Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
TheMacGuffin

New JFK Assassination Lecture

130 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Gordon Arnold and Beverly Oliver were just two of many witnesses who saw someone shooting at JFK from the front. Arnold probably saw the assassin, and another man who claimed to be from the CIA.

Ed Hoffman, who was standing on the overpass overlooking the plaza, saw one of the assassins fire at JFK from the front, and then toss the rifle to another man, who disassembled it. One of these men was wearing a police uniform and another one like a railroad employee.

As for who exactly did the shooting, the one thing that's clear to me is that it was more than one guy.

[media=]

[/media] Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 bullets ... 5 wounds. 3 in Governor Connally and, at least, 2 in JFK ..and one of those falls off the hospital gurney in pristine condition. .. mhm.

.. not to mention the bystander injured in the cheek by a chip of flying curb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Some researchers who have studied the film evidence maintain that the first shots fired at JFK were from behind, but they originated in the Dal-Tex building. These gunshots may have been from weapons that were using silencers, though.

As for the bullet or bullets found in Parkland hospital, there is considerable doubt about where they came from, and if the one the FBI called the "Magic Bullet" ever struck JFK or Connally.

[media=]

[/media] Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunt? If the man made a confession, so what? I know that any confession isn't true because I know what the evidence is.

A tracheotomy was performed at the site of the throat wound in an attempt to save Kennedy's life. There's nothing what-so-ever unusual about what took place with that wound in that regard.

If that's the wound which is referred to as being "tampered with", then it's blatantly obvious that we are simply too far apart in how we evaluate a given circumstance. In other words, we look at the same thing, but we each see something different. In our case, too different.

Re: gov. officials at the knoll... near the knoll, hanging around that area, whatever, apparently, it's another point in which you disagree with the conclusions of the assassin. comm.

Snipers at the Dal-Tex bldg. Now, if I'm not mistaken, that's a new one.

Correction: There was a witness to Oswald's presence on the sixth floor. At about noon, Charlie Given's went to the sixth floor because he'd left his cigarettes in his jacket. The floor was empty, but when he got to the elevator, he was surprised to see Oswald there. He'd asked Oswald if he was going down because it was lunchtime, and Oswald said "No, Sir." (Given's was Oswald's senior)

After the assin. (about 12:30) a clerical supervisor, identified as Mrs. Robert Reid, said she passed Oswald as he cut through her office. She said he was carrying a full bottle of Coke. She said she felt it was odd to see a stock boy there at that time...that the only time Oswald had come in there was to get change- she thought for the machine, but he already had his Coke.

(This information comes from Reclaiming History- by Vincent Bugliosi.)

When you've tied together what the conspiracy was...I mean, I don't know if you've attempted to, or had time to pull all your YouTube research together and then evaluate it, but if you do, and you have evidence to support your conclusion, then I might be willing to participate in a discussion, that is, if it's an actual discussion, not a YouTube fest.

Until then, it's clear that you don't want to discuss what you throw out there, you're content to throw something/anything out there, and leave it at that.

Surely, you can understand that for one who's interested in discussion, that's quite boring. If all I want to do is view YouTube, then that's where I'd go.

"Taking your for it" is beside the point. The point is, I'm not here to view YouTube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 bullets ... 5 wounds. 3 in Governor Connally and, at least, 2 in JFK ..and one of those falls off the hospital gurney in pristine condition. .. mhm.

.. not to mention the bystander injured in the cheek by a chip of flying curb.

I'd say there were more than five wounds because there's not always an exit wound.

In this case all wounds, entrance and exit, were examined and considered individually

Nine forensic pathologists and all (with the exception of Wecht) agreed that the "single bullet theory" was consistent with the wounds to Kennedy and Connally.

The bullet was not pristine. It appears in a photo as pristine, but the base of the bullet was distorted, and I believe it lost tiny metal flakes as it struck Connally's ribs, and then wrist. The wound to Connally's thigh was described as "superficial."

I don't think it's unheard of to find a bullet from a shooting victim in an ER. I wouldn't think that's impossible, especially when the vic. has a superficial wound from a bullet.

If it was staged, it seems it would have been much easier to just toss it in the limo.

Yes, a bystander, James Tague, was struck by debris. I don't know if it was determined to be from bullet fragments or concrete, but that was the first shot. It was witnessed by a woman identified as Mrs. Donald Baker who worked at the depository bldg. She was standing out in front of the building and heard what she thought sounded like a firecracker and she saw sparks on the pavement in what she thought was about in the middle of the next lane beside the pres. limo. It's known that a curb was hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snipers at the Dal-Tex building are definitely not a new idea--or at least one sniper.

When Regi asks which of the Dallas doctors thought that JFK had been shot from the front, the answer is that they ALL did. The tracheotomy was done over what they considered to be an entrance wound, although the autopsy doctors at Bethesda said they never examine this wound.

Why was that, Regi? They were informed before the autopsy that this was indeed an entrance would but they never examined it. That alone is enough to bring the Warren Commission into question.

It is also quite possible that JFK was shot twice in the head, from different directions, since the Zapruder film seems to show that the damage to his head gets even worse a split second after the first shot caused the big explosion or "halo" of blood.

Then there was that bullet hole in the windshield that could never be examined because it was destroyed.

I could go on and on here, but the fact is that we have more bullets being fired and more wounds being inflicted than can be accounted for by the Warren Commission, which had only two bullets to inflict all the injuries. At first they thought they had three, but then they had to conclude that the first shot missed.

Even LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover did not really think that the same "Magic Bullet" struck JFK and Connally, and we now know that from the declassified tape recordings of their calls.

In my opinion, the Warren Commission was 100% discredited long ago, and even the House Assassinations Committee admitted long ago that there was at least one other gunman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As soon as I read the Operation Northwoods documents, which discussed how various pretexts and provocations that could be created in the U.S. to justify the invasion of Cuba, I understood how this could have backfired on JFK.

The Joint Chiefs also thought they they should be in charge of all Cuba operations rather than the CIA, which we now know was also the policy of John and Robert Kennedy after the bay of Pigs disaster. Yet after the Cuban Missile Crisis, they had considered calling off the covert war against Castro, which may well have upset many people. Ironically, LBJ did call it off, while at the same time began considering the escalation of the war in Vietnam.

36-1460a.jpg

http://media.nara.go...15/36-1460a.jpg

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J.C. Price told Mark Lance that he had heard shots fired from the front of JFK's limo, then seen a man running away in that area immediately afterwards, He told the police about this but was never called by the Warren Commission. Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Bill and Gayle Newman, who were very close to the presidential limo, also heard shots coming from the front and saw the back of JFK's head blown out. A reporter who was in the plaza that day and also heard at least one shot coming from the front had her story "altered" by the FBI before it was printed in the newspaper. Why?

[media=]

[/media] Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could ask some other important questions, too. Where is JFK's brain? It has been "missing" from the National Archives since 1966. When and where was it first removed and examined? Where are the records of that examination? They are all "missing" too.

Is there any judge or attorney in any courtroom in the United States who would tolerate such a "loss" of vital evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, you're gonna have to decide what evidence is credible and what isn't.

Doctors who tended to Kennedy weren't concerned with analyzing wounds; they're only objective was to attempt to save his life!

Did the doctors you refer to see the x-rays of Kennedy's skull? No, they saw brains and blood.

The wounds were indeed examined by the pathogists at autop.

In fact, Humes was stumped that there was no bullet still in the body. He and another path. probed the wound to the back in an attempt to trace the path of the bullet and they were unsuccessful. Humes' concluded at the time that the bullet must have dislodged itself during efforts in the ER.!

He also didn't know that the wound to the throat was anything more than the site of the trach.! He didn't know that it was an entrance or exit!

Sounds crazy, but I can tell you that such things do occur.

Motive...forget it. Motive means nothing. Motive isn't evidence, and if you start with that you'll surely lead to the wrong conclusion.

You must start with the evidence, but first you need to know what the evidence actually is. If you continue to consult the sources you have, then I assure you, you'll keep on the same track...with many many questions, and no answers, and it will never end. Perpetual oblivion.

Only one thing occurred that day, and there are countless theories. That alone should tell you that there's a lot of B.S. out there.

It's up to you to decide what sources to believe.

Conspiracy theorists pick and choose what suits their particular theory. If a doc doesn't support their theory, then the doc must have been altered. You see, it can never end if that's the approach you take.

You must start with a credible source, otherwise, it's useless.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Conspiracy theorists pick and choose what suits their particular theory.

Some do, but not all. Regardless, those who believe the government's version of events do the same exact thing.

If information is available that doesn't fall in line with the government's theory (and if you're being honest, you will recognize that the government's claims as to what happened really aren't established as anything more than a theory) than those who don't believe there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy will simply dismiss that information.

Personally, I'm willing to look at all the information available - whether it stands in contrast to my beliefs or not - and make a decision about how reliable and likely it is.

I see no reason why people on both sides of the argument shouldn't be willing to do the same.

You see, it can never end if that's the approach you take.

That may be true, but simply because a definitive conclusion may not be capable of being reached doesn't mean one should exclude all the information available that dictates Oswald did not act alone.

I will yet again state the fact that the United States House Select Committee On Assassinations concluded in 1978 that "Kennedy was very likely assassinated as the result of a conspiracy."

Henceforth, Oswald DID NOT act alone.

And yet you have the gumption to state only conspiracy theorists "pick and choose what fits their particular theory."

You must start with a credible source, otherwise, it's useless.

I agree. And as everyone should know the government is far from being a reliable source on much of anything - especially in regards to the JFK assassination.

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angel Left Wing, this back and forth isn't getting anywhere, and I don't want to waste any more of our time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Angel Left Wing, this back and forth isn't getting anywhere, and I don't want to waste any more of our time.

I'm surprised you've remained in the conversation as long as you have to begin with considering your earlier comments that you are fed up with JFK conspiracy theories and have neither the patience nor the energy to spend discussing the issue.

When you refuse to accept any information, regardless of how credible it is, that stands in contrast to the government's theory that Oswald acted alone then it is of little wonder as to why you get so frustrated with those that bring these pieces of information up.

You've decided the government's theory is correct and no amount of credible information suggesting their theory isn't true is going to change your mind. At this point I think the government could come forward and state it was a conspiracy and you still wouldn't change your mind (oh wait, that's already happened with the U.S. House Select Committee On Assassinations having concluded in 1978 that the Kennedy assassination was "very likely" a conspiracy).

Edited by Angel Left Wing
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised you've remained in the conversation as long as you have to begin with considering your earlier comments that you are fed up with JFK conspiracy theories and have neither the patience nor the energy to spend discussing the issue.

When you refuse to accept any information, regardless of how credible it is, that stands in contrast to the government's theory that Oswald acted alone then it is of little wonder as to why you get so frustrated with those that bring these pieces of information up.

You've decided the government's theory is correct and no amount of credible information suggesting their theory isn't true is going to change your mind. At this point I think the government could come forward and state it was a conspiracy and you still wouldn't change your mind (oh wait, that's already happened with the U.S. House Select Committee On Assassinations having concluded in 1978 that the Kennedy assassination was "very likely" a conspiracy).

The official or Warren Commission version of the assassination has been systematically demolished since the 1960s, ever since the Magic Bullet theory was discredited and so many witnesses as well as ALL the doctors in Dallas reported that JFK was hit from the back and front at the same time. That just leaves more bullets and assassins than the official theory can accommodate.

Even the investigators for the House Committee also knew that the FBI and CIA were stonewalling them, and that so many leads had never been followed up or investigated. There are too many of these even to list.

Why was George H.W. Bush in Dallas in the day of the assassination, for example? Why did he send a letter to the FBI warning of an assassination threat in Houston, and then go to Miami to talk with the anti-Castro Cubans right after the assassination? All coincidences, I'm sure.

Why did a document surface much later stating that Oswald had had CIA training in 1957, and that later he was an FBI informant when he returned to the U.S.? That makes him sound a little more complicated than the official version would have us believe. Why did Richard Helms keep lying blatantly about all this for decades?

Why was Richard Nixon really in Dallas on the day of the assassination, and then unable to remember where he was when he heard the news of JFK's death? He gave several different versions of that story. And what about the document that emerged later showing that Nixon may have known Jack Ruby as early as 1947, when he was still a first-term member of Congress?

Yes, there are indeed a lot of questions here, but few answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angel Left Wing, I'm surprised that I've remained in this conversation after all the personal insults.

First, you were suspicious of me (imagine you suspicious!) of why I deleted most of your post. That must mean to you that I'm sneaky.

Upon reviewing the thread, you told me that...

I don't care to investigate the truth,

I accept lower standards.

I don't realize what I state.

I have poor decision making.

I don't want to know the truth.

I refuse information.

And you insinuate that I'm not reasonable and logical.

When you do agree, you do your best to find exception.

You state your opinion as fact...that the government never proved Oswald guilty.

The kicker...your latest contradiction in that I believe what the government tells me. If the government has told me that it was "very likely" a conspiracy, and I obviously don't believe that, then what does that tell you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Angel Left Wing, I'm surprised that I've remained in this conversation after all the personal insults.

I have not personally insulted anyone. If you feel I have use the "report" button and the moderators will handle it.

First, you were suspicious of me (imagine you suspicious!) of why I deleted most of your post. That must mean to you that I'm sneaky.

You're claims above are nothing more than incorrect assumptions. I wasn't suspicious of you then nor am I suspicious of you now. The same can be said for any thoughts of you being "sneaky." If I felt either of those things about you I would come right out and state it (as I have done with my other thoughts concerning your beliefs on the JFK assassination).

I believe you didn't quote anything more of what I said because it made points which stood in contrast to the government's theory about what occurred regarding the assassination of President Kennedy and you didn't feel like addressing them (which seems like a logical belief for me to reach considering earlier statements from you that you are "fed up" with the JFK assassination conspiracy theories and have neither the time nor the energy to partake in such discussion).

I also pointed out the fact to you that you accept lesser standards from the government in accepting thier theory that Oswald acted alone.

You claim this isn't true, yet your comments and beliefs prove otherwise.

In fact, when I asked about this (that the government declares their theory on the JFK assassination as "official" and then that's what is to be accepted as truth) your response to me was "Yeah."

You then later expanded upon that answer by stating "Yes, like it or not, that's the way it works."

Upon reviewing the thread, you told me that...

I don't care to investigate the truth,

I accept lower standards.

I don't realize what I state.

I have poor decision making.

I don't want to know the truth.

I refuse information.

And you insinuate that I'm not reasonable and logical.

And when it comes to your beliefs about the JFK assassination (at least the ones presented in this thread) I stand by all those statements.

As mentioned above, your own comments within this thread demostrate that you accept lower standards from the government when it comes to believing their theory that Oswald acted alone in assassinating President Kennedy. They have never proven this and there is no evidence which clearly points a finger in his direction, yet you believe it because the government tells you that is what happened.

You still believe it despite the fact, which I have mentioned numerous times, the United States House Select Committee On Assassinations concluded in 1978 that the assassination of President Kennedy was "very likely" the result of a conspiracy.

You brush their conslusion off based on your feelings that they came to that belief based on nothing more that speculaion. Yet at the same time you believe the government's conclusion that Oswald acted alone despite the fact they reached that conclusion based on nothing more than speculation themselves.

With that being the case, whether you are aware of it or not, you have shown that you accept lower standards from the government when accepting their theory that Oswald acted alone. Not only have you shown you accept these lower standards, but you have stated yourself that the process of the government declaring their theory as official and it then being commonly accepted as true is simply "how it works" whether I (or anyone else who doesn't accept the government's story) like it or not.

With evereything I stated above being true (and found within this thread) it falls in line that yes,

1.) You don't care to investigate the truth (regarding the JFK assassination)

2.) You accept lower standards from the government (in regards to the JFK assassination)

3.) You don't realize things you have stated (or perhaps you worded them in ways that don't accurately translate your beliefs)

4.) You display poor decision making regarding the JFK assassination (as evidenced by accepting that "that's the way it is" when it comes to believing the government's theory that Oswald acted alone)

5.) You don't want to know the truth (again, evidenced by your statement that "that's the way it is" regarding the government's theory on the JFK assassination being accepted as true simply because it comes from the government)

6.) You refuse information (again, evidenced by believing and accepting as true only the information that either comes directly from the government or falls in line with their story regarding JFK's assassination)

7.) You display traits of being unreasonable and illlogical when it comes to discussing the assassination of JFK (this is again evidenced by the fact you won't accept any information that stands in controst to the government's theory that Oswald acted alone as even standing a chance of possibly being true)

When you do agree, you do your best to find exception.

I'd have to reread the thread to see what we have agreed on (I really don't recall agreeing on anything). Nonetheless, if I find exception that would seem to indicate that we don't really agree on whatever point(s) you may be referring to.

Either way, I do not purposely find exception with anything for the sake of finding exception. If I do so it is because I try to consider all the information in existence about something and then come to a conslusion as to whether or not it is worthy of consideration as being truthful and accurate.

You state your opinion as fact...that the government never proved Oswald guilty.

Your statement above implies that you believe it is a fact that the government has proven Oswald guilty of participating in, and acting alone, in the assassination of President Kennedy.

Please present to me the evidence that proves that is, indeed, a fact.

The thing is you can't provide that information because it simply doesn't exist (although by all means, please do so if you believe you can).

With that being the case my claim that the government never proved Oswald acted alone is, indeed, a fact. If it isn't please provide to me (or direct me to) the evidence which proves Oswald acted alone

The kicker...your latest contradiction in that I believe what the government tells me. If the government has told me that it was "very likely" a conspiracy, and I obviously don't believe that, then what does that tell you?

It tells me that you gobbled up the initial story which stood in existence for roughly 15-years before the United States House Select Committee On Assassinations issued any conclusion on their beliefs regarding the assassination of President Kennedy.

It tells me that since the Warren Commission Report was, and still is, regarded as the "official" investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy that you are far more inclined to believe it's conclusions about the assassination than you are to believe what the U.S. House Select Committee On Assassinations has to say about it 15-years later.

The conclusions reached by the U.S. House Select Committee are not acknowledged as "official" nor is the conslusion they reached commonly known by people who don't look much into the assassination of President Kennedy. You rarely hear mention of the committee's conclusion, yet the Warren Commission and the government's belief that Oswald acted alone is mentioned consistently whenever the media discusses the assassination of President Kennedy.

I have little doubt that if the government's theory in 1963 was that Oswald didn't shoot President Kennedy and / or that he didn't act alone you (and the large majority of people) would believe those things wholeheartedly because it would have come directly from the government.

And afterall, you have told us yourself within this thread that whether you "like it or not, that's the way it works."

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are those who believe that a record is wrong, then they have to present evidence to show that it's wrong.

If those who generate a report- any report- continue to stand by their conclusion, then that's what has to occur.

I don't believe that has ever occurred; I don't believe that there's ever been any evidence presented to show that the conclusion of the original report was wrong, and that there was "probably" a conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If there are those who believe that a record is wrong, then they have to present evidence to show that it's wrong.

Um, so basically you are back to your verbiage of "like it or not, that's the way it is."

At this point, I really don't know if you're aware of what your statement above implies.

That being the case I shall inform you that whether you realize it or not, you are telling people that since the government produced a "record" which states Oswald acted alone in assassinating President Kennedy it is to therefore be accepted as truth unless it can be proven that Oswald didn't act alone and / or didn't fire the shot that killed Kennedy.

You are telling us that it doesn't matter that there is no evidence proving Oswald acted alone or killed Kennedy. All that matters is that the government put down on paper that he did these things and there has been nothing defintive showing he did not do what they claim he did.

Basically, the government could have made "record" that aliens from space were responsible for killing Kennedy, and if they (the government) had done so - and it couldn't be definitively proven that aliens weren't responsible - that record of events should be accepted as truth.

That is not only stupid and ridiculous, it is also childish.

And in case you aren't aware, it is the same exact thing people accuse "conspiracy theorists" of doing every time they present a belief that doesn't fall in line with the "official" version of events on any given conspiracy.

Your quoted statement above only further evidences the fact that you believe the government's theory that Oswald acted alone in assassinating President Kennedy simply because it has been stated by the government. Using your logic it doesn't matter that there is no evidence proving Oswald acted alone, it only matters that the government told us he did.

If those who generate a report - any report - continue to stand by their conclusion, then that's what has to occur.

Is this really how you go about accepting things as truthful and factual? Does this apply to reports generated by any person or organization, or does it only apply to reports generated by the government, people, and organizations that you personally respect and place trust in?

If it only applies to groups and individuals you personally trust, then I guess it is your world and we just live in it. :rolleyes:

Guess what, UFO-ologists have generated reports which they have stood by for years stating aliens exist and have visited planet Earth for centuries. Using your logic (or lack thereof I should say) everyone should accept those beliefs as true because the report has been generated and those who produced it have continued to stand by it.

That being the case, clearly it must be true - unless, of course, someone can prove to us that aliens have not now, nor have they ever, visited planet Earth.

I don't believe that has ever occurred; I don't believe that there's ever been any evidence presented to show that the conclusion of the original report was wrong, and that there was "probably" a conspiracy.

Any person with any degree of reasonable sense and logic would realize that a lack of evidence proving "Oswald didn't do it" does not somehow equate to "Oswald did do it."

Now, with all that said, there is evidence which indicates that at the very least Oswald did not act alone.

How do we know this?

Because the wounds to Kennedy's forehead and neck were entry wounds and as we all know Oswald was certainly not in position to fire any shots at Kennedy from an angle that would strike him in the front of any part of his body.

And since you didn't do so last time, I'll ask again: Can you present to me any evidence that proves Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone?

If not - and taking into account your quoted statements above - are you conceding that there is no evidence proving Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone?

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter to me who generates a report.

The reason I believe that the conclusion of the original report in this case is correct is because I agree that that's what the evidence shows, not because that's what the government told me, and so I have to accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter to me who generates a report.

So you believe aliens have visited Earth in the past and still do in the present because UFO-ologists have made records stating such things and have stood by those records ever since?

(Using the logic you gave in your previous post it'd be logical for one to conclude your answer to my above question would be "yes")

The reason I believe that the conclusion of the original report in this case is correct is because I agree that that's what the evidence shows, not because that's what the government told me, and so I have to accept it.

Then why are you stating that once a record of something is made it is to be recognized as truth as long as the people who made that record stand by it throughout their lifetime?

Given your statement about generated records, you are telling yourself that by default you have no choice but to believe the government's theory on the JFK assassination whether you actually believe it or not.

At this point, you are literally fooling yourself.

By the way, do you have any evidence you can produce which proves Oswald shot Kennedy and that he carried out this attack on his own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the original conclusion stands as the truth because the evidence shows it to be the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe the original conclusion stands as the truth because the evidence shows it to be the truth.

That would be the evidence that you are unable to provide proving Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone, right?

I think at this point you are well aware of the fallacies within your statements and have now resorted to talking in circles rather than partaking in actual discussion, answering questions, and asking those of your own.

And since you refuse to even acknowledge the question asking you to provide the evidence that proves Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone I'm left to conclude that you realize it simply doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are those who believe that a record is wrong, then they have to present evidence to show that it's wrong.

If those who generate a report- any report- continue to stand by their conclusion, then that's what has to occur.

I don't believe that has ever occurred; I don't believe that there's ever been any evidence presented to show that the conclusion of the original report was wrong, and that there was "probably" a conspiracy.

So much evidence has been presented that the Warren Commission was wrong, that it is completely discredited. As far as I'm concerned, they are the ones who have to prove their case now, and without ignoring or suppressing all the new evidence that has been found since 1964.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And I'm the first to say that it's incredible that the president of the U.S. would be allowed to ride around a big city in an open convertible. Nowadays he couldn't do anything like that, and everywhere he would be guarded heavily by police, the Secret Service and the military. No one just gets to walk in and see the president or any other high official these days without being cleared and screened.

Perhaps those were more "innocent" times back then, but by 1963 there had already been three presidents assassinated and many more attempts. Some of these were just crazy people with guns, and others were conspiracies, but either way, JFK's security that day looks very lax to me.

I mean, President Andrew Jackson confronted a certifiably crazy guy who thought he was King Richard IIII, and both of his guns misfired. That was back in 1835.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.