JFK Assassination 40th Anniversary Thread

Since the review thread on the latest release of "JFK" got out of hand again (in part because I jumped as my custom whenever I see editorial spin in a review of this film praising it), I am taking up Jack's suggestion that a new thread be started here in After Hours related to the assassination debate itself.

At this point, I am told that ABC will have a documentary on 11/20 that will again reinforce the lone-gunman conclusion and that is something I look forward to seeing. The mainstream media I think, for whatever flaws they sometimes have, has always managed to rise to the occasion when it comes to dealing with this story.

This I have to see. I wondor if they are finally going to explain how he got from the book depository to the theater as quickly as he did.

Glenn

What's been the flaw in that from your perspective? The timing factor I think was worked out with no difficulty long ago.

To me, Case Closed by Gerald Posner destroys all conspiracy theories. I can't believe that anyone takes Oliver Stone's insane film seriously.

I understand what you're saying, Edward, but unfortunately, there are many people who take a number of things seriously that make no sense. They are emotionally attached to them, and they won't allow mere reason and objective fact to interfere with that attachment.

In the case of the JFK assasination, the assumption is that it was a crime of such stupendous magnitude, that it MUST have been the result of an equally stupendous group of criminals, and they won't allow ANYTHING to interfere with that assumption.

Unfortunately click on every review of "JFK" in a DVD forum and you'll find that taking Stone seriously seems to go hand-in-glove with assessing any DVD release, which to me is why the film still has to be debated quite vigorously all these years later, because it is from an historical standpoint a fundamentally dishonest and despicable movie.

I've forgotten the exact times now, but he was at the theater in like 11 minutes after the shooting and a news crew that tried it later took about three times as long to get there, even under good traffic conditions.

Also, Jackie is clearly seen reaching onto the trunk of their limo trying to recover the back of JFK's head (which probably means that he was shot from the front), and there was a problem getting as many rounds off from the type of rifle that he used in the alloted time also.

I haven't seen the movie JFK, but I don't really feel that this was a huge, well planned conspiracy either.

The best explanation that I did hear was that Oswald was captured by the commies and a double was released back to us. When you get down laughing remember that the Cold War was in full swing back then. The 'real' Oswald got away and went back to Dallas to live also.

Glenn

Have you ever seen how destroyed this book has gotten by other people? I don't know enough about it, I just did a quick search cause I hadn't heard about this book. But there are a lot of people out there who don't take this book seriously. In the very limited time that I have spent looking into this book and its author, it looks to me like they may be right.

To Chris: Posner's book has not been destroyed by people with serious credentials in historical scholarship and in fact is still regarded as the best single volume work on the assassination. Posner has also added to his credentials with acclaimed works on other subjects, which is something that can't be said of JFK conspiracy authors who are usually singularly obsessed with one topic.

To Glenn: I'm afraid you've been getting wrong information. Oswald left the Book Depository just a few minutes after the shooting at 12:35. He was seen killing Officer Tippit at 1:12, thirty five to forty minutes later and was arrested in the Texas Theater (after being followed in by shoe salesman Johnny Brewer)at about 1:45, or in other words more than an hour after the shooting.

On the matter of Jackie on the trunk. There is no piece of the head visible on the trunk and that speculation is trumped by the Z-film which shows Kennedy's brain tissue splattering forward not backward, and also the x-rays which show a small entry wound in the back of the head and a large exit wound toward the front, which means a shot from behind (plus the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's head driven slightly forward by the impact of the bullet before it moves backward).

As for Oswald being a double, that I'm afraid isn't what the KGB files say. They had him under surveillance the whole time and thought he was worthless from their standpoint (the KGB files on their lack of interest in Oswald were confirmed by defector Yuri Nosenko who handled Oswald's case)

Too pressed for time to join in this one seriously at the moment, but I've read some of the more rabid conspiracy "writers" (Livingstone being the most extreme), and I'm half waiting for UFOs to be implicated somehow.

But, for now, I must say I find Posner's tome quite compelling.

There's hard physical evidence, and then there's the desire to see what one wants to see ("badge man," anyone? That little bit of conspiracy nonsense is about as valid as the "shapes" one sees in cumulus-puff clouds on a hot summer afternoon).

Why is it so hard to accept that a single, disturbed individual could assassinate someone at relatively close range?

While the Warren Commission Report leaves a plethora of unanswered questions, it doesn't mean that interlocking, interconnected, and disparate elements as far-ranging as the Mob and the CIA must therefore be the "explanation."

I'll start by saying I don't have any problem accepting Oswald as the lone assassin.

I may have put forth a theory in this forum in the past that I have never seen discussed.

In remember reading in the 70's that a new device was being used to analyze stress in a persons voice to act as a lie detector. One early use was to take some film footage of Owsald while under police custody and analyze his response to a reporters question "Did you kill the President." Sorry, I can't remember the exact question and his response, but the stress analyzer seemed to indicate that he was truthful in his denial that he had killed the President.

This use of the stress analyzer led me to consider another theory. Oswald had a gripe against Governor Connolly for some perceived slight. He had already fired his rifle at an army general (Walker), so it was not unlikely he would have been willing to take out his hatred agasint the governor, who - it was announced - would be passing by the school book depository where Oswald worked.

Connolly was sitting in front of Kennedy in the car and if he was Oswalds target then it could be possible that he took aim at Connolly. He may have failed to account for the movement of the car and found all of his shots droping short. The result that two of the rounds found the President and one even passed through to hit his target - Connolly.

This is not a theory I would spend a career trying to develop, and I don't have enough figures to account for the effect of a slow moving car and the effect on an average sniper (Oswald) but compared to many of the other crackpot theories, it makes as much sense as any.

The fly in the ointment is, how would the public receive the fact that their President was not the target of the assassin. Instead he was killed by a poor shot who couldn't lead his target but with a miss shot took out an unintended victim instead.

I certainly regard it in those terms.
That is, until Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi comes out with his tome,
"Final Verdict: The True Account Of The Murder Of John F. Kennedy", which has been in the making for decades now, as I understand it.

For those that might not realize it, Mr. Bugliosi, former Los Angeles County Prosecutor (who had a Felony Trial record of 105-1) successfully prosecuted Lee Harvey Oswald in 1986 during a "mock" trial of Oswald in England [being opposed by flambuoyant defense lawyer Gerry Spence]. After hearing 21 hours of testimony of actual witnesses (including a riveting account by Mrs. Ruth Paine)--before a real judge--the jury declared Oswald Guilty of murdering the President.

Obviously, this "mock" version of an Oswald trial doesn't mean a great deal in a CTer's (Conspiracy Theorist) eyes, but it shows (I think) that the evidence, when presented properly--as Bugliosi always seems to do--points all one way. And that's toward LHO acting by himself on 11/22/63.

I think it is too disturbing for people to even think the most powerfull man in the man can be killed by a "simple" citizen... I think it is a form of denial...

Vincent

Some more of my thoughts on the matter........

There's not been one "serious" challenge to refute the Warren Commission findings. There have been speculations, rumors, and conjecture (not to mention a looney-toon named Jim Garrison) out the anal cavity....but NOTHING has undermined the integrity of that Report.

NONE of the "multiple-shooter" theories, or the ridiculous connect-the-dots-and-create-a-killer "Badge Man" in the shadows bunk, or the "sewer assassins" can possibly be looked upon as MORE credible than the findings of the Warren panel, when reflected upon via common sense and logic.

EVERY piece of evidence points to one conclusion: A crazed former defector to Russia named Lee went to work one morning, with rifle in tow, climbed to a sixth-floor corner perch, and shot & killed the Chief Executive.

The amount of people who would have been involved in "setting up" Oswald as a "patsy", plus carrying out the actual killing, plus somehow "getting to" and corrupting nearly every officer within the Dallas Police Department, FBI, and other authorities (to aid in the massive cover-up) must be a staggering number indeed. And all, of course, would have to remain silent for the rest of their lives. How silly does this sound?? Ultra-silly, IMO.

And what overall motive do MOST of these conspirators have in wanting the President killed in the first place? Take the case of Mrs. Ruth Paine (friend of Marina Oswald's who lived with Marina for a time in 1962-1963) ..........

While discussing these events on another forum recently, the subject of Mrs. Paine came up. Many, MANY people in the "CT" (Conspiracy Theory) community truly believe that Mrs. Paine is guilty of helping to set Lee Oswald up as the "patsy" on 11/22.

But WHY?? What possible motive could this ordinary housewife from Irving, Texas, have had to be willing to RISK HER VERY OWN LIFE (if caught aiding in the assassination of an American President) in order to pin the murder of JFK on Oswald, who, BTW, she (admittedly) barely knew!! (She knew Lee; but was much more acquainted with Marina, sparingly bumping into Lee.)

Mrs. Paine, BTW, to those who might not recognize the name, was instrumental in getting Lee Harvey Oswald his job at the Texas School Book Depository Building in mid-October of 1963, one month before the President's visit to Dallas. Which, of course, brings another point up....HOW could Mrs. Paine have possibly known that the President would drive right by the Depository on 11/22?? Answer: she couldn't. No one knew there would even BE any sort of parade/motorcade through the city until early November! Once again, it seems "common sense" is not all that common when it comes to some of the ludricrous claims endlessly being spouted by the network of conspiracy promoters.

The type of craziness re. Mrs. Paine above reminds me of the similar off-the-wall absurdity regarding the OJ Simpson murder case in 1995. Tell me someone, PLEASE, WHY, oh WHY there would be FOUR L.A.P.D. Police detectives, who never even KNEW each other before June 1994, who would suddenly, out of a deep blue sky, say to themselves --- "You know, guys, we don't know each other at all...we just met this second....but how's about we all go over to OJ's house and try to get that Son-of-a-bitch convicted of these two murders? How 'bout it? You with me? Sure...we could all die in the gas chamber if caught...but, what the hay! It's worth it to see if we can get the mo-fo to take the rap. Even though, of course, we've always held Mr. Simpson in high regard....But, well, let's get him!"

Same exact logic applies in the "Ruth Paine was an accomplice" silliness.

(I better not get started on the Simpson case....High blood pressure already. .... But the similarities, to me, between many aspects of the OJ case and the JFK assassination are startling in clarity.......Conspiracies all over the place, even though there's not one scrap of physical evidence to back them up, along with ALL the evidence pointing toward one single killer.)

You got that right, Jack. I believe you've smacked the nail right on its head there.

Plus: Take the supposed "other face" seen in a photograph taken of the sixth floor of the TSBD Building. Or the famed Moorman photo, which to many shows multiple "mysterious figures" behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll.

Now...you're honestly gonna tell me, when we BLOW UP these already extremely poor, grainy photographs 100 times their original size (or more!), that we're actually going to be able to make out anything CLOSE to resembling a human shape? If anything, these images are going to be MANY times worse when blown up to such immense proportions.

Now, you can color in assassins all day long if you wish. It still doesn't make them any more "real", IMO.

Try it yourself.....with any grainy, out-of-focus picture. You could probably draw in pictures of the blurry background resembling Abraham Lincoln, The Wright Brothers, and Homer Simpson if you were so inclined.

And yet....thousands of man-hours and many dollars have been spent by researchers messing with that Mary Moorman photo, which, if you've seen it, is in horrible shape quality-wise (esp. the BACKGROUND, where these "assassins" supposedly lurk). Hilarious.

The most compelling evidence that there was no conspiracy is the simple fact that 40 years have past and no conspirator has come forth. Guys like that can't keep their darned mouths shut for a few weeks, much less 40 years.

Unless you want to count the idiotic ramblings of a Mr. James Files. I, of course, don't believe a syllable of his "I killed JFK" babbling.

To those that might care, HERE'S some info on that Nov. 20th ABC Special, entitled "Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination -- Beyond Conspiracy".

I lived in Dallas, and I must admit that when you stick your head out of the sixth floor window towards the point where JFK was shot, I had to ask myself why anybody would take this particular shot rather than have shot a minute earlier when they were coming straight toward me for a block. And then when you walk to grass knoll, and see what an easy shot that would have been, there is something deep inside that makes you want to lend credence to the conspiracy theories.

But in the end, there are just too many reasons why the conspiracy theories don't make any sense. Maybe Lee's gun jammed when the President was driving towards him, or he returned late from taking a bathroom break. It is crazy to see all of the conspiracy guys all over Dealy Plaza selling their theories to anybody who would listen.

I heard a theory recently on this (that makes sense to me). ..... A straight-ahead shot with the car on Houston St. would seem to have been a much "easier" shot. But an advantage in waiting would be to conceal himself even further into the corner of his "perch", and therefore out of sight completely to anyone who might trace the shots immediately back up to the 6th floor window. The rifle would still be visible (and was to multiple witnesses), but the killer (namely Oswald) would be hidden deep in the corner.

It might also be possible that Oswald was considering the many Secret Service Agents in the follow-up car, who would have been able to simply tilt their heads back and see Oswald with gun in the window if he'd have fired shot #1 with the cars on Houston, opening himself up to much-easier return gunfire from the agents.

As it was, waiting for an Elm Street shot, the SS Agents now had their backs to the assassin, making return fire much more difficult.

I thought of that theory, but figured that anybody shooting the President in such a way would have to expect to get caught (and possibly shot). A more palatable theory (at least for me) might be that if he prepared for a straight shot, he would have been plainly visible to the motorcade long before he got the shot off, giving the SS and driver some time to take evasive action. I may have just answered my own question.

Dennis - dead men can't talk.

Didn't Jack Ruby die of cancer in a guarded hospital room?

Glenn

Um...Glenn, he died three years after he shot Oswald and was tried and testified openly about it, and his cancer was like any other person's cancer. Natural.

Jack Ruby, was in the words of the people who knew him, a man who couldn't even get his own parking tickets fixed, and was the last person anyone would entrust to some kind of "hit man" operation. But if we want to look at how Ruby's murder was only the result of pure chance and not careful planning, consider this (this should interest you, Glenn, considering your concerns over timing with regard to Oswald).

Oswald was supposed to be transferred at 9:00 AM that morning and the press was waiting in the basement expecting a transfer at that time. But the transfer was held up when Postal Inspector Harry Holmes, who needed to interrogate Oswald in relation to the mail order documents he used to purchase his rifle and revolver, decided at the last minute to not go to church and go downtown to question Oswald, since he felt that once Oswald was in the County Jail he might not get another chance to question him. Inspector Holmes' interrogation lasted more than 90 minutes and was the reason why the transfer did not take place until the fateful time of 11:20 AM.

Now where was Jack Ruby at the time Oswald was supposed to be transferred and the press in waiting? Not in the basement of police headquarters, but at home. He did not arrive downtown until 11:10 and then he went into the office of Western Union across the street to wire money to one of his strippers, the timestamp for his receipt showing 11:17 just two minutes before he shot Oswald. That Ruby had not planned to be in the basement originally was further borne out when his dog was found locked in his car.

It was simply a freakish coincidence of timing caused by the delay when Inspector Holmes decided not to go to church, and Ruby arriving when he did that set those events in motion. But given this timeline and the actions of those involved there is no way you can fit anything conspiratorial into this chronology and the actions of Ruby based on responsible evidence.

Eric...Much has been made by the conspiracy crowd of this "gap" in time between Oswald shooting Tippit at 10th & Patton Streets and his arrest in the theater on Jefferson Avenue. (Overblown way out of proportion, IMO, by the CTers...like so much else in the case.)

But I'd be interested in hearing your take on this 33-minute time period, between 1:12 PM and 1:45 PM (CST), in which Oswald was (mostly) apparently just walking the side streets of Dallas/Oak Cliff, until being spotted acting suspiciously by Brewer in the lobby of his Hardy's Shoe Store.

Conspiracy advocates argue: Why does it take Oswald half-an-hour to travel the few short blocks from Tippit's killing to the Texas Theater on Jefferson? (This, of course, is used by the CT gang to argue that it WASN'T Oswald at all at the scene of the Tippit shooting. Instead, one or two OTHER men killed Tippit. Even though we KNOW bullets from Oswald's own revolver were plucked from Officer Tippit. To hear many conspiracy people tell it, Oswald was as innocent and pure as snow in winter, having never even touched a weapon on November 22nd.)

Anyway ... There IS indeed some gap in time, as Oswald travels just--what?--half-a-mile (or less) from Patton to Jefferson. What was Oswald doing during this interim period? What's the Warren Commission explanation of this? Or did they give one? (I can't seem to recall that part of the Report. Although I do know that the WC puts the exact time of J.D. Tippit's murder as 1:15 PM. But that would still leave a 25-minute gap between the shooting and the time he ENTERED the theater, which was approx. 1:40 PM, just five minutes before he was surrounded by DPD Officers.)

I hate to quibble about such minor things, but Oswald was shot at 11:21 AM in the jail basement. Not 11:19.

But, of course, I couldn't agree with you more re. Ruby, Eric.

If the Oswald killing was a mob "hit", then MAN are those guys good! (Meaning: they have incredible timing. Timing Ruby's basement arrival just 30 seconds before Oswald is brought out of the building. Isn't that small gap a tad too SHORT, even if it WAS "perfectly planned out"?)

Points have been made that the gap in the timing between the theater and the shooting (Tippet) were the result of the other Oswald showing up close to where the original one was.

No, I'm not going to swear to that, but it makes a lot more sense then just having him 'vanish' for 33 minutes. His military record seemed to take a 180 degree turn after he went to the Soviet Union. The theory was that they kept him, and sent out someone that looked like him, and then let the real one loose at a later time.

The same goes for Ruby. What in the world would anybody,(especially him), be doing going into the garage with a loaded gun at exactly that time - unless he had been called (on the phone) earlier, and was told to hang out outside until someone in the cop shop gave him a sign that he was being moved right now. There is no way that was an accident. The odds would be astronomical. Think about it.

They have had tons of documentaries on this on TV already, and I thought that one of the last ones discussed how many rounds that type of rifle with an expert marksman could get out in the alloted time, how long it took to drive from the bookstore to the theater, and even mentioned someone on the overpass that had not been seen before. I could have sworn that James Earl Jones was the host, but it has been years.

Glenn

It's JUST EXACTLY the kind of thing Jack Ruby would do! He loved to be "where the action was". He knew many DPD officers, and, in fact, if you'll recall, was already present in the Dallas Police Station on several OTHER occasions the weekend of Nov. 22-24. Looking like he was a reporter (complete with notepad), Ruby even verbally corrected DA Henry Wade on a FPCC matter the night of 11/22. (And he was armed and COULD have taken a pot shot @ Oswald on Friday....so WHY would he not have done it then. Better to rub him out ASAP, right? But, instead, we have him waiting two more days...precious time in which Oswald could have blabbed everything he might have known (had a plot existed).

And Ruby's gaining access to the DPD Garage via the Main St. ramp seems to me to be no surprise either. He was a common sight around the Department. He simply walked down the ramp.

J. Earl Jones actually hosted TWO different JFK-related documentaries. One was "11-22-63: The Day The Nation Cried" (which you can now get on DVD). I really liked this one. But the other, called "The JFK Conspiracy", was simply dreadful in every respect. Jones was awful as the "interrogator/narrator". He couldn't read any of his tele-prompted lines right, and looked like a total, uninformed boob throughout this mess of a program. (Not to mention the subject matter that Jones was awkwardly stumbling through was pure nonsense at best -- more of the same conspiracy/multiple gunmen BS.)

Even if you ARE pro-conspiracy in your thinking, I'd steer well clear of this program. (I sold my copy after 1 viewing. )

"Points have been made that the gap in the timing between the theater and the shooting (Tippet) were the result of the other Oswald showing up close to where the original one was."

By whom? And what evidence of a second Oswald is being cited? That is just speculation galore. For an exhaustive study of the Tippit murder and Oswald's movements afterwards, consult Dale Myers "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald And The Murder Of Officer J.D. Tippit" Oswald was arrested with the Tippit murder weapon in his hand and was identified by the 11 eyewitnesses who saw him either shoot Tippit or immediately flee the scene.

"His military record seemed to take a 180 degree turn after he went to the Soviet Union. The theory was that they kept him, and sent out someone that looked like him, and then let the real one loose at a later time."

You are engaging in speculation without any reference to concrete evidence, Glen. That is not how the process of historical methodology works.

"The same goes for Ruby. What in the world would anybody,(especially him), be doing going into the garage with a loaded gun at exactly that time - unless he had been called (on the phone) earlier, and was told to hang out outside until someone in the cop shop gave him a sign that he was being moved right now. There is no way that was an accident. The odds would be astronomical. Think about it."

Glen, this is nothing more then speculation to try and cover-up the inconvenient fact of the timing situation I outlined above. You have no concrete evidence of any phone call or any signals and therefore you haven't a shred of legitimacy for making the argument on behalf of that in the first place and saying the odds somehow favor that scenario in the absence of any relevant evidence.

But let us instead indulge in common sense logic. A rational conspiracy plot would have had Ruby in the basement exactly when Oswald was supposed to be moved. Period. The odds that a conspiracy plot would do things in the way you describe are even longer then the "astronomical" odds you attribute to how things actually unfolded. You have no phone calls, no suspects, nothing. That is what is known as a fishing expedition by someone who knows he's in trouble with the evidence and hasn't a leg to stand on.


"I thought that one of the last ones discussed how many rounds that type of rifle with an expert marksman could get out in the alloted time"

CBS already proved in 1967 that firing three shots in the necessary time and scoring two hits was perfectly normal for a man of the above average marksman skills Oswald had.