Who Killed Kennedy?

[Tantei Kid]

Originally Posted by bad_karma24

Oh, and the umbrella man is a crock. Some people even say that he fired a dart into Kennedy's head to "finish the deed."

The version I heard is that he paralyzed Kennedy so he was a sitting duck for the 5,000 gunmen.


I used to be a big conspiracy nut. Right around '93 when it got big again. I was really cheesed with Quantum Leap when they decided there was no conspiracy. Of course eventually, I finally thought a little more about it and came to the conclusion that all the fishy stuff about the handling of the case was just bungling from rushing to get things done. I'll always have a special place in my heart for "badgeman" though.

I'll probably be looking it up myself, but does anyone have any updates about the audio of the "extra shot" that caused congress to declare it was probably a conspiracy?

ETA: Ah, just as I thought. More people listened to it and pointed out errors.

[BoKu]

Originally Posted by Barns & No Bull

Who killed Jack Kennedy?

Well after all, it was you and me.

Nah, they hired the Hells Angels to do it.

Bob "Remember the Altamont!" K.

I am pretty convinced it was Oswald that killed Kennedy. Allthough I wouldn't be too shocked if someone had offered Oswald a few grand to do it; but the money never quite materialized as it would be kinda suspicious if the money all the sudden appeared in Oswald's banking account.

The possiblity of Oswald just being a nut doing it for free; it could have been just about anyone, considering that Kennedy had many enemies. It could have been the klan, the mob, political disidents within the CIA, an ex-CIA guy pissed off that he got fired, a guy pissed off that Kennedy slept with his wife, etc, etc. The list of Kennedy's enemies is endless. Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where somebody shot Mr Burns.

[snopes]

The passage of time has changed public opinion of the assassination — and specifically who or what may be behind it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...theories_N.htm

[JoeBentley]

And right there is exactly why I'm so stubborn in my opposition to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[snopes]

The Kennedy Detail: JFK’s Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence offers an inside, accurate look at both Kennedy and his slaying.

http://www.suntimes.com/4875999-417/...ssination.html

[Auburn Red]

Oswald. If there was any conspiracy at all, it may have just been between him and Jack Ruby, but then that would probably have been the extent of it. But really I think each man acted alone.

[Ali Infree]

I have a hard time believing that if there were a conspiracy that someone wouldn't have talked by now. Look at Iran-Contra, Watergate, etc. Someone decides to talk. Papers are declassified and we find out that CIA knew about the South Vietnamese coup, and perhaps the assassination of their president, less than a month before JFK's assassination. So why nothing on this?
Because there wasn't a conspiracy??


Ali

BTW, this is the first thread where I have commented under both my old snopes name and the current. Hmmmm....

[RivkahChaya]

Originally Posted by Auburn Red

Oswald. If there was any conspiracy at all, it may have just been between him and Jack Ruby, but then that would probably have been the extent of it. But really I think each man acted alone.

I'm trying to remember where I heard this; I'm pretty sure it was in an interview with someone who knew Ruby pretty well, and worked with him. He said that Ruby had two small dogs, which he took everywhere with him, and which he had in his car when he went to the police station, and happened to be there when Oswald was brought out.

Aside from the fact that Ruby was known to be at the station on other business, and that Oswald had been taken back to change clothes, so he went down the hallway about 15 minutes later than he was supposed to, the fact that Ruby was arrested on the spot, leaving his dogs out in his car, suggests pretty strongly that what he did was impulsive.

Oswald hadn't been in Texas very long at the time of the assassination, plus, I'm not sure what motive Jack Ruby would have for wanting Kennedy dead. He was a crook, but he was the kind of crook who operated by bribing officials, or maybe blackmailing them, not by killing them.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by Ali Infree

I have a hard time believing that if there were a conspiracy that someone wouldn't have talked by now. Look at Iran-Contra, Watergate, etc. Someone decides to talk. Papers are declassified and we find out that CIA knew about the South Vietnamese coup, and perhaps the assassination of their president, less than a month before JFK's assassination. So why nothing on this?
Because there wasn't a conspiracy??

Yeah, that's the big thing about conspiracies- they're tough to keep secret even with small groups of people. When you look at the numbers of people that would have had to have been in on the assassination of President Kennedy, or the attacks of September 11th, or any other one, there's just no people spilling the beans when there should be*.

*Okay, there are a few people who say they were involved, but it's people who say they were the second shooter but can't even prove they were in Texas at the time, much less actually involved in a complex plot to kill the president.

[snopes]

The awful anniversary is upon us once more, which means that somebody must be looking yet again at the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

That somebody is the National Geographic Channel, which on Sunday will broadcast “JFK: The Lost Bullet.” When you consider how overworked this territory is, it’s actually a darned interesting program.

http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/art...ic-review.html

[E. Q. Taft]

After reading Vincent Bugliosi's monumental Reclaiming History -- yes, all 1500 or so pages of text, though I haven't popped the CD-ROM in to read all the endnotes -- I'm strongly inclined to agree with his conclusions: he is convinced beyond any doubt that Oswald shot Kennedy, and beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted alone.

As he points out, the real problem is not that you can't necessarily disprove all the conspiracy theories, but that there really is no credible evidence for any of them.

He also opines that the Warren Commission has been unfairly maligned, and that very, very few of the critics have read the entire report (all 20-plus volumes). Though many of them, while claiming it's a whitewash, will nonetheless quote from it selectively in support of their own pet theories.

[Johnny Slick]

For those of you who don't want to go back and read that MASSIVE volume of work or for that matter Gerald Posner's book on the subject, I highly recommend finding the YouTube coverage of the mock trial he ran in the 80s (sorry, can't link from work). Many eyewitnesses were interviewed, much evidence was presented, and it ended up being about as open and closed as you can get in favor of Oswald being the lone gunman.

[E. Q. Taft]

Also, for those with a bit less interest. you could read Bugliosi's Four Days in November, which is adapted from a section of the larger book -- a chronicle of the days from November 23-27, 1963, and all the events dealing with the motorcade, the assassination, the frantic and futile attempts to save the President in the hospital, the movements of Jack Ruby, the confrontation over moving the body, the arrest and interrogation of Oswald, the media frenzy, the investigation, the autopsy, Oswald's murder, and the funeral. It's pretty compelling by itself, and (I gather) it also includes a summary of the evidence against Oswald -- it just doesn't go into the massive detail of the larger book on that and the individual conspiracy theories.

[BrianB]

I thought the following video about this subject is pretty neat. Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker Errol Morris has made the following short (just 6 minutes and 36 seconds) film about how something unusual but totally innocuous became part of JFK conspiracy theorists' lore:

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/...rella-man.html

I'm a big fan of Errol Morris and I hope he expands this to a feature-length film.
Brian

[E. Q. Taft]

Originally Posted by RivkahChaya

I'm trying to remember where I heard this; I'm pretty sure it was in an interview with someone who knew Ruby pretty well, and worked with him. He said that Ruby had two small dogs, which he took everywhere with him, and which he had in his car when he went to the police station, and happened to be there when Oswald was brought out.

Aside from the fact that Ruby was known to be at the station on other business, and that Oswald had been taken back to change clothes, so he went down the hallway about 15 minutes later than he was supposed to, the fact that Ruby was arrested on the spot, leaving his dogs out in his car, suggests pretty strongly that what he did was impulsive.

A mere four minutes before Ruby shot Oswald, he was at a Western Union office 150 yards away, buying a money order. (This is known due to the time stamp on the transaction.) Given how close the timing worked out, with Ruby entering the basement less than a minute before Oswald was brought out, he wouldn't have been there in time if there had been, say, one more person in line ahead of him at the office. Or if he'd bumped into someone he knew on the walk (and he knew a lot of people). Or if the cop guarding that entrance hadn't been distracted and managed to stop or even delay him for thirty seconds. And, as you say, they were transferring Oswald considerably later than expected (not only had Oswald requested to change clothes -- meaning even he would have been in on the plot to kill him! -- but the interrogation they had done just beforehand had lasted longer than expected, due in part to a postal inspector who had originally planned not to be there (he'd decided to drop off his wife at church and go to the station, rather than attending services) and who asked Oswald a lot of questions about his various post office boxes.

It just doesn't work. Also, if it were any kind of professional hit, why shoot Oswald in the stomach? Why not the head or chest, where it would be much more likely to be fatal? As it was, doctors nearly saved him. (Also, blow-ups of the photos show he fired his pistol using the middle, not the index finger....WTF?)

You're also right about the dogs, though I read it was just one dog, Sheba, who he took with him everywhere. He had something like nine dogs, and he would tell people Sheba was his "wife" and the others his "children." So yes, one would presume if he left her in the car, he hadn't planned to be gone long.

Oswald hadn't been in Texas very long at the time of the assassination, plus, I'm not sure what motive Jack Ruby would have for wanting Kennedy dead. He was a crook, but he was the kind of crook who operated by bribing officials, or maybe blackmailing them, not by killing them.

Ruby wasn't even really a crook. He ran a nightclub. He was chronically late with bills, behind on his taxes, and constantly coming up with new money-making schemes that invariably failed, but he was not a serious lawbreaker. His "mob connections" were extremely tenuous. And he was a huge fan of JFK. He told comics who performed at his club that they were not to make jokes about "the Negroes, the Jews, or the Kennedys." Reading up on the man, it's hard to believe his shooting of Oswald could have been anything but an impulsive act.