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 no overwhelming evidence of a second gunman from the front. The "magic bullet" wasn't magic at all when you line everything up, which the magic bullet folks resolutely refuse to do.

Also, the witnesses who think the shots came from the front have changed their stories multiple times.

The shots came from Oswald, from the school book depository and Oswald alone. The facts overwhelmingly support this.

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.

---

mrmill3218 said:

---

Really good doc. There are definitely some really interesting and fishy things that are pointed out. I thought the part about Allen Dulles was really interesting. It's hard to watch and know all of that and then think unequivocally that it was LHO and he acted alone.

---

I don't know that anyone is to unequivocally. I am definitely beyond preponderance, though.

But it is easier to watch it, when you have seen the whole parts of things and know right when you see something that he has left something out that is important that contradicts the point he is making.

Knowing who Stone is is also important. Stone was a student at Yale. He is very bright. He dropped out, enlisted and requested combat duty in Vietnam. He earned a Bronze Star for Valor and two Purple Hearts.

What he saw had his disillusioned. He felt tricked and mislead. He was wounded, his friends died.

Stone came back from Vietnam and went to NYU, where Martin Scorsese was his professor. Stone is brilliant at weaving a narrative, not just through visuals, but in writing. In addition to his famous works like Platoon, Wall Street, Born, he also wrote Scarface and Midnight Express.

His disillusionment and distrust grew into outright conspiracies. Despite tons of evidence to the contrary, he still holds JFK to be this white knight that would have kept us from going to war, even though JFK spent his two years in office ramping up support and troops in Vietnam. I think the wants the world to be a better place, but has grown to believe that these evil masters control it and pull the strings on everything, keeping the good people like JFK from doing the right thing. And you see that type of conspiracy work throughout his films.

I truly admire Stone's ability and that he uses his ability to show people what he believes. I think he probably truly believes in these vast conspiracies that control everything. He was pushing that 9/11 was a conspiracy linked to the 2000 election. How? Who knows. But it's on brand.



Getting back to your point: How can someone watch this and think it is still Oswald by himself?
This was two hours and didn't really make any solid points. It took things out of context, it misled people about evidence.

I've probably got hundreds if not thousands of hours invested in reading and watching all kinds of stuff from wild ass conspiracies to Lone Nutter books. I've read through tons of evidence and testimony gathered by WC and HSCA.

The evidence we have is that Oswald did it alone and was not part of any other conspiracy.

Is that unequivocal? No. But we have no evidence of a second shooter. We have no evidence of a 4th shot. We have no evidence of a different person other than Oswald pulling the trigger. We have no evidence showing Oswald conspired with anyone. Are there lots of questions unanswered? Absolutely. Are there lots of things we will never know? Undoubtedly.

But that's what the evidence we have stands at. If Stone had real evidence, he would have shown that. But he didn't, which is why it is two hours of taking things out of context or "Hey, isn't this fishy!"

mrmill3218 said:

---

What about the bullet hole in JFK's back?

---

The one that was fired from the Texas Book Depository by Oswald's gun and exited his neck? It did exist.

mrmill3218 said:

---

My point was that the bullet hole was in his back. The Warren commission moved it up to the back of his neck so it could fit the three shots narrative. But there are autopsy photos of the hole in his back.

---

They didn't move it. It is where it is, just as it was described by the doctors in the autopsy and seen in the autopsy pictures.

This is why every documentary (TV show, movie, news broadcast, etc.) should be looked at with a grain of salt when it comes to accuracy. Everybody has an axe to grind. Some, like Stone, are especially egregious. They will not only intentionally omit facts that hurt their case ,they will actively cross the line into lying. This is especially true when politics enters the picture.

It's not a doc. It's a persuasive movie full of conjecture, omissions and outright lies. Hope this helps.

While I believe LHO was the lone gunman, I do admit to thinking JFK (the movie) to be an absolute masterpiece of filmmaking, despite the fact it's mostly BS (also one of the main cast members is my cousin).

DannyDuberstein said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

This is why every documentary (TV show, movie, news broadcast, etc.) should be looked at with a grain of salt when it comes to accuracy. Everybody has an axe to grind. Some, like Stone, are especially egregious. They will not only intentionally omit facts that hurt their case ,they will actively cross the line into lying. This is especially true when politics enters the picture.

---

Yeah, I used to be a big documentary fan, but then I hit a bad streak a few years ago on some that played so egregiously fast and loose with facts to fit their agenda that it has kind of killed my interest in the genre. I think the netflix/streaming platforms encouraged a flurry of crap seeking attention (not directly, filmmakers just saw their chance), and the more loose they play with facts to craft a compelling story/angle, the more eyeballs they thought they'd get. I'll still take in the occasional one, but i got a lot more selective

---

Netflix actually turned this JFK one down because of all the unverified and misleading bull*****

And Netflix doesn't turn down anything

Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:

---

Chernobyl series is entertaining, but still wildly inaccurate, from the important details, to characters, to the science involved. I appreciate it for being an excellent drama, but that is really all it is.

---

The difference is that none of the inaccuracies I know of were deceitful in nature. For example, they combined a bunch of scientist into that one lady, but stated as such in the postface text after last episode. And nobody can expect the audience to get nuclear engineering degrees. To me that's okay.

NPH- said:

---

While I believe Oswald was the original gunman -- I fully subscribe to the theory that the fatal shot was in fact from the secret service agent trailing the presidential limousine. I forget the agent's name (may be Kellerman?), but whoever it was that was holding the rifle in the car behind the limousine was in fact the "2nd gunman". I do not believe it was intentional, but in fact an accident. If I remember the testimony correctly, the agent's finger was on or near the trigger of the rifle in an a low ready position. Furthermore, testimony was received that acknowledged the trail car lunged forward during acceleration, and witnesses testified that a muzzle blast was seen immediately afterward. It is assumed that the agent may have accidentally fired his rifle at the time the car lunged forward, which was the final shot that did the most damage ("back & to the left") of the President.

If I can find the documentary that discussed this possibility I will share with the group.


I'm sorry, but of ALL the crazy theories out there, if you take the time and map it out, this is the only one that makes sense. The agent (and/or agents) involved immediately afterward when the President was taken to Parkland worked immediately to cover this up.

edit: sppellling bee hard

---

I've debunked that several times including on this thread if you scroll back.

Mortal Error is the book and it's complete nonsense

maca1028 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.

---

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.

---

Oh yeah, well how can you all explain this? Surprised you missed it on your trip.