Who Killed Kennedy?

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

What's your view of the Kennedy assassination?

The evidence is overwhelming, it was a conspiracy.
4
15%
Lots of questions and loose ends, it might have been a conspiracy.
4
15%
I am unsure.
4
15%
There are some unanswered questions, but the evidence points to Oswald.
10
38%
The evidence is overwhelming, Oswald did it alone.
4
15%
 
Total votes: 26
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3117
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Who Killed Kennedy?

Post by Ad Orientem » Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:12 pm

Unfortunately none of this is evidence. It's conjecture. The actual evidence, and there is a mountain of it, all points to Oswald.
Ceterum censeo Trump delendum esse.

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain
Reub
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3700
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:44 pm

Re: Who Killed Kennedy?

Post by Reub » Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:31 pm

There is also evidence (obviously) that Oswald was shot to death shortly thereafter. That certainly raises flags with me.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8785
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: next to emotional support peacock
Contact:

Re: Who Killed Kennedy?

Post by dualstow » Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:49 pm

Reub wrote: There is also evidence (obviously) that Oswald was shot to death shortly thereafter. That certainly raises flags with me.
Why wasn't he killed immediately after he killed Kennedy?
RIP Paul Volcker
ns2
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:39 pm

Re: Who Killed Kennedy?

Post by ns2 » Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:04 pm

Nobody saw Kennedy get killed live because it wasn't filmed except for the independent Zapruder film but maybe another interesting poll on the 50'th anniversary here on the forum would be how many of you witnessed the live execution of Oswald on National TV?

I did. Along with my family. As I recall it, it was on Sunday around the same time my Dad used to watch meet the press but we were all gathered around the TV that weekend. And then bang - what the hell just happened. I was 14. Same year as the Beatles on Ed Sullivan.
Last edited by ns2 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reub
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3700
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:44 pm

Re: Who Killed Kennedy?

Post by Reub » Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:41 pm

dualstow wrote:
Reub wrote: There is also evidence (obviously) that Oswald was shot to death shortly thereafter. That certainly raises flags with me.
Why wasn't he killed immediately after he killed Kennedy?
You'll have to ask the puppetmasters about that. Why was Oswald allowed to be such an amazingly easy target?
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3117
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Who Killed Kennedy?

Post by Ad Orientem » Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:57 pm

Reub wrote:
dualstow wrote:
Reub wrote: There is also evidence (obviously) that Oswald was shot to death shortly thereafter. That certainly raises flags with me.
Why wasn't he killed immediately after he killed Kennedy?
You'll have to ask the puppetmasters about that. Why was Oswald allowed to be such an amazingly easy target?
Because the Dallas PD was stunningly incompetent, a fact generally recognized even by conspiracy theorists.
Ceterum censeo Trump delendum esse.

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8785
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: next to emotional support peacock
Contact:

Re: Who Killed Kennedy?

Post by dualstow » Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:09 am

ns2 wrote: Nobody saw Kennedy get killed live because it wasn't filmed except for the independent Zapruder film
That's incorrect. There were other films, but the Zapruder film is the most famous and the most complete.
Last edited by dualstow on Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
RIP Paul Volcker
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5038
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Who Killed Kennedy?

Post by technovelist » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:13 am

Ad Orientem wrote:
Reub wrote:
dualstow wrote: Why wasn't he killed immediately after he killed Kennedy?
You'll have to ask the puppetmasters about that. Why was Oswald allowed to be such an amazingly easy target?
Because the Dallas PD was stunningly incompetent, a fact generally recognized even by conspiracy theorists.
Then it's a good thing they weren't corrupt as well, or there might be some substance to the "conspiracy theories"!
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3117
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Who Killed Kennedy?

Post by Ad Orientem » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:18 am

technovelist wrote:
Ad Orientem wrote:
Reub wrote: You'll have to ask the puppetmasters about that. Why was Oswald allowed to be such an amazingly easy target?
Because the Dallas PD was stunningly incompetent, a fact generally recognized even by conspiracy theorists.
Then it's a good thing they weren't corrupt as well, or there might be some substance to the "conspiracy theories"!
Once again we are back to conjecture. Where is the actual evidence of a conspiracy? Show me something that could be admitted in a court of law. Show me forensic evidence of a second gunman. Show me hard proof of a cover up. Show me that all of the eye witnesses who saw Oswald shooting the cop and firing from the sixth floor window were liars. Show me that the ballistics don't match.

Show me SOMETHING that is real proof, not just hypothetical silliness. I am told Oswald's brother was a Free Mason. Maybe they ordered the hit!
Ceterum censeo Trump delendum esse.

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5038
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Who Killed Kennedy?

Post by technovelist » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:20 am

Ad Orientem wrote:
technovelist wrote:
Ad Orientem wrote: Because the Dallas PD was stunningly incompetent, a fact generally recognized even by conspiracy theorists.
Then it's a good thing they weren't corrupt as well, or there might be some substance to the "conspiracy theories"!
Once again we are back to conjecture. Where is the actual evidence of a conspiracy? Show me something that could be admitted in a court of law. Show me forensic evidence of a second gunman. Show me hard proof of a cover up. Show me that all of the eye witnesses who saw Oswald shooting the cop and firing from the sixth floor window were liars. Show me that the ballistics don't match.

Show me SOMETHING that is real proof, not just hypothetical silliness. I am told Oswald's brother was a Free Mason. Maybe they ordered the hit!
When I have read the book I linked to before, I'll let you know how good its arguments are.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3117
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Who Killed Kennedy?

Post by Ad Orientem » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:32 am

technovelist wrote: When I have read the book I linked to before, I'll let you know how good its arguments are.
Try reading the one I linked to. It's by far the most exhaustive work on the subject. And it explores in detail all of the major, and many of the minor, conspiracy theories. It is available in most well stocked libraries.
Ceterum censeo Trump delendum esse.

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5038
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Who Killed Kennedy?

Post by technovelist » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:59 am

Ad Orientem wrote:
technovelist wrote: When I have read the book I linked to before, I'll let you know how good its arguments are.
Try reading the one I linked to. It's by far the most exhaustive work on the subject. And it explores in detail all of the major, and many of the minor, conspiracy theories. It is available in most well stocked libraries.
It doesn't sound that impressive. Here's one of the Amazon reviews:

'Gosh, where to begin? Well, I guess I should start out by coming clean and admitting I haven't read the entire book. I tended to focus on sections that really interested me, especially the medical evidence and the autopsy, because its just so long. The sections that I did manage to get through were bad enough that I hope I can be excused for not plowing through all 1600 hardcover pages.

I've always admired Bugliosi. Helter Skelter is my favorite true crime book, and he's always seemed really sharp and insightful every time I've seen him on television, usually commenting on a court case. As someone who's pretty firmly on the conspiracy side of the fence, I was both looking forward to and dreading this book. If anyone could change my mind, it was Vince.

He did not succeed, though it wasn't for lack of trying. He starts out by applauding the Warren Commission and claiming that their only interest was in finding the truth. It's absurd to think that they would have pursued leads that pointed towards the mafia or CIA when that would have inevitably exposed a number of illegal CIA operations, including government plots to kill Fidel Castro that involved the mafia. This would have been disastrous to the agencies involved and to many of the nations' most powerful, influential people, including the Kennedys. And then there's all the dirt Hoover was holding over the Kennedy's. I wonder if Bugliosi has ever heard the audio tape of RFK calling LBJ and delicately trying to get some information on just how much he and Hoover had on them. It would be a good lesson on realpolitik for him. Yes, even the Kennedy's had reasons to want the Warren Commission to decide it was a lone nut.

Bugliosi succeeds in poking holes in some arguments that have been popular with the critics, pointing out the errors some researchers have made. Oliver Stone is a favorite whipping boy, but no one refers to his movie when they are looking for real research, I hope. This is a case where the primary suspect was held for two days and interrogated constantly by the FBI and the police and no record of what he said exists. Pretty astounding. Oh wait, there is that page of notes that Captain Fritz found later. There's really no excuse for this, though Bugliosi tries. Well, he wasn't saying much... They didn't know he would be dead soon... Yes, and they also didn't know when he might let something slip that might be important. This is the same FBI that ordered one of their agents to destroy evidence - a note that Oswald had left with the FBI. What exactly was on that note? We'll have to take the FBI's word for it that it was something that incriminated Oswald. They only destroyed it because it was kind of embarrassing that they overlooked it pre assassination. Bugliosi tends to take the government at its word even in situations where its been proven to be lying a lot.

The section on the autopsy was the one I was most interested in, and pretty well encapsulates how he approached this book. He's always had a feisty, no holds bar approach, but it's almost bizarre how frequently he descends into invective here. He can't get through a paragraph at times without insulting the critics. It's almost like he knows he's over promised by telling us that he's closing the case for good and is over compensating for that. Defending the choice of autopsy Doctors, he points out that in an interview Humes, the lead Dr. who wrote the report, actually said he had done autopsies on a few gunshot victims. It's pretty clear from the quote that these cases were pretty few. Humes can only specifically remember two of them. Bugliosi acts like this was some kind of deliberate omission by the critics, even though it doesn't make Humes any more qualified to be doing any kind of autopsy that involved a murder investigation, much less the President's. And none of them were in criminal cases. Humes wasn't trained for doing autopsies that involved a crime. He was not a forensic pathologist.. And there's also the fact that Humes only gave this interview 28 years after the autopsy, when the most well known assassination books had already been written.

Bugliosi is a strong believer in the House Select Committee on Assassinations, at least when they agree with him, like they do on the direction of the shots. He does admit that the HSCA's opinions of the autopsy doctors and their work were brutally negative. He then tries to salvage this by telling us that they "contradict themselves somewhat" when they say that there was enough there to show that Kennedy was shot from behind by two bullets. As if that disproves the notion that the autopsy was shockingly lacking. He even includes a quote in which one of the Doctors that worked for the HSCA panel mentions that the only thing they got wrong was the location of the head wounds. The HSCA put it near the top of Kennedy's head, while the autopsy had it at the bottom of the back of Kennedy's head, near what they call the external occipital protuberance. It's a difference of about three or four inches. That's huge when you're talking about the location of a head wound, and Bugliosi dismisses it as a "gaff". OK. Got the wound location wrong by several inches, didn't properly examine the brain or other evidence that would have given us more information about the trajectory of the bullets through Kennedy, but those crazy conspiracy theorists are being unfair when they say the problems with the autopsy are suspicious. How did the bullet go through Kennedy's neck without hitting the spine? We'd know if the autopsy was done correctly. Of course, Bugliosi blames this on the Kennedy's "limiting" the autopsy, but the only evidence he gives for this is that they didn't want Kennedy's Addison's disease mentioned, and that Jackie wasn't leaving until the autopsy was finished and the family could have the body with them.

There's more, of course. Eyewitness testimony is not reliable, unless it agrees with the Oswald as a lone nut version. Even if it comes from FBI, CIA, one of Lyndon Johnson's lawyers, high ranking mafia who were involved in a plot to kill Castro. They are just talking crazy, and should be ignored without a thought.

At this point I doubt we'll ever get to the "truth". The major players are dead. The time to look deeper into their stories and see where they could take us, to corroborate or disprove them, is passed. However, I don't think you can call everyone who's a doubter a kook. Not when even the man who put together the Warren commission was one. LBJ himself admitted several times that he wasn't sure about the Warren Commission's conclusions.

So I give this one star. Unless you're a student and want a good lesson in lawyerin' tricks.'
Post Reply