BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

This is the first I've heard about the trial coming out on DVD. Excellent find DVP!

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

A good "On Trial" value:

Education/General Interest - On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald Not Rated / MPI Home Video / DVD

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

Do they even teach about the assassination anymore in schools? With so much debate over this historical subject, how can anyone teach this objectively?

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

There is no debate except among kooks and crackpots selling books.

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

Objectively, there is no debate.

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

While this is off topic it does relate somewhat to the JFK assassination. Last week Mythbusters did a whole hour on whether the moon landing was faked or not. Since then the boards on their site are flooded with people saying they did nothing but confirm their belief in the fakery. I've been thinking about this and came to a conclusion I'm sure others have had too. That if disbelieving everything, especially governent, is part of your worldview (Hi Oliver!) nothing will EVER change that. Even if a re-animated LHO confessed to these folks himself they would say HE was on the take too. Please people, it's hard enough to teach history when "facts" are constantly disputed for the most inane reasons. Oswald shot JFK, he wanted to be somebody, and ya know what, he won that round didn't he?

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

That Mythbusters was great. The simple model using a spotlight as the sun to disprove the the "non-parallel" rock shadows was great. As was Adam "walking like a spaceman" on the commercial version of The Vomit Comet. Besides the 9/11 sickos (and they are sick to think the things they do), the faked lunar landing bozos have to be some of the worst CT's out there. Besides the definitive proof of the laser reflector, do these clowns really think the USSR (who monitored the flight and never uttered a word about a faked landing) are in on the hoax?

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

I find it funny how people use the term conspiracy theorist as sounding like it's something negative.

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

Yeah, because being paranoid, dellusional and allergic to facts and logic are all such positive attributes.

Regards,

Joe

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

Please forgive me, I haven't had a chance to read through this whole topic yet, but I just want to be sure of one thing: do people here think Buglusi's book about the JFK assassination is "accurate?" On the money? As right as rain?

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

Those of use who read it objectively think it is right as rain, mostly due to the sheer volume of irrefutable facts. Those who subscribe to wacky theories and cuckoo conspiracies will never be convinced by anything except their own delusions.

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

Care to express your reasons for thinking it should sound like something positive?

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

If only there wasn't that "magic bullet" in the mix. Even ballistic experts say it is impossible for one bullet to do that much damage, and to be in such pristine condition afterward.

Had that one bullet not be in existence, the naysayers wouldn't have a leg to stand on. However, that bullet does exist, and it is enough for people to shout "conspiracy."

Do people here discount the bullet?

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

True ballistics experts say no such thing. The bullet was not "pristine"; it was dented at the tip, deformed at the base, and the cross section was warped to an ellipse shape. Being FMJ ammo, the final condition of the bullet was perfectly plausible, giving the injuries inflicted. Matter of fact, The Discovery Channel duplicated the "magic bullet" shot almost exactly, using simulated human torsos, and the final result was a similarly deformed "pristine" bullet.

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/issues_an...ne_bullet.html

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

Only crackpots and kooks who are willfully ignorant subscribe to the insane "magic bullet" hogwash. The single bullet is well documented with irrefutable evidence by legitimate experts.

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

Everyone is a conspiracy theorist.


The official story of the JFK Assassination was theorized as a man that conspired (planned in secret) to kill the president. The official story was a conspiracy theory (Until he was convicted, than it was no longer a conspiracy theory, it's now considered a conspiracy fact).

The official story of the 9/11 attacks was theorized as an overseas group that conspired to hijack planes and crash them into well-known American landmarks (The Twin Towers, The Pentagon, and possibly the White House.) The official story is a conspiracy theory.

If you find that a few dollars have been missing every morning from your wallet, and you suspect one of your kids has been conspiring to steal money from your wallet every night, than you have your own conspiracy theory.

So are we all "paranoid, dellusional and allergic to facts and logic"? Or are we all just curious human beings that can, and have the right to, have/announce our own opinions?

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

I have this book on order, and will get it soon - but I wonder...did Bugluosi ever come up with why Oswald, a guy who never met John Kennedy in his life, would want to kill such a nice guy. Even before he was President, Jack Kennedy was a cool dude. Nobody would want to kill him!

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

And I guess it was just good shootin' that avoided Jackie joining Jack in the grave.

Even Connellay was hit, and he was sitting all the way in the front!

Well, I'm glad Jackie wasn't shot because she was a very nice lady, and a good mother to her children. Had she been killed too, Caroline and John would have been raised by - gasp! - Ethel! Ethel, with 11 children of her own, the wild bunch. Or maybe they would have wound up with Ted.

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

You could not be more wrong about the Kennedy assassination:


It most certainly was NOT a conspiracy, considering a conspiracy requires two or more participants in the act of conspiring.


Nope, just you. Opinion not backed up by fact is usually opinion based on paranoia, delusion or an allergy to facts and logic. We have the facts on our side.


Connally was not sitting in the front seat of the vehicle. He was sitting in a jump seat immediately to the front and slightly below and to the left of Kennedy. He was struck by a bullet that hit Kennedy in the upper back and exited from his throat. It keyholed through Connally's back, exited his chest, hit and shattered his wrist and came to rest slightly embedded in his leg. It fell out of his leg onto a gurney at Parkland Hospital. Kennedy was the target, Connally was collateral damage.

By the way, the famous scene in JFK when Garrison guides the "magic bullet" through twists and turns that defied physics was only possible because both Garrison and Stone neglected to actually look at the jump seat and realize that Connally was both slightly below and to the left of Kennedy. If they had positioned the men correctly in the vehicle, the ballistic path of the bullet would have drawn a line straight back from Connoley's wrist wound, through his chest wound, straight back through Kennedy's neck wound, out his upper back and . . . directly back to the window of the "sniper's nest" on the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

:

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

Oh and by the way BobbyG . . . learn some history. Oswald was never convicted. He was shot before they even got through interrogating him. No one has ever been convicted in the murder of JFK.

Allergy to facts indeed.

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

Are you assuming that I think something other than the official JFK story?

I was only presenting forth that the term conspiracy theorist isn't a negative term, as pretty much everyone with the mental capacity to theorize is a conspiracy theorist.

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

I'll tell you what the real conspiracy is: having to constantly hear how everything is a conspiracy! Sometimes it's just as simple as the Earth is round and the Moon is not made of cheese.

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

I agree, some theories are pretty ridiculous, and although I haven't looked much into either side of the debate over JFK's assassination, I don't think it's really much of a question of whether Oswald shot JFK, I think it's more of a question of whether he worked alone or not.

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

The only people who say he didn't work alone are delusional conspiracy theorists. Read the thread, will ya?

This is just simply not true at all.

The ballistics experts for the Warren Commission said that a FMJ bullet like Oswald's (CE399) could very well do what the bullet did do in Dallas on Nov. 22.

And the HSCA panel fully concurred with the WC's assessment regarding the doability of the SBT and of the capabilities of CE399 doing just what it was said to have done on Nov. 22nd.

Do some people really want to buy into the notion that not only did the Warren Commission people lie through their collective teeth re. Bullet CE399...but that the HSCA (15 years later!) also was part of the never-ending "cover-up" associated with JFK's demise (with respect to the SBT in particular; the silly "Acoustics/4th Shot" malarkey notwithstanding)?!

In two words -- That's nuts.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, the 2004 Discovery Channel program "Beyond The Magic Bullet" is a must-see program for any SBT nay-sayer. While not duplicating Bullet CE399 to the Nth degree, the SBT test that was performed in that documentary mimicked the SBT in so many different ways that I'd wager to say it "virtually proved" the workability and viability of the Single-Bullet Theory.

Any anti-SBT conspiracy theorist who watches that Discovery Channel program should be able to ask themselves the following question after viewing it:

"Gee, I wonder how in the world these guys in Australia in 2004 were able to meet so many of the SBT requirements and yet still have the SBT be totally impossible, as so many conspiracy theorists have claimed since 1963?"

And then, after asking themselves the above logical question, the same person (if they are a reasonable individual) should be able to easily answer their own question with this answer:

"I don't think they could have. I'm convinced -- the SBT is not the utterly-impossible feat that so many people have claimed it to be over the last 45 years."

REVIEW -- "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet" (From "The Discovery Channel") - alt.conspiracy.jfk | Google Groups

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...0-post271.html

THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY: A LONE-GUNMAN VIEWPOINT

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

Well, it doesn't seem too out-of whack, I mean I'm sure there were people that wanted him dead. Wasn't this the same guy that wanted to rid the country of the Federal Reserve Private Bank and the Internal Revenue Service? Or am I thinking of someone else?

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

Take a history class. ASAP. For your own good. Either that or continue to embarrass yourself. But here's a hint - After high school, 999 times out of 1000, the more ignorant you are of the world, the less succesful you are.

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

The popular reasons for a conspiracy is due to JFK's internal goodness. He wanted to rid the world of Castro; he turned his back on Sinatra and the mob; he put a monkey-wrench in the Joint Chiefs plan to have an invasion/war in Cuba during the Cubian Missile Crisis by ending it in a peaceful manner; he wanted to end segregation and talked "positive" about blacks on national television! That stuff alone can get you killed in the 1960's.

As it turned out, Oswald beat them all to it. So the story goes...

I don't know - killing a man because you disagree with his politics or whatever...how about you don't reelect him in 1964? It was only a couple of months left before reelection-time...the man had a family depending on him, he mattered to people who loved him, so you kill him because you disagree with him on a matter?? What kind of sickness is this? What kind of world do we live in, for Christ's sake!

(Oh yeah, that kind of world. Guess I'll come back to reality now.)

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"

As Jackie said "He didn’t even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights... it had to be some silly little Communist."

Although I submit most of those glomming onto the conspiracy crap are doing it for reasons that are more like Oswald than they care to admit. Aside from the obvious delusional characteristcs, there are other similarities. It makes them a "somebody" if they seem to know or do "something" everyone else does not. And if that "something" has something to do with one of the defining moments of the 20th century; they are going to seize the opportunity for self-aggrandizement . . . and to hell with the consequences.

Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNED

No doubt. You might want to get a decent bio of Kennedy—and send the bill to your local school board.