cbr said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

cbr said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

schmidthead said:

---

Read Gerald Poster's book Case Closed. He refutes every single myth that is out there… Oswald definitely acted alone. Did you know Oswald shot at an Army General before JFK (used the same rifle as JFK)?

---

Case Closed is a good read. People are more comforted by the idea that taking out a figure as crucial as the President requires a massive conspiracy. The evidence is pretty convincing that Oswald acted alone.

---

It makes zero difference to me personally/psychologically whether it was a conspiracy or not. I don't "need" it to be one way or the other, and I would argue that it's actually more comforting to most people for it to be a lone gunman as opposed to our government being capable of such horror against our own President.

For me, it's nothing more than the overwhelming evidence, logistically speaking, of a second gunman, from the front. Especially after you watch this doc, which isn't some crackpot endeavor. They very throughly take us through step-by-step, shot-by-shot, document-by-document, interview-by-interview, and at the very least show how many glaring inconsistencies there are between the various reports and "facts" over the years. I'm not saying that I fully believe the "why" conclusion Stone comes to, or that the conspiracy runs as deep as he suspects, but at this point I just see no way there wasn't a second gunman. I'd even go so far as to say it's almost impossible there wasn't a second gunman, all things considered.

---

There is actually no evidence whatsoever of a second gunman from the front.

---

There is actually a lot of evidence of it; you may not find it credible, and clearly a lot of people (and warren commission) agree with you, and that's fine, but this is a false statement.

i havent followed it much, or at all lately, and dont really have an opinion, but i always thought the zapruder film showing his head getting popped was pretty convincing for me. I've never seen anything i've shot react like that from a high and behind shot.

---

There is actually no evidence. None. Just conjecture.

And for someone to be set up at the grassy knoll, they would be basically at a fence in a public parking lot where anyone could see them. No sniper is going to set up in a place like that.

Have you made a lot of headshots on a moving target in a vehicle that is strapped to their seat due to a bad back?

Kennedy's head initially moved forward when hit. Zapruder film shows this.

https://www.history.com/news/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-theory-debunked


For someone to be at the Grassy Knoll, they would be about where my red circle is, kind of behind a fence.



So no cover or concealment for them, like Oswald had build in his Sniper's nest in the TBD. They would have been completely open to the parking lot, and because everyone was turning to look at JFK as they passed, ALL the people that were around the #8 on the map would have been facing them and would have likely been able to see a muzzle blast.

It is just not feasible that a sniper would stand behind a fence with on concealment to fire shots on the POTUS.

---

good post, I'll review. my first comment is though, there was certainly live eye witness testimony about it, which is evidence. it may not be credible, but it certainly is evidence. There are death bed statements too, etc. , and i recall all the old fuzzy 'guy in the bushes' photos; again, maybe not credible, i dont have an opinion, but certainly evidence.

that's the only reason why i made such a definitive 'that is false' statement. no offense intended. i also recall lots of other evidence people have thrown out over the years.

---

Sure, just based on acoustics, there were people that got the location of the shots wrong. That's fine. Earwitness testimony isn't really reliable testimony as every Karen on Nextdoor example shows us.

No one saw a muzzle blast there. There was no cover, no concealment there. It was an active stockyards, so there were likely people working there or people that moved to the fence to see the cars pass by. I don't doubt that it could be a place someone tried to watch, but I will say it was absolutely a terrible sniper's nest for a large number of reasons.



Here's a shot as the motorcade took off after Kennedy was hit before Clint Hill even reached the rear bumper. This is the picture that is supposed to find the hidden guy over the fence. Find him.

Also in this picture, the people on the grassy knoll are just standing there watching. If there was someone that shot from just over the fence, do you think they would just be standing there watching? People close to the shots ducked for cover, but these people would theoretically be a couple dozen feet from the gun blast, and they are just standing there? I don't think that is plausible. Maybe someone stopped and frozen in fear, but every single person not reacting at all from a gun shot that just flew over their head? Seems not very likely.

cbr said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

cbr said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

schmidthead said:

---

Read Gerald Poster's book Case Closed. He refutes every single myth that is out there… Oswald definitely acted alone. Did you know Oswald shot at an Army General before JFK (used the same rifle as JFK)?

---

Case Closed is a good read. People are more comforted by the idea that taking out a figure as crucial as the President requires a massive conspiracy. The evidence is pretty convincing that Oswald acted alone.

---

It makes zero difference to me personally/psychologically whether it was a conspiracy or not. I don't "need" it to be one way or the other, and I would argue that it's actually more comforting to most people for it to be a lone gunman as opposed to our government being capable of such horror against our own President.

For me, it's nothing more than the overwhelming evidence, logistically speaking, of a second gunman, from the front. Especially after you watch this doc, which isn't some crackpot endeavor. They very throughly take us through step-by-step, shot-by-shot, document-by-document, interview-by-interview, and at the very least show how many glaring inconsistencies there are between the various reports and "facts" over the years. I'm not saying that I fully believe the "why" conclusion Stone comes to, or that the conspiracy runs as deep as he suspects, but at this point I just see no way there wasn't a second gunman. I'd even go so far as to say it's almost impossible there wasn't a second gunman, all things considered.

---

There is actually no evidence whatsoever of a second gunman from the front.

---

There is actually a lot of evidence of it; you may not find it credible, and clearly a lot of people (and warren commission) agree with you, and that's fine, but this is a false statement.

i havent followed it much, or at all lately, and dont really have an opinion, but i always thought the zapruder film showing his head getting popped was pretty convincing for me. I've never seen anything i've shot react like that from a high and behind shot.

---

https://www.history.com/news/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-theory-debunked


For someone to be at the Grassy Knoll, they would be about where my red circle is, kind of behind a fence.



So no cover or concealment for them, like Oswald had build in his Sniper's nest in the TBD. They would have been completely open to the parking lot, and because everyone was turning to look at JFK as they passed, ALL the people that were around the #8 on the map would have been facing them and would have likely been able to see a muzzle blast.

It is just not feasible that a sniper would stand behind a fence with on concealment to fire shots on the POTUS.

---

i see your point on the knoll. i also recall hearing theories about someone under the overpass,

---

Overpass has the same problem. No cover, it is a harder shot because now you have everyone looking at you while you do it and it is MUCH farther away.



Fatal shot location was about the #5 on the yellow car. Only now all the cops/agents are looking directly at you as they drive. They are probably going to see the muzzle blast. Doesn't make sense.

Quote:

---

in a car, in the bushes, even one of the SS members.... dont really remember being convinced by any of that, but there are other possibilities.

---

There is no evidence of someone in the bushes and it has the same implausibilities of the Grassy Knoll theory. Plus, how do you get out of there with a rifle? Police rounded up all kinds of people and swarmed the area right away.

The SS agent in the following car is by far the dumbest theory ever.

That car had 6 people in it and four agents holding on to the side. That car included JFK buddies Emory Roberts and Ken ODonnell. You can see in this pic, Clint Hill on the JFK car in the foreground as they drive away and SA George Hickey with the AR in the rear seat of the follow limo. That car had 10 people in it and was directly behind JFK's car. All 10 people were either special agents or war veterans. Do you think that Hickey would be able to fire his rifle right next to all those guy's ears and then they see Kennedy's head blow up, and not one reacts or takes the gun? They wouldn't know it was an accident. Again, the dumbest theory and completely without merit. Especially since the rifle would be fired right next to Kennedy's best friends, but they never did or said anything about it?

Quote:

---

i also seem to recall that the autopsy was botched and photos and report covered up, and theories that the exit wounds were not consistent with Oswald, but i dont remember the details.

---

The autopsy was a mess and certainly not up to current standards. As a medical photographer, I actually have to participate in some autopsies. Not my favorite job. We do have pictures in addition to the writings. One of the most difficult things is that they had to perform a tracheotomy on Kennedy and they used the exit wound to do so, damaging any evidence in the process.

So yeah, the autopsies were pretty much a mess, but had more to do with incompetence than anything else.

Quote:

---

i do remember thinking that oswald's history, connections, and the various motives made it unlikely, extremely unlikely to me, that he was acting on his own, even if he was acting alone in doing the actual shooting.

---

I think that people may have "wound up " Oswald. "Man, I wish that SOB was dead!" but I don't think anyone would plan anything with him.

No one in the world liked him - not even his family. He was unhinged, the US didn't want him, the Russians didn't want him and no one trusted him because he was a wacko. If it was the CIA, why not use their own highly trained people? Why bring in a loose canon you can't account for. Oswald was dumb and crazy. Same with the Russians. Or the Mafia. They had their own people that they trusted that handled things like this.

Oswald was barely able to keep a job moving boxes of books. He was brash and volatile. He's not the type of person that anyone would use to plan an assassination. Especially not organizations that specialize in planned assassinations.

I won't disagree that I think a lot of people wanted JFK dead, but wishing he was dead and acting on it are two very different things. And of all the people in the world one would want to work with, LHO seems like about the last person anyone would want, because no one had any reason to trust him.

Guitarsoup said:

---

cbr said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

schmidthead said:

---

Read Gerald Poster's book Case Closed. He refutes every single myth that is out there… Oswald definitely acted alone. Did you know Oswald shot at an Army General before JFK (used the same rifle as JFK)?

---

Case Closed is a good read. People are more comforted by the idea that taking out a figure as crucial as the President requires a massive conspiracy. The evidence is pretty convincing that Oswald acted alone.

---

It makes zero difference to me personally/psychologically whether it was a conspiracy or not. I don't "need" it to be one way or the other, and I would argue that it's actually more comforting to most people for it to be a lone gunman as opposed to our government being capable of such horror against our own President.

For me, it's nothing more than the overwhelming evidence, logistically speaking, of a second gunman, from the front. Especially after you watch this doc, which isn't some crackpot endeavor. They very throughly take us through step-by-step, shot-by-shot, document-by-document, interview-by-interview, and at the very least show how many glaring inconsistencies there are between the various reports and "facts" over the years. I'm not saying that I fully believe the "why" conclusion Stone comes to, or that the conspiracy runs as deep as he suspects, but at this point I just see no way there wasn't a second gunman. I'd even go so far as to say it's almost impossible there wasn't a second gunman, all things considered.

---

There is actually no evidence whatsoever of a second gunman from the front.

---

There is actually a lot of evidence of it; you may not find it credible, and clearly a lot of people (and warren commission) agree with you, and that's fine, but this is a false statement.

i havent followed it much, or at all lately, and dont really have an opinion, but i always thought the zapruder film showing his head getting popped was pretty convincing for me. I've never seen anything i've shot react like that from a high and behind shot.

---

There is actually no evidence. None. Just conjecture.

And for someone to be set up at the grassy knoll, they would be basically at a fence in a public parking lot where anyone could see them. No sniper is going to set up in a place like that.

Have you made a lot of headshots on a moving target in a vehicle that is strapped to their seat due to a bad back?

Kennedy's head initially moved forward when hit. Zapruder film shows this.

https://www.history.com/news/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-theory-debunked


For someone to be at the Grassy Knoll, they would be about where my red circle is, kind of behind a fence.



So no cover or concealment for them, like Oswald had build in his Sniper's nest in the TBD. They would have been completely open to the parking lot, and because everyone was turning to look at JFK as they passed, ALL the people that were around the #8 on the map would have been facing them and would have likely been able to see a muzzle blast.

It is just not feasible that a sniper would stand behind a fence with on concealment to fire shots on the POTUS.

---

Not to mention Zapruder was filming from just inside the right side of that circle.
We visited Dealey plaza over thanksgiving weekend and walked behind that fence where the supposed second shooter was. Like you side, that is a very open area with the parking lot and I'm assuming that the tree that's there now was nothing more than a bush at the time.

The point of this thread was for people to WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY and THEN comment. I know I probably should have expected the thread to go exactly as it has, but it certainly wasn't for a handful of you to essentially start telling us we're idiots, without having seen the doc first.

Now, the doc might very well be full of sh*t, but I wish some of you know-it-alls would at least give it a chance first. Again, it's extremely well done, and there's absolutely no way you can say there's zero evidence for a second shooter after seeing it.

Just give it a shot (no pun intended), and then let's talk. If you're still convinced it's all bunch of hooey, fine. But at least we'll all have the same info.

i'll watch it and appreciate the post - but i think the discussion going actually helps me get up for it.

TCTTS said:

---

The point of this thread was for people to WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY and THEN comment. I know I probably should have expected the thread to go exactly as it has, but it certainly wasn't for a handful of you to essentially start telling us we're idiots, without having seen the doc first.

Now, the doc might very well be full of sh*t, but I wish some of you know-it-alls would at least give it a chance first. Again, it's extremely well done, and there's absolutely no way you can say there's zero evidence for a second shooter after seeing it.

Just give it a shot (no pun intended), and then let's talk. If you're still convinced it's all bunch of hooey, fine. But at least we'll all have the same info.

---

I think most everyone's been pretty respectful. Good conversation.

Quote:

---

he would only be a good patsy. a great patsy maybe? or maybe too risky for even that? who knows. if he was a patsy then the (a) real shooter was probably in the depository either with him or not and may or may not have taken the actual shot. i dont know enough about all that, just speculating.

---

The only think I think is plausible is that people that didn't like JFK talked about it around him. And a lot of people didn't like JFK. I don't think he was part of any grand conspiracy and I don't think anyone used him or planned anything with him.

Quote:

---

That is all extremely fishy given the numerous motives and parties. hard to believe you botch the PRESIDENT'S autopsy that badly.... but who knows.

---

The thing is this, Jackie Kennedy picked the autopsy spot and picked Bethesda Naval Base. So would Jackie have been in on it? She picked it since he was a Navy Officer. I don't think that Jackie Kennedy or the two Naval Commanders and one Army Lt. Col that performed it were in on some grand conspiracy to get his autopsy there.

There were also about 3 dozen people present for the autopsy. Some were hospital workers, some military officers, enlisted, special agents, admirals, generals, etc. It isn't like it was this closed door thing with a couple of hand selected doctors there to do the CIA's or Secret Service's or Jackie's or the Mafia's bidding.

I think I could get on board more if the SS or FBI or CIA or LBJ picked the location for the autopsy. But Jackie picked the place and it was a pretty poor choice. Her reasons made sense and my understanding is that it was over objections of better locations. But she wanted the Navy to take care of one of their own.

Quote:

---

i will say that i dont know that much about state of the art sniper weaponry in 1963, but i do know that optics and scopes and match rounds were well understood by then, and i dont think it would be difficult for a good marksman to pull off a headshot on that slow moving target from a lot farther away than the book depository. 3-500 yards would not be out of the question at all, at least for the first shot. By that same standard, i recall thinking from the 'Oswald shot all the shots re-creations', that if he was a very good marksman with a lot of time with that action, he certainly *could* have done it.

---

Yeah, I think someone could make shots from farther than he did. Coming from the front, you have everyone looking at you, including all the police, which is why LHO probably waited until they turned on Elm to take the shots. The motorcade was no longer facing him at that point.

Oswald's 3rd and farther shot was only about 80-85 yards, which is doable. The most recent tests show that from the time of the first shot, Oswald had up to 11.2 seconds to fire the second and third shots. Even if that ****ty rifle jammed in ejecting, that is plenty of time to get off shots 2 and 3.

TCTTS said:

---

double aught said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

The point of this thread was for people to WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY and THEN comment. I know I probably should have expected the thread to go exactly as it has, but it certainly wasn't for a handful of you to essentially start telling us we're idiots, without having seen the doc first.

Now, the doc might very well be full of sh*t, but I wish some of you know-it-alls would at least give it a chance first. Again, it's extremely well done, and there's absolutely no way you can say there's zero evidence for a second shooter after seeing it.

Just give it a shot (no pun intended), and then let's talk. If you're still convinced it's all bunch of hooey, fine. But at least we'll all have the same info.

---

I think most everyone's been pretty respectful. Good conversation.

---

It has been, but there's also been a lot of definitive statements here without yet having seen the subject/point of the thread. Not that the doc is some kind of definitive, end all, be all take, but the purpose of it is that it purports to be analyzing a decent amount of relatively new information.

I'd also like more of you to see it so that more context can be added here. For instance, the doc doesn't mention that Jackie chose the autopsy location (as mentioned above). I have no idea if that's true or not, but it adds potential context and layers. In other words, I'm also looking to know what the doc either fails to mention in that regard, or doesn't get right, potentially.

---

I'll happily watch it as I do all JFK documentaries.

My statements are pretty definite, but I also have the benefit of a ton of reading on the subject. It's not like Oliver Stone uncovered some secret unknown evidence nearly 60 years after the fact.

Stone is a master story teller, but he's also shown that he uses his mediums to push his preconceived narrative, truth be damned. Untold History was proof enough of that.

I see RFK, Jr is featured and I have to say he's a huge POS that wouldn't know the truth of it hit him with bat.

It's amazing to me that Stone bills this as the bookends to his JFK movie, when he used so much fiction to push the narrative in JFK..

So I'll give it a shot and I'm sure will point things out. If it is anything like Untold History, I imagine it is pretty terrible.

In the meantime, feel free to talk and I will try to use sources and facts to back up my opinions. I actually have a huge folder of stuff on my computer, because it is a fun little pet project for me

Bighunter43 said:

---

It's definitely an easy shot from the 6th floor....but the first shot would be the best as you are taking your time....and it missed The whole limousine altogether....(I bet I'm about to hear about the old hit the street signal theory).....but the next two are on target while rushing....Oswald was involved in some capacity....but there's still a possibility he didn't act alone!

---

The first shot would be the closest shot, but I don't know if it is the best.


Hard to find good contemporary pictures. That first shot would have been right as the car turned from Houston to Elm. Having to aim DOWN that much because it is right below you makes it a lot more difficult shot than aiming downrange, imo.


Here's the spot of the 3rd shot, where the black car is.



I think that's an easier shot than getting up and shooting down at a ~45deg or steeper angle. LHO was about 5'9. So he was tall enough to get that angle, but I don't know if it would be comfortable to shoot down like that, where the longer shots (still only ~80 yards) are a more natural shooting position.

As far as the red light cross bar, I do think that glancing off that is plausible. I think a tree branch is less plausible, because I don't think an oak tree branch would deflect the shot that much.

The tests that Nova did showed that had he missed everything completely and his first shot hit the asphalt, it would have just made a clean divot and would have pretty much destroyed the bullet. The asphalt blowing up wouldn't have really been that noticeable unless you were right behind it, but most people would be pretty fixated on the President.

We have three casings, so we know there was a third bullet fired, unless he for some reason had an extra casing on him and dropped it. But that seems way less likely than him missing his first shot because it grazed a red light pole and blew into the asphalt.



Master Sgt Zahm, head of marksmanship instruction for the entire Marine Corps at the time testified that the shots were easy, that LHO was capable, that the slow moving vehicle on a slight downward downhill angle would make that shot easier for LHO.




There is a possibility he didn't act alone. There is just no evidence substantiating that Oswald was involved with anyone else in the assassination.

TCTTS said:

---

RFK Jr. is featured in only one interview segment, toward the end. POS or not, you can't not hear from one of the few living descendants, and he really doesn't say anything controversial.

---

Ok, thanks. The Kennedy Family is huge and there are a ton of them alive now. Caroline is still alive and served as Ambassador to Japan under Obama. She has three children. Tatiana, JFK's grand-daughter, is a journalist for the NY Times and The Atlantic. JFK's grandson, Jack, is becoming increasingly involved in politics. Ted Kennedy's kid was a congressman. Maria Schriver was JFK's niece. So there are a ton of Kennedys, including JFK's daughter and grandchildren, that are public figures, but either weren't approached to be part of it, or turned it down. And the only living Kennedy that was approached and accepted it is the bat**** crazy conspiracy theorist one. RFK, JR's own siblings have written public editorials denouncing him, so it is pretty fair to say he is the black sheep of the Kennedy family. And you have to be REALLY ****ing crazy to be the black sheep of that family.

Glad he isn't an intricate part of the documentary.

cbr said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

cbr said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Quito said:

---

Why would Ruby do this? Known affiliation with the mob.

Mob clearly had beef with Kennedy's.

---

Because he thought America would hail him as a Hero and he would get a parade down main street.

When Oswald was supposed to be doing his perp walk, Ruby was at Western Union. Oswald held up the perp walk because he only had his undershirt and demanded a sweater or something to go over it. That held everything up 30 minutes.

Had Oswald done the perp walk at the time he was supposed to do it, Ruby wouldn't have been close. It clearly wasn't a deep pre-meditated action, considering Ruby wasn't there at the right time.

---

read much about gavrilo princip?

---

Princip had gone to the motorcade at the right time to commit the assassination, didn't he? Princip didn't decide to go send a telegram at the time the Archduke was supposed to roll through.

Ruby went to the right place long after the scheduled time and only was only there when Oswald was taken out by dumb luck, because Oswald demanded that sweater.

Wait, do you think that Oswald was in on his own assassination and intentionally delayed it so Ruby could make a stop at Western Union first?

---

no princip missed it, princip was sitting at an ice cream shop mourning his screw ups when the archduke pulled up on a diversion, out of sheer chance, IIRC. My only point is, chance and chaos drive many things, and we'll never know Ruby's plans. if one believes it was a hit, one would have to think someone in the building tipped Ruby on the time. Who knows?

---

Sorry missed this post with the page break.

Princip was at the parade ready to participate in the assassination. But the grenade thing was thrown first and he missed his shot. But he was where he was when he was supposed to be.

Ruby, on the other hand, didn't show up at the police station when he was supposed to. He was at Western Union when Oswald was supposed to be walked out.

Maybe he was tipped off? How? I doubt a cop texted him and said it was time to head to the PD basement. LHO was supposed to be transported long before Jack Ruby showed up and the only person that held that up was LHO. There was no way to know what time he would be pulled out exactly.

The point being - the mafia tells you that the most famous prisoner in the world needs to be executed, or else, and instead of showing up on time, Ruby goes to Western Union and he brings his beloved dog rather than leaving it with someone that could take care of it. When I say beloved, Jack Ruby actually performed sex acts with the dog. He called the dog his wife. Really weird ****ing dude, but he LOVED that dog.

So yeah, Ruby, like Princip, got lucky by being at the right place at the right time EVENTUALLY. But Princip was also at the scheduled place and time. Ruby was not. And if he was hired (or blackmailed) by the mafia to kill Oswald, I doubt he would be dilly dallying around Western Union or bringing his dog along with him.

I'm guessing that when the Mafia orders someone super famous to be killed, you dont' **** around with it. But Ruby ****ed around with it, just like he ****ed around with his dog.

Just not that plausible. Ruby was there at the right time by complete happenstance and thought that killing LHO would make him a hero of everyone and in a split second, he decided to pull his .38.

Quote:

---

The first shot apparently was not as soon as the car turned, (as your angle in the picture) as James Tague was wounded in the cheek by the flying debris from the shot, and he was standing all the way down under the triple underpass.

---

Even the third shot isn't really lined up with where Tague said he was. In his sworn testimony, Tague said that he was struck by the 2nd or 3rd shots.

Tague showed a divot near him and said that it was where the bullet struck.



BTW, the FBI cut out the entire concrete where that divot was on the curb near Tague and no traces of copper from the bullet were found.

Here is where Tague was:


If we go back to the view from the TBD, Tague would be under that far overpass. Circled below is the 3rd and final shot location. So Tague being hit with the first shot is just not possible. The rifle wouldn't have been pointed anywhere near that direction.

Quote:

---

Soup, you and I went on for many pages years ago on the History forum disagreeing over this very topic (I somehow knew you'd be along...lol)....while I still don't agree with your assessment of the lone crazed gunman....I sincerely respect your expertise on the issue!! You are one of the most knowledgeable individuals on the subject that I've come across!

---

Thanks, BigHunter! I remember it well. Love studying it. It is fascinating piece of American history. I wish I had all the answers, but there are just

Quote:

---

As far as Oliver Stone....we know his original JFK movie took many "historical liberties" (leaps if you will) when it came to the accuracy of the information presented. I watched this new documentary...and it reiterates some of the information that has been known by many researchers for many years.. (Nothing knew to those that have read many books on the subject) To me, still too many unanswered questions....

---

Historical liberties is right. I am mostly interested in learning more about Oswald's trip to Mexico. I think that is the least documented part of the whole timeline. I wish we knew more about Oswald and his motivations, because he just wasn't consistent with himself. I think he was dumb, easily influenced and unliked by pretty much everyone that ever knew him. Kind of makes for the ideal lone wolf.

This incident happened 58 years ago.

Just think about the film and technology that could have been applied in 2021.

The Zapruder film was an anomaly that wasn't expected.

For all the analysis and books and explanations, JFK was hit in the throat from the front, and he was hit from the right front on the head shot.

Yada yada yada. Argue all you want, but that is what happened. The magic bullet is ludicrous. When someone takes a head shot and the matter goes backwards, it's because it was a shot from the front.

Oswald had been groomed for years. His time in places were groomed for years. His time in Mexico was groomed.

Finding a shooter in Dallas just after the assassination of the President in a residential area is ludicrous. The theatre? All ludicrous.

All the millions of explanations of why the kill shot came from the bookstore are just not logical. Explain away.

Sadly, Oliver Stone is smarter than all you believers. And Oliver Stone is a whack job.

Just look at all the photos of Oswald over the years that have turned up. Look at his speech patterns. He was well dressed and well spoken. he was not just a Marine rifleman.

A guy that "defected" to the USSR. And then returned. Yeah, that happened all the time back in those years.

And then he figured out how to be an employee in the bookstore, all on his own.

And... he was still an incredibly good sharpshooter years later, with no practice, with a crappy gun, that he bought by mail, all totally traceable.

Your argument is not very convincing. Just throwing out a bunch of oddities.

schmidthead said:

---

Read Gerald Poster's book Case Closed. He refutes every single myth that is out there… Oswald definitely acted alone. Did you know Oswald shot at an Army General before JFK (used the same rifle as JFK)?

---

Hold up. Can we go back to this? JFK SHOT
A RIFLE AT AN ARMY GENERAL?