kennedy assassination

[RJM]

Jukka,

There's a better chance that the Easter Bunny was behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll on November 22nd, 1963 than Files.

James Files (Sutton) has about as much credibility on the Kennedy assassination as Joseph Gorman (Sickert) does in Ripperland. Files was just another anonymous prisoner doing a 30 year stretch until his confessed involvement in the most famous assassination of the twentieth century.

Cheers,

Robert

[Jonathan H]

To RJM

I could not agree more.

I would also add that many people seem unaware of the political context of the JFK Assassination in terms of the bias of the Buffs who initially flayed the Warren Report and the FBI's investigation.

Lee Harvey Oswald was perceived as a 'Man of the Left'.

Actually, by the time he shot Kennedy, this alienated, selfish, grindingly poor wife-beater had become an 'anarcho-futurist' with Hitler as his model, but nevertheless he had been a Communist, one who had briefly lived in the Soviet Union -- and who had tried to kill the fascistic General Walker.

For many American liberals it seemed totally implausible that Kennedy could have been killed in a racist, right-wing city of Nuts like Dallas by a Pro-Castro Leftist?!

Therefore, they claimed that it all must have been a right-wing conspiracy [the first villainous choice of the Buffs was Texas Oil Tycoons] to manipulate Oswald, or even frame him outright.

As another writer pointed out [was it William Manchester?] if Nixon had been elected in 1960 and then assassinated in, say Boston, but unexpectedly not by a 'Negro' or an ACLU fanatic, but by a Bircher -- right-wingers would never have accepted the official verdict either [actually most did not, believing that Oswald was an agent of the 'International Communist Conspiracy'].

Or look at tha assassination on President Reagan in March 1981. The would-be-assassin was not a liberal, or a 'welfare queen', or even a working stiff like a REAL cabbie.

Instead it was the young John W Hinckley Jr, a pudgy failure and scion of a a very conservative, affluent WASP pillar of the country club establishment -- and who was briefly a member of the American Nazi Party. The Right-wing Reagan was nearly killed in the liberal, mostly Black DC, by an extreme right-winger.

Are there any grand conspiracy theories about Reagan's near-murder?

Hardly any.

Certainly none which have gained populist traction in the mainstream.

This is because liberal Buffs had nothing to hang their bias onto because the 'fascistic' Reagan seemed to have been nearly offed by a junior fascist.

But if the shooter had been an African-American, or an ex-Yippie from the SDS -- and Reagan had died -- then we would be deluged in conspiracy mythology about frame-ups, and second and third gunmen, and so on ...

[jimarilyn]

Jukka,

There's a better chance that the Easter Bunny was behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll on November 22nd, 1963 than Files.

James Files (Sutton) has about as much credibility on the Kennedy assassination as Joseph Gorman (Sickert) does in Ripperland. Files was just another anonymous prisoner doing a 30 year stretch until his confessed involvement in the most famous assassination of the twentieth century.

Cheers,

Robert

Unless James E Files is the greatest actor who has ever lived there is no doubt he fired the Remington Fireball which blew JFK's brains out.

[RJM]

jimarilyn,

I don't place any faith in the ability to spot, or not spot, an actor. I prefer to look at the facts. James Files' confessions are tainted with lies. There is no reliable evidence to even place Files in Dallas on 22/11/63.

Robert

[Gman992]

First of all, it wasn't a "bad" rifle...just look at the testimony of the all firearms people who tested the rifle after the assassination. Pick-up a copy of "Kennedy and Lincoln" by Dr. John K Lattimer.

Additionally, Oswald probably never used the scope...the target was not that far away...

Lastly, all Oswald had to do was fire 2 shots in six seconds. Everyone always say that it was impossible to fire 3 shots in six seconds, but Oswald didn't have a clock. "Buffs" usually start the clock, and then get off 3 shots, when Oswald didn't even have a clock. In fact, the "clock" started when the first shot left Oswald's rifle. Not too mention that he used the iron sights which cut off a second or two on the "clock."

BTW, JFK was a very "conservative" politician---tax cuts to spur economic growth, expanding anti-communist operations during the Cold War, trying to assassination Castro at every turn instead of just leaving him alone, standing up to the Russians in Berlin instead of "talking" to him...did you know that they were Army and Marine units in Florida who actually thought that he was going to invade Cuba during the missile crisis, not to mention law and order. And let's be truthful, the Kennedy brothers were very hesitant on the Civil Rights Movement---it was their party that controlled the South, which meant they controlled whether or not, JFK was going to get reelected, and remember it was Robert Kennedy who authorized the FBI to follow and wiretap Martin Luther King wherever he went. Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower had better civil rights records than the Kennedy's did. The Kennedy Brothers didn't even want MLK to march on Washington! As for the military industrial complex, JFK was their biggest buyer--a new classes of Polaris submarines, F111 fighter contracts, the Green Berets, Navy SEALs, new rifles for the entire armed services, the CIA in South America hunting down Che, and that's not forget putting a man on the moon. JFK started the space race in the USA, and all of those contracts to build rockets and spaceships, and moon landers went to defense contractors. (And, it's not like these companies have mercenaries on their rolls because none of these companies EVER had any union problems.)

[TomTomKent]

Sorry to come late to the party, and I'm sure most the key elelments of the "case" have been discussed time and again here. But the only half convincing evidence I have seen for the idea of anybody but Osborn being involved are the frames of amateur film that "prove" JFK was shot from the front. Now it has been a long time since I saw the footage, and that was on some TV special when the Kevin Costner film was at the cinema, so excuse me if I get the facts wrong here.

From what I remember the few seconds of film in question show Kennedy lurching backwards, either because of the force of the exit wound, or because of a second gunman shooting him. As there appeared to be a plume of bodily matter ejected from his head my feelings at the time were more towards exit wound. I may not be a ballistics expert or a pathologist, but it appears to me a bullet flattened by an impact is more likely to push a body back towards the shooter, than a fresh new bullet entering a body "sucking" blood out backwards.

Still, if anybody can find rock solid proof of the second shooter I will consider it. So far every attempt to "explain" the killings has landed on shakey ground with the get out clause of "Oh sure they wiped the evidence clean. It was a cover up y'know."

Well, except Who Killed Kennedy? Because a time travelling dandy from Gallifrey is the kind of suspect NOBODY would expect. Well, him or Dave Lister and JFK from an alternative timeline in which he survived...

[j.r-ahde]

Hello TomTom!

One thing; the supposed assasin was not "Osborn", but Oswald...

And to my knowledge he was not related to Ozzy in any way!

All the best
Jukka

[Phryne Fisher]

Sorry to come late to the party, and I'm sure most the key elelments of the "case" have been discussed time and again here. But the only half convincing evidence I have seen for the idea of anybody but Osborn being involved are the frames of amateur film that "prove" JFK was shot from the front. Now it has been a long time since I saw the footage, and that was on some TV special when the Kevin Costner film was at the cinema, so excuse me if I get the facts wrong here.

From what I remember the few seconds of film in question show Kennedy lurching backwards, either because of the force of the exit wound, or because of a second gunman shooting him. As there appeared to be a plume of bodily matter ejected from his head my feelings at the time were more towards exit wound. I may not be a ballistics expert or a pathologist, but it appears to me a bullet flattened by an impact is more likely to push a body back towards the shooter, than a fresh new bullet entering a body "sucking" blood out backwards.

Still, if anybody can find rock solid proof of the second shooter I will consider it. So far every attempt to "explain" the killings has landed on shakey ground with the get out clause of "Oh sure they wiped the evidence clean. It was a cover up y'know."

Well, except Who Killed Kennedy? Because a time travelling dandy from Gallifrey is the kind of suspect NOBODY would expect. Well, him or Dave Lister and JFK from an alternative timeline in which he survived...

That sounds like the Zapruder film, Tom; it's the best-known of several films of the assassination.

I do understand your need for 'rock solid proof': a lot of people have been trying to find and produce that for nearly 50 years, and no-one's succeeded yet.

But if I can turn this upside-down on ya, where's the 'rock solid proof' that Oswald did it? There are those who say it's in the Warren Report, but a read of, for instance, Accessories After the Fact by Sylvia Meagher might make you think twice about that...or indeed a browse through some of the documents at http://www.maryferrell.org.

[DirectorDave]

I loved Oliver Stone's JFK but at the end of the day it is just a film.

The film made me take an interest in the case and once you examine all the available evidence academically the sensible conclusion is that Oswald acted alone and was the sole gunman.

[TomTomKent]

I can understand why some people actually enjoy the idea of a conspiracy theory in this case. Now let me be clear, I don't mean the many good folk who have read into the subject more deeply than I and came to a different conclusion than my limited understanding. I mean the people who sit there actually go looking for conspiracies because they feel one has to be there, after all in such a shocking event it feels kind of wrong that one simple, "normal" guy can be responsible. Or a small cell of terrorists. Or a very disturbed Polish Jew.

Unfortunately, as the Konspiracy Columnist in Fortean Times has pointed out, often it is the extremely vocal kooks who get the attention, so perfectly respectable research is tarred with the same brush, often undeservedly. If I express a passing interest in the Ripper I am often asked "Oh so you think it was that Prince then?" If I say "Yeah, I would like to know what UFOs are." Then somebody doesn't think: "Oh yes, objects in the sky that are unidentified," they think "Oh yes, grey aliens and David Ike. You know Star Trek wasn't real right?"

And the same goes for JFK. I am sure there is a lot of great books out there that dissect the events time and again, and part of me wants to read into it, but I never have time. So I watch TV shows on occassion, but as we all know TV shows tend to lean towards the "new shocking evidence!" rather than the "reliable confirmed evidence". And as yet there has been little to convince me otherwise. (If any of you good people want to see my convertion as a challenge feel free to private message me).


Oh...And I think I should explaing my Oswald Osbourne Gaff. I am both an idiot, and a reader of Marvel Comics. Feel free to mutter obsenities under your breath if it caused offense. Sorry.

[sdreid]

BTW, JFK was a very "conservative" politician---tax cuts to spur economic growth, expanding anti-communist operations during the Cold War, trying to assassination Castro at every turn instead of just leaving him alone, standing up to the Russians in Berlin instead of "talking" to him...did you know that they were Army and Marine units in Florida who actually thought that he was going to invade Cuba during the missile crisis, not to mention law and order. And let's be truthful, the Kennedy brothers were very hesitant on the Civil Rights Movement---it was their party that controlled the South, which meant they controlled whether or not, JFK was going to get reelected, and remember it was Robert Kennedy who authorized the FBI to follow and wiretap Martin Luther King wherever he went. Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower had better civil rights records than the Kennedy's did. The Kennedy Brothers didn't even want MLK to march on Washington! As for the military industrial complex, JFK was their biggest buyer--a new classes of Polaris submarines, F111 fighter contracts, the Green Berets, Navy SEALs, new rifles for the entire armed services, the CIA in South America hunting down Che, and that's not forget putting a man on the moon. JFK started the space race in the USA, and all of those contracts to build rockets and spaceships, and moon landers went to defense contractors. (And, it's not like these companies have mercenaries on their rolls because none of these companies EVER had any union problems.)

Yes, it's interesting how times change. Kennedy, who was called liberal in 1960, would be a conservative now and Reagan who was a staunch conservative in the 1980s would be considered a Rino (Republican in name only) today.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello, Stan!

Maybe that's inevitable; time gives a new perspective!

All the best
Jukka

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

One thing, that keeps this debate going on probably forever, is;

What are to odds to that, that an assassinated president's senator-brother gets assassinated by coincidence?!

And the speculation, that will always add fuel with the latter one, is;

Sirhan Sirhan was there, no doubt about it. But, for example, "Deutsche Welle" presented some years ago a documentary, that stated the lethal shot coming from behind. The only one besides Sirhan Sirhan having a gun in sight was the security guard of the hotel, right behind RFK...

OK, this belongs more to the RFK assasination thread, but I thought to mention this issue anyway...

All the best
Jukka

[Phryne Fisher]

Hello you all!

One thing, that keeps this debate going on probably forever, is;

What are to odds to that, that an assassinated president's senator-brother gets assassinated by coincidence?!

And the speculation, that will always add fuel with the latter one, is;

Sirhan Sirhan was there, no doubt about it. But, for example, "Deutsche Welle" presented some years ago a documentary, that stated the lethal shot coming from behind. The only one besides Sirhan Sirhan having a gun in sight was the security guard of the hotel, right behind RFK...

OK, this belongs more to the RFK assasination thread, but I thought to mention this issue anyway...

All the best
Jukka

Yeah, JR, there's autopsy photos floating around somewhere on the internet showing RFK's fatal wound - it's immediately behind the ear; no way Sirhan could have fired it, since he was standing several feet in front of Bobby.

Then there's the fact that Sirhan's gun held 8 bullets but evidence indicates 14 bullets were fired in that kitchen that night. The LAPD just took away the door panels with bullet holes proving more than 8 bullets were fired, confiscated everyone's photos, and slammed the door.

Everyone was either too traumatised, too scared, or too lazy to do anything about it.

They knew it'd be a waste of time. They'd seen what went on after Dallas.

[Vila]

Hello TomTom!

One thing; the supposed assasin was not "Osborn", but Oswald...

And to my knowledge he was not related to Ozzy in any way!

All the best
Jukka

Ah, but Norman Osborn has already proved time and time again that he is quite capable of cold-blooded murder. And capable of escaping from a police blockade.

Dan