RFK Jr: Oswald Didn't Act Alone

I've heard both sides argued well, but I've come to the conclusion that I don't really care. Kennedy was a prick despite the personality cult, and it made little difference to anything.

Isn't it sad that as we approach the 50th anniversary of Jack Kennedy's murder, we're still no closer to the truth than we were five decades ago?

One thing which seems to have pre-occupied everyone is the question of whether Oswald was the only gunman at Dealy Plaza that day, or was part of a conspiracy. Maybe those two theories are not mutually exclusive. Journalist Gerald Posner made a convincing case back in 1994 in his book Case Closed, that what happened required only Oswald firing his rifle from the book depository to end John Kennedy's life. But that does NOT necessarily mean that others weren't involved before the shooting, in persuading the malleable Oswald to do it, and arranging for him to be in the right place and time to do it. Any number of people could have been involved in setting Oswald up to do the deed....and then melting into the woodwork while Oswald took the fall alone.

Who set Oswald up, motivating him and maneuvering him into position? That's where the late Jim Garrison's theory of a conspiracy masterminded by people who manipulated and deceived Oswald for their own sinister reasons may have been on the right track, although he wasn't quite able to connect all the dots. Can anyone ever succeed in that endeavor? I don't know. But it's time to open all the archives and re=examine the case from top to bottom because the truth may be hidden somewhere within the mass of testimony and surviving physical evidence.

I've studied the assassination extensively and, though I started as a believer in conspiracy, I became and remain utterly convinced it was Oswald alone.

Most of the really compelling stuff you hear that supports conspiracy is either false or misrepresented. You inevitably find that the source is highly questionable, or that some fundamental fact has been overlooked, or that the claim defies common sense when looked at in context.

Just a few examples...

Claims that there was smoke coming from the Grassy Knoll: absolutely fascinating given that rifle cartridges--in 1963 as now--use smokeless propellant.

Acoustic evidence indicates more than three shots and from different locations: evidence that was predicated on the sounds being recorded by the open mic of a particular motor cycle cop at a particular place, which has now been shown to be impossible.

Magic bullets making strange right turns and hanging in mid-air: only if you don't position the victims correctly and ignore the plentiful evidence that says they were hit by the same shot.

The "planted" magic bullet found at Parkland Hospital: only if you believe the conspirators were so dumb as to plant a bullet before they could have ANY idea of how many other bullets would be recovered (remember: their "planted" Oswald rifle had only three empty shell casings with it).

And on and on...

Consider:

1. On the day of the assassination, one person brought a long, paper-wrapped bundle to work at the Texas School Book Depository, claiming they were curtain rods. Although the wrapper for that bundle was later found near the rifle, no curtain rods were ever found.

2. After the shooting, the same person was missing from his job at the Texas School Book Depository, and he left without checking in with anyone.

3. That same person--whether you think he was guilty or not--is KNOWN to have been in the immediate vicinity of another murder (that of a police officer) that took place less than an hour after the assassination, and the gun later found on that person matched the weapon used in the officer's murder.

4. That same person sneaked into a movie theater and was reported to the police who responded in force (nothing mysterious: they were looking for someone who matched Oswald's EXACT description) and arrested the man, who, in view of witnesses, pulled a gun and tried to shoot a cop during his arrest.

5. That same person had a fake identification in his wallet with a fake name that matched the one used by the person who ordered the assassination rifle some months before.

6. That same person left a farewell note, all his spare cash, and his wedding ring with his wife shortly before the assassination.

All of these are indisputable facts. Couple these with the ultimate objective evidence of the assassination--the Zapruder film, which shows direct evidence for two shots and indirect evidence for a third, all consistent with shots from the TSBD--and you're left with the conclusion: there was only one gunman, and it was Lee Harvey Oswald.

I firmly believe Oswald was the only shooter. I'm not sure he merely woke up one morning and decided to kill Kennedy.

The guy had been actively flirting with radical causes for years. Remember his stay in the U.S.S.R. and is confrontation with anti Castro elements?

Not to mention he is believed to have attempted to assassinate General Walker not too long before the Kennedy assassination.

See, you post this, then make a thread sucking the dick of one of the Bushes that hasn't even run for fucking office yet, and then you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

But trolling Dayton aside, I'm with RickDeckard. Even as a young kid, I never understood the fascination with Jack and Bobby and the Camelot comparison, and it's only been in the last ten years that the media has depicted them in any way other than bright shining angels that shit rainbows and piss fairy dust.

The "fascination" with the Kennedys came from the same source as the fsaciantion with Obama: the media. TV was relatively new and it was the first presidential campaign in which TV took part. Nixon came across looking nervous and sweaty. The Kennedys came across as young, vibrant, and attractive. Jackie was a very attractive First Lady who managed to exude class and style.

Michelle doesn't quite manage that.

I think George P. Bush's father was a very good governor of Florida and should've been president.

I think his son has done a good job of preparing his background (including military service in a war zone) for a solid political career. How is that "sucking the dick" of "one of the Bushes"?

If George P. Bush advocates many policies that I disagree with I'll vote against him if the opportunity represents itself.

I do prefer to vote for someone who advocates the majority of things that I'm for if at all possible and if they have a reasonable opportunity of winning.

But.

The Bush family has one feature that in the absence of the above makes them appealing. They are politically malleable for the most part. That is, they are not all that strong ideologically. So they are quite willing to get behind the ideas they see as on the winning side at least within the party.

If I can't get someone who is for and promotes the things I believe in, then I'll get behind someone I believe is persuadable.

Hardly a glowing recomendation. Vote for the Bush family becausethey are so power hungry they stand for whatever will get them elected rather than standing for the policies they believe in.

Given that you can't persuade anyone on an internet bbs, i doubt you could persuade an elected official in any capacity, never mind the POTUS

Depends.

I wrote letters to George W. Bush urging him to run for president years before he did.

I wrote letter to George W. Bush urging him to invade Iraq years before he did.

Now, I'm certain my letters were only one of thousands upon thousands. But every landslide begins with small rocks.