could easily believe an alternative theory but I haven't read one that is convincing ( unlike James Earl Ray whom I do not believe killed MLK ). The official story doesn't convince me either but right now, it is the most convincing and has the preponderance of evidence to back it up.
Barring any real reason to come off my uncertain position I'd say that I believe that of all the theories I've heard, the official theory is the most likely to be true, but I can't honestly say I believe it is true.
RendeR
10-12-2007, 02:10 AM
It was a Man
A Man with a Gun
In Dallas, TX
There, now you Know.
Axxon
10-12-2007, 02:18 AM
How do you know it was a man?
RendeR
10-12-2007, 02:38 AM
It was 1963, Women were dreaming of the freedom to burn bras and carry loaded weapons in Texas, however it wasn't a reality until the mid-70's.
Therefore, it was a man.
A Man with a Gun.
In Dallas.
Dallas, Texas.
Clark
10-12-2007, 06:29 AM
Oswald did it alone. This is a good read:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Butter
10-12-2007, 06:38 AM
My feeling is that Oswald did not act alone, but there has been precious little to lead me to who was ultimately responsible. So it was a "combination of elements", but I haven't a clue who those "elements" might be.
molson
10-12-2007, 07:20 AM
Here's what I really want to know - when in American history did men stop wearing hats as general attire? You watch that Kennedy video, and every single man is wearing a hat. By sometime in the 70s, hats were gone. What the hell happened?
Butter
10-12-2007, 07:21 AM
You couldn't wear hats with all that hair people had in the 70's.
Pumpy Tudors
10-12-2007, 07:34 AM
I don't think that JFK is really dead. I think that he actually runs a resort near Malaysia. He travels the area often in search of regional delicacies. If you watch very closely at the 0:22:16 mark on the sixth episode of the original US Survivor TV show, you can see him in the upper right quadrant of the screen in the background.
He's wearing a hat.
SteveMax58
10-12-2007, 08:15 AM
Mob hit.
Yep...this is what I believe. I think Oswald was either in on it, may have in fact fired the shots that killed JFK, but was somehow under orders or some agreement to "participate"...hence his "patsy"(sp?) statements and subsequent demise via Ruby. I dont think Ruby takes him out because of a newly found patriotism either.
I dont believe it's as high reaching (government-wise) as some theories suggest, but more to it than the official account. Now...the coverup for the mob may have been far reaching, but not the actual murder. I think it's quite plausible the mob had some leverage with the CIA/FBI or other high ranking officials who did noty wish to pursue the case further out of fear of their own actions (in other areas, not the JFK portion) come to light.
I'm not usually big on conspiracy theories, but the official account just doesnt add up to me. Maybe I need a new calculator, though.
Passacaglia
10-12-2007, 08:29 AM
Here's what I really want to know - when in American history did men stop wearing hats as general attire? You watch that Kennedy video, and every single man is wearing a hat. By sometime in the 70s, hats were gone. What the hell happened?
How bizarre. If my employer asked me to wear a hat, I'd wear one -- no questions asked.
molson
10-12-2007, 08:31 AM
If you were trying to take out JFK, Oswald isn't the guy you'd choose to do it, not with his background.
Oswald had a sense of self-importance, and desperately wanted to "be somebody", but he was a classic loser. He wanted to believe he was part of something bigger (hence the patsy comments), but he wasn't.
lordscarlet
10-12-2007, 08:34 AM
Here's what I really want to know - when in American history did men stop wearing hats as general attire? You watch that Kennedy video, and every single man is wearing a hat. By sometime in the 70s, hats were gone. What the hell happened?
I would love for the trend to return. But men also wore suits, or at a minimum a shirt and tie, when leaving the house. These are just different times as far as such things go. http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=61433
st.cronin
10-12-2007, 09:12 AM
If you were trying to take out JFK, Oswald isn't the guy you'd choose to do it, not with his background.
Oswald had a sense of self-importance, and desperately wanted to "be somebody", but he was a classic loser. He wanted to believe he was part of something bigger (hence the patsy comments), but he wasn't.
Exactly how I see it. Also, I'm wearing a hat right now.
Warhammer
10-12-2007, 10:34 AM
I think Oswald did it, but was paid by the mob to do it. John needed the mob to get him elected and when Bobby went after the mob, the mob reacted by taking out Kennedy.
rkmsuf
10-12-2007, 10:41 AM
Back and to the left. Back.....and to the left.
That Roger McDowell is a dink.
mckerney
10-12-2007, 02:00 PM
Back and to the left. Back.....and to the left.
Kevin Costner don't know bout my physics.
<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-2410170009812779914&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>
Bubba Wheels
10-12-2007, 02:12 PM
Although JFK is the movie most cited on the subject, an older one called Executive Action is a very good study of how an organized plan and possible motive could have occured. Stars Burt Lancaster and could be hard to find.
M GO BLUE!!!
10-12-2007, 03:30 PM
dola:
make sure to ask if the moon landings were hoaxed and 9/11 was an inside job in the next polls!
9/11 was to get rid of the evidence!
If it wasn't for Ruby I would say that he may have acted alone, even with the other inconsistencies. But Ruby taking him out is a little too convenient.
larrymcg421
10-12-2007, 03:47 PM
Proving that there was just one shooter does not prove that Oswald acted alone.
9/11 was to get rid of the evidence!
???
also, die.
st.cronin
10-12-2007, 03:54 PM
For those who believe in one of the conspiracy theories: Explain the motive. That's the part where you always lose me, because none of the motives I've ever heard make a bit of sense.
M GO BLUE!!!
10-12-2007, 04:06 PM
???
also, die.
That was sarcasm, son.
That was sarcasm, son.
k dad
:D
mckerney
10-12-2007, 04:41 PM
9/11 was to get rid of the evidence!
If it wasn't for Ruby I would say that he may have acted alone, even with the other inconsistencies. But Ruby taking him out is a little too convenient.
Below is a interview with Vincent Bugllosi, author of Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy that is worth listening to. Bugllosi states that Ruby killed Oswald because he thought killing the man who'd assassinated Kennedy would make him a hero and famous.
<embed src="http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KFAN-AM/BAR052907_bugliosi.mp3" autostart="false">
larrymcg421
10-12-2007, 05:07 PM
Bugliosi's written some pretty inflammatory stuff. He was very critical of the Supreme Court decision that forced Clinton to testify in the Paula Jones suit. He also wrote a book that called the Supreme Court's decision in Bush vs. Gore treasonous.
Bugliosi lost alot of credibility with me when he wrote a foreword in one of Mark Fuhrman's books defending him. No matter what you think of the OJ trial, it's pretty clear that Fuhrman is a despicable racist and there's no excuse for defending trash like that.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.