Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
United States Math Government Science Politics

Experts Now Say JFK Bullet Analysis Was Wrong 550

Spy Handler writes "Researchers analyzing bullet fragments from the 1963 Kennedy assassination using new techniques say that the government's 1976 conclusion that the bullets came from only one gun (Oswald's) is wrong. 'Using new guidelines set forth by the National Academy of Sciences for proper bullet analysis, Tobin and his colleagues at Texas A&M re-analyzed the bullet evidence used by the 1976 House Select Committee on Assassinations, which concluded that only one shooter, Oswald, fired the shots that killed Kennedy in Dallas. The committee's finding was based in part on the research of now-deceased University of California at Irvine chemist Vincent P. Guinn. He used bullet lead analysis to conclude that the five bullet fragments recovered from the Kennedy assassination scene came from just two bullets, which were traced to the same batch of bullets Oswald owned.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Experts Now Say JFK Bullet Analysis Was Wrong

Comments Filter:
  • Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:25PM (#19167393)
    It's about damn time. Maybe in another 44 years we'll also learn the truth about 9/11?
    • Re:Finally (Score:4, Funny)

      by untaken_name ( 660789 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:27PM (#19167437) Homepage
      I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

      You'd be really blue after 44 years even if we did find out the truth then.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:40PM (#19167705)
      Misleading summary on Slashdot? Who would have thought? They didn't say it was wrong (meaning that there was more than one gunmen), they said the analysis was not correct. This means it could have been one gun, it could have been several - the analysis that supposedly proved one gunman actually did not. But, it didn't disprove one gunman either. Of course, "analysis not statistically significant" is a far cry from "multiple gunman proven", but which gets more clicks?
      • by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @04:13PM (#19168419) Homepage
        They didn't say it was wrong (meaning that there was more than one gunmen), they said the analysis was not correct.

        I guess you could say it was misleading, but it's not the way I took it. I took it to mean the analysis was wrong, as in not correct.

        If any step in a proof is wrong, then the entire proof is wrong, even if the conclusion is actually a true statement.

        Of course it's all the other problems with the official story that naturally push my mind in the direction of there being multiple shooters upon finding out that the proof of the single shooter was incorrect. But I still didn't take the summary as implying that this was now proven.
        • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @04:50PM (#19169107) Homepage Journal
          "Of course it's all the other problems with the official story that naturally push my mind in the direction of there being multiple shooters upon finding out that the proof of the single shooter was incorrect. But I still didn't take the summary as implying that this was now proven."

          Maybe now, FINALLY, the truth will come out!!

          That Oswald was really trying to be a hero, and shot only at the sniper he saw hiding in the grassy knoll!!

          (with apologies to Family Guy)


        • by nwbvt ( 768631 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @09:35PM (#19173327)

          First, there never was a "proof", at least not in the way you are thinking. Such proofs only exist in the world of mathematics, and there they are only possible because mathematics is a completely abstract field that does not involve perceptions of the real world (which always have some degree of intrinsic doubt). You cannot mathematically prove that Oswald did or did not do it, because Oswald is not a mathematical construct. Its been said many times before, but it bears repeating because people still for some reason try to do it; NEVER interpret real world arguments as mathematical proofs.

          Second, here is the exact quote from the article summary:

          "Researchers... say that the government's 1976 conclusion that the bullets came from only one gun (Oswald's) is wrong".

          The summary is clearly saying that the conclusion was shown to be false (meaning Oswald didn't do it), not the argument itself. Which of course is not what the article says at all. If you read it differently, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

          Third, how the hell is this news anyways? Experts (or rather, people calling themselves experts) have been disagreeing with the lone gunman theory since the day Kennedy was shot. This can only be considered "news" if mainstream scientists can back up the lone research team.

    • Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

      by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:46PM (#19167863)
      It wasn't done by the US, as much as people like you seem to believe/wish it were.

      And yes, we've all seen the alleged "proof" (which is laughable at best).

      A decent compendium debunking most of the more common little tidbits is here: []

      (Yes, it's related to Loose Change, but since Loose Change is a collection of some of the more popular conspiracy theories/doubts/etc. about 9/11, it's a good place to start.)

      There might be a lot of corrupt politicians, ulterior motives, and evil deeds in the world, but the US executing 9/11 on itself, and all that is implicit in that from technical, personnel, logistics, military, and numerous other perspectives, simply doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

      You can say the US invited the attacks because of mideast policy. You can even say that some people might have not shed a tear in terms of the ability to then use 9/11 as a "Pearl Harbor"-type incident. But unfortunately, it was 19 mostly Saudi radical Islamic extremists - even if one believes they are monsters of the United States' own creation - that attacked the US on 9/11.

      Not the US government or military itself. Not the shadow government. Not the Illuminati.

      It's actually quite incredible what some conspiracy loons believe about 9/11. It simply does not stand up to any logic at all, or even common sense. Buildings weren't wired with explosives. It wasn't a drone or missile that hit the Pentagon. It wasn't remote control military aircraft that hit the towers. Voice changing technology wasn't used to make fake cell phone calls from Flight 93. Cell phones *do* work on planes (in various circumstances). The FCC/FAA cell phone "ban" isn't a trick so that people will "find out" that cell phones "don't work" under Flight 93-like conditions. Saying that something falls at "free fall speeds" (e.g., in reference to WTC 7) is meaningless and has no bearing on the discussion. Bringing up things like some NORAD exercise or Operation Northwoods or all kinds of tenuous, ridiculous, and (co)incidental information about some pilot who worked some particular place 25 years ago is irrelevant and meaningless. All/some of the planes weren't secretly landed safely at a military installation and then the occupants murdered. Hundreds/thousands of people haven't been "bought off" or "disappeared" to "cover up" the "truth" about 9/11.

      I could go on and on and on and on. But ultimately, the people who want to believe 9/11 was an inside job will keep believing it, and any amount of proof otherwise won't sway them, and can indeed just be explained away as part of the conspiracy. Kind of like rabid Creationists, almost, frankly...

      If you want to hate policy and a political view, go for it. But just realize that lunacy takes away any legitimacy from your debate, and getting other people to believe this tripe will eventually be the entire movement's undoing, or the end of *actual* truth (as opposed to your "truth") in any debate on this topic. And frankly, I think that may be what some people want.
      • Re:Finally (Score:5, Funny)

        by Brad Eleven ( 165911 ) <> on Thursday May 17, 2007 @04:03PM (#19168195) Homepage Journal

        I could go on and on and on and on.
        Ehhhh, you kind of did.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        While I hate the Bush Administration, I learned from an early experience in IT to never attribute to malice what you can to incompetence. These guys simply were incompetent and then tried to hide it; which is where all the unnecessary secrecy stems from. I've seen a too many of the 9/11 conspiracies debunked already to give credence to an evil plot.
    • This still isn't the truth. The truth is JFK was killed by bears from space [].
    • Re:Finally (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Var1abl3 ( 1021413 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @04:10PM (#19168353)
      The truth about 9/11???? WTF are you talking about??? As I stood and looked up at the buildings just before the plane hit I can tell you the truth: "A plane, moving very fast, hit each building causing major damage resulting in an eventual collapse of both buildings. As for Building 7 a fire broke out, caused by damage from the falling debris, (this was the emergency management building with something like 10K gallons of fuel in it for the backup generators) that was all but ignored by the first responders who were left alive partly because with the cloud of dust and smoke it was all but impossible to even see it let alone get new fire trucks there to put the fire out, that eventually weakened the structure causing its collapse."
      I know all you tin foil hat folks have a hard time with fire melting steel but look at what happened in California a few weeks ago when a tanker truck loaded with fuel crashed and caught fire causing the collapse of the overpass. Sorry to break the news to you but heat does soften steel long before it actually liquefies. If you do not like this country so much, or do not trust it then move to IRAN or somewhere that you will be more comfortable...... until you can show me proof that it was an "inside" job just shut the fuck up...
      BTW with the way all the "leaks" have been coming out of the CIA, FBI, NSA etc. do you really think our government could keep an "inside" job of this scale quite for so long? And if Bush is as dumb as you leftest keep telling me he is how could he have planed such a huge attack without blundering it in the few months he was in office prior to the attacks? Like I said STFU or leave you dumb bastard or should I say Anonymous Coward.... If you want to rant at least have the balls to give us your name!

      Troll this all you want!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:26PM (#19167395)
    Time travllers came back and fired invisible bullets from the grassy knoll.
    • by Rude Turnip ( 49495 ) <[valuation] [at] []> on Thursday May 17, 2007 @04:11PM (#19168383)
      No, that's not right...Chuck Norris' beard actually deflected the bullets in a *failed* assasination attempt. Kennedy's head exploded out of shear amazement.
    • by KDN ( 3283 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @04:19PM (#19168531)

      JFK IS NOT DEAD. The CIA cloned him and that was what was really shot. He faked his death so that he could live with Marylon Monroe, who also faked her death, and they are currently living on Cuba as a guest of Fidel Castro with their good friend Jimmy Hoffa.

      A fake conspiracy of who really killed JFK was drawn up to give the nut jobs who think everything is a conspiracy something to chew on, leaving just enough evidence to keep them going. To manufacture the evidence the Borg brought back a federation replicator which is powered by a V8 with a 500 mile per gallon carbarator with those tablets that convert water into fuel.

      If it seems like Deja-vu, its just another gliche in the Matrix.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:26PM (#19167399)
    What else do I have to say?
  • seriously (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ace905 ( 163071 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:26PM (#19167415) Homepage
    Seriously, was there ever any doubt? Did _anybody_ believe the government over all of the eye witnesses, the drawn out court-case, the ridiculous implausible explanation required, or the pristine perfect bullet found OUTSIDE his body?

    It's good somebody finally _proved_ they were lying, but we still don't know why they lied - and really, what moron ever thought the case was closed.

    this moron []
    • by UbuntuDupe ( 970646 ) * on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:28PM (#19167463) Journal
      In my defense, I rejected the official story on the grounds that the Freemasons had to be involved. So I'm immune from criticism.
    • Re:seriously (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MankyD ( 567984 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:31PM (#19167531) Homepage

      It's good somebody finally _proved_ they were lying, but we still don't know why they lied...

      It's worth noting that they did not prove that they were lying. Rather, they simply proved that they were wrong in their original analysis.

      This reminds me of a particular xkcd comic [].

    • Re:seriously (Score:5, Informative)

      by Obyron ( 615547 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:31PM (#19167533)
      I saw a very fascinating Discovery documentary entitled "Beyond the Magic Bullet" wherein they replicated as closely as possible conditions of the day, and a shooter was able to fire a shot nearly perfectly recreating the wounds from the magic bullet, and resulting in a round that had equal deformity (which was very little) to that of the "Magic" bullet. It was very very startling to me, as a doubter of the probability of the theory, and forced me to reevaluate things. I'm still not sure if I believe that it's what happened, but those decrying the single shooter "magic bullet" theory as scientifically impossible are wrong.
      • by Hijacked Public ( 999535 ) * on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:43PM (#19167783)
        Unless, of course, the Discovery documentary you watched was a propaganda piece carefully orchestrated by the FBI (or whomever) specifically designed to make you think that the magic bullet people are wrong so that you will dismiss their arguments and accept the official story!

        You'll have to pardon me for that, the X Files movie is available On Demand on my cable system and I keep watching bits and pieces of it.
        • by The_REAL_DZA ( 731082 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @04:21PM (#19168577)
          Dude, if you think the X-Files movie being available On Demand at the same time this research has come to light is merely a coincidence then you might want to get that wool off your eyes before you fall down and have an "accident".
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Josuah ( 26407 )
          Wrong episode/movie. You want the one where they go into cancer man's background, since he's the one that killed JFK. None of the JFK stuff is mentioned in the movie. :p
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by kalirion ( 728907 )
          I can understand watching bits and pieces of a movie that's being broadcast over and over, but how do you explain watching bits and pieces of it when it's ON DEMAND? Do you request the movie and then fast forward to a random segment? Do you constantly fall asleep while watching it?
      • Re:seriously (Score:4, Interesting)

        by aminorex ( 141494 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:47PM (#19167873) Homepage Journal
        I can tell you one thing that is impossible: That Oswald was the shooter. There's a nice photograph of the front of the TSRB as Kennedy rides by, published in Look magazine immediately after the assassination, which shows Oswald on the sidewalk, street-level, wearing the same shirt he was wearing when Jack Ruby killed him.
      • by Himring ( 646324 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @04:01PM (#19168173) Homepage Journal
        I saw that too. I've seen lots of documentaries. You need to watch more. They failed to mention, at all, the umbrella man or the hail-fist man who signal just prior to the first shot. They failed to mention, entirely, the photographic work done on the grassy gnoll wherein images of a shooter and an american soldier are discovered verifying the soldier's original testimony (he was even interviewed recently and is a highly credible witness). It failed to mention the dozens and dozens of witnesses who claimed "secret service" agents confiscated their cameras and video cameras 'as part of the investigation.' It failed to mention at all the train station operators who testified to seeing strange construction workers opening toolboxes and pulling things out and then walking onto the grassy gnoll. That show you mention even had a guy pull out Oswald's shooters score book from the marines showing what an incredible shot he was, yet you can find evidence with google proving Oliver Stone's assertion that other marines said he had "maggies drawers" and/or was a poor shooter overall. They had simply pulled out a few instances of good shooting he had for your show. They failed to mention Johnson's comments on the event with a "well, if it's a war they're wanting I'll give it." They failed to mention how the secret service did many, many odd things that day that allowed the shooting to happen.

        For every documentatary and book stating it was Oswald only there are opposite documentaries and books stating otherwise. Don't believe everything you see, read and hear on one source alone. Come on now, you are the post 9/11 crowd. Use your head.

        John F., Bobby, MLK, all of those shootings were too convenient, too easy and too mysterious to be so cut and dry.

        Stone made a movie, and he made one hell of a one. It still stirs up controversy. That documentary you saw was meant totally to discredit the movie, JFK, and Stone. It appears to have one at least one convert....

        • Re:seriously (Score:5, Insightful)

          by CaffeineAddict2001 ( 518485 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @04:49PM (#19169061)
          You guys are total nut jobs.

          The united states government can't cover up a blow job from a 21 year old intern in the privacy of the oval office. What makes you think they can cover up an assassination on a crowded street at noon?
        • That show you mention even had a guy pull out Oswald's shooters score book from the marines showing what an incredible shot he was, yet you can find evidence with google proving Oliver Stone's assertion that other marines said he had "maggies drawers" and/or was a poor shooter overall. They had simply pulled out a few instances of good shooting he had for your show.

          My dad was at one point a Sergeant stationed at MCAF Santa Ana, and enjoyed the dubious honor of being Oswald's last NCO, escorting him to th

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jeremyp ( 130771 )
        The BBC also did a documentary for the 40th anniversary in which they simulated the scene using a computer model based on camera footage from the assassination and they came to the same conclusion. The magic bullet wasn't magic at all.
    • Based on common analysis at the time, it was reasonable conclusion.

      This analysis is full of maybes

      "If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald."

      Or he fired another shot.
      The guy who claims this has been afer the FBI for years, and what better way to get in the press then dragging this out. Lets see some other groups confirm his analysis.

      Even though this post is clearly trollish in nature, and quite frankly doesn't belong on /. there is no reason to exsasorbate the issue with post like yours.

      Was there more then one shooter? I don't know.
      What I do know is this:
      Any moment in time, looked at be enough people begin to show things that dno't make sense. Any event has thing that seem unexplainable 20+ years down the road.
      I also watched a man hit a moving target at 1000 yards, repeatably.
      I also no that if there was another shooter, that doesn't mean there is a cover up or conspiracy. Just a wrong conclusion based on faulty analysis.
    • Re:seriously (Score:4, Insightful)

      by megamerican ( 1073936 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:44PM (#19167805)
      Have you ever read or watched anything about the JFK assassination other than the movie JFK?

      If you have watched or read any recent documentary you will know that the "magic bullet theory" isn't magical at all. You would also know that JFK being shot from anywhere besides the book depository is basically an impossibility.

      This revelation is interesting only because there is a possibility of a second gunmen. Most of the places where people claim a second gunmen to be have been heavily debunked in recent documentaries. I would speculate that the bullets are from the same gun (and are actually two bullets). Just because the methodology of the test isn't correct doesn't mean that the results of the test were completely false.

      There is no need for a second gunmen to prove that there was a conspiracy or that Lee acted alone, it is just the easiest way to do so. Lee had such a weird life and there are plenty of holes in his life, especially after he joined the Marines.

      I really don't see any other tests coming up with anything other than the fragments are from two bullets that came from Lee's gun. It would be much more correct to say that "Experts Now Say JFK Bullet Analysis MIGHT Be Wrong." And it is still a very big MIGHT.

  • by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:28PM (#19167461)
    He's dead - get over it. Marilyn Monroe: dead too. Elvis: him too.
    Get over it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      He's dead - get over it.

      The only way in which I agree with you is that it is highly unlikely that we will uncover the other shooter. (Assuming there's only one other.) There was an eye witness to an individual on the grassy knoll, but too much time has passed.

      If we could possibly uncover the identity of one or more additional shooters and gain some insight into who was behind the entire operation, that would be beautiful.

      In closing, I will say just one thing about the whole affair - there is no proof tha

      • Even knowing the identity and motives of the "real" assassin would do nothing more than satisfy historical curiosity. It would be no different than finding out that Archduke Ferdinand was really killed by a Frenchman. You can't change history. (but you can re-write it.)
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

          Even knowing the identity and motives of the "real" assassin would do nothing more than satisfy historical curiosity. It would be no different than finding out that Archduke Ferdinand was really killed by a Frenchman. You can't change history. (but you can re-write it.)

          Well, I don't give any particular credence to any of the individual theories (I'm not an expert on the subject, or any related subject) but some have speculated that it was a faction within our government that assassinated JFK, that Ruby wou

    • He's dead - get over it .... Elvis: him too.

      Nah. I saw him Kalamazoo, MI []! I swear!
    • by niceone ( 992278 ) * on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:40PM (#19167733) Journal
      Yeah, yeah, JFK and Monroe, sure. But not Elvis.
  • by niceone ( 992278 ) * on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:31PM (#19167535) Journal
    The researchers believe that the chunk of "grassy knoll" they found among the fragments might also be significant.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      The researchers believe that the chunk of "grassy knoll" they found among the fragments might also be significant.

      I'll have you know I'm not missing any chunks.
  • Cmon Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)

    by otacon ( 445694 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:32PM (#19167555)
    Obviously there was another shooter that the Gov didn't want you to know. If you look at Oswald's history he was all over the place...defecting to the Soviet Union when he was 19, just 3 days after being discharged from the Marines...that has CIA written all over it.
  • by LordKaT ( 619540 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:32PM (#19167565) Homepage Journal
    I can hear it now ... somewhere Bill Hicks is giggling to himself.
    • by dr_dank ( 472072 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:47PM (#19167893) Homepage Journal
      I was just down in Dallas, Texas. You know, you can go down there and to Dealey Plaza where Kennedy was assassinated. And you can actually go to the sixth floor of the Schoolbook Depository. It's a museum called ... "The Assassination Museum". I think they named it that after the assassination. I can't be too sure of the chronology here, but ... anyway, they have the window set up to look exactly like it did on that day. And it's really accurate, you know, 'cause Oswald's not in it.

      - Bill Hicks
  • just to be clear (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mzs ( 595629 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:33PM (#19167569)
    "They reached no conclusion about whether more than one gunman was involved"

    They only have shown that it is not statistically certain that all bullet fragments were of similar make-up of to those of Oswald's.
    • At least SOMEONE is paying attention to the semantics of this thing.

      Why does everybody on Slashdot feel the need to jump to conclusions before RTFA?
    • Re:just to be clear (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:45PM (#19167813)
      They only have shown that it is not statistically certain that all bullet fragments were of similar make-up of to those of Oswald's.

      That is not at all what the article says. What it says is that the previous investigation concluded that all bullet fragments came from only 2 bullets. This new study shows that it is possible that the fragments came from three or more bullets . So assuming that now people think that 3 or more bullets were fired, the question is - How many of those bullets could Oswald have fired? My understanding is that some people think he could have gotten off 3 shots within the time allowed. Others say that it would be almost impossible to fire more than 2. So until we seem to come to a conclusion that Oswald could only have fired 2 bullets and not 3, we haven't seen anyone rule out that Oswald could have fired 3 bullets himself.
      • by Syberghost ( 10557 ) <syberghost@sybCO ... minus cat> on Thursday May 17, 2007 @07:25PM (#19171975) Homepage
        Not to mention the fact that they didn't reach the conclusion there were three bullets; they just reached the conclusion that it wasn't PROVEN to be two. It is still possible that there were only two, and it is still possible that it will be proven to be two. It is also possible that there were only two, but that it will never be proven that there only two.

        None of this will have any material bearing on what 99% of the people who have an opinion on this matter think.
  • We must find those responsible and bring them to justice! I call dibs on the big shovel.

  • ~Conspiracy, Still (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Omestes ( 471991 ) <> on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:36PM (#19167633) Homepage Journal
    Wait, meaning he could have loaded his gun with bullets from different batches of rounds?

    Am I misreading this? It just says that some of the fragments had different chemical profiles, meaning they come from different sources. So, why couldn't he have used different sources for his bullets? How does this make a conspiracy, still?
  • by Flababo ( 1103759 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:38PM (#19167663)
    This story makes it seem as though this new revelation casts doubt on the whole story. Simply because the lead analysis is wrong doesn't invalidate the highly compelling ballistics evidence and reliable eyewitness testimony. While the lead analysis may not preclude a second shooter, the other evidence certainly does. I would suggest reading Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK by Gerald Posner. It does a very convincing job of examining and supporting Oswald as the sole shooter. This new analysis is not a smoking gun and shame on the media for slanting it that way.
  • Dont have the time to read all the cofig theories. Let me know when the guy on the grassy knoll is proved to be Arlene Specter.
  • by Syncerus ( 213609 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:40PM (#19167715)
    I used to believe a bunch of the conspiracy bs until I actually visited the site of the shooting in person. Once you've been to the Book Repository and seen the location in person, it becomes painfully obvious that it was almost trivially easy for Oswald to have done the shooting. Quite frankly, the conditions make it very easy (almost convenient) for Oswald to kill Kennedy.

    In a nutshell, the location is **small**. Everything is very close together, distances are modest and the shooting was very, very easy from the window to the traveling automobile. The angle was just about ideal for Oswald. The "grassy knoll" is a joke, and the angle from the "knoll" was much less favorable for an assassination attempt.

    Seriously folks, go visit the Book Repository yourself. All the conspiracy FUD is just anger and disappointment that something exciting and pretty was destroyed by something ugly and small.

  • This is exactly why people do random acts of shooting, it is glorified.

    This is where it starts. Oswald took the role of the bad guy with an opinion. He kills the president and we transform it into a national event!

    Now, we have people spending their entire day breaking their brains trying to understand whether Oswald was alone or not, or if he shot once or twice...or ... whatever.

    So the message we're really sending to all these lunatic and despaired people is that a good way to be heard is to kill people. Th
  • by steveha ( 103154 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:49PM (#19167931) Homepage
    One interesting theory I heard: there were two shooters, but the second shooter might not have intended to shoot.

    There were various Secret Service people around, armed with various weapons. If you are well trained, you carry a weapon with the safety applied, and with your finger off the trigger, and the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. But sometimes people do screw up.

    So, according to this theory, Oswald starts shooting at JFK, and someone screws up and fires off an accidental shot from an AR-15 or something. Then the person who screwed up never admitted it, because if you fatally shot the man you were trying to protect, would you be in a hurry to admit it?

    The accidental shot could have been while taking the safety off in a hurry with a finger on the trigger, for example. (One of Cooper's famous three laws of firearm safety: keep your finger outside the trigger guard until you have the sights lined up on a target you are willing to shoot.) otated.asp []

    I heard this theory from Massad Ayoob years ago during a lecture on safety. He felt that JFK's head wound was consistent with the small, fast bullet fired by an AR-15, while JFK's other wounds were consistent with a big, heavy, slow bullet fired by the Carcano rifle used by Oswald. []

    I have not researched this enough to have an opinion on how likely it is, but I do find it interesting.

  • by TheBearBear ( 1103771 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @03:50PM (#19167955)
    But when I came across this wiki article [], I said "HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, I wonder"

    From Wiki Article on JFK Assassination

    "The FBI has received added scrutiny by Kennedy assassination researchers due to the actions of FBI agent James Hosty. Hosty appeared in Oswald's address book. The FBI provided to the Warren Commission a typewritten transcription of Oswald's address book, in which Hosty's name and phone number were omitted. Two days before the assassination, Oswald went to the FBI office in Dallas to meet with Hosty, and when he found that Hosty was not in the office at the time, Oswald left an envelope for Hosty with a letter inside. After Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby, Hosty's supervisor ordered Hosty to destroy the letter, and he did so by tearing the letter up and flushing it down the toilet. Months later, when Hosty testified before the Warren Commission, he did not disclose this connection with Oswald. This information became public later and was investigated by the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations.[57]"
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by aztektum ( 170569 )
      The Federal Bureau of Investigation was deficient in its sharing of information with other agencies and departments.

      Shock! Dismay! How so little has changed in nearly 50 years. My grandpa has told me a few times that ever since JFK he never felt he could trust the world he thought he knew. He's no conspiracy nut, but it definitely realigned his opinion of politicians and made him realize "Big Brother's" presence even back then.

      The citizens of the US haven't become disenfranchised because of G.W.. Tha
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Optic7 ( 688717 )
      I'm no conspiracy theorist either, but I think that the JFK assassination conspiracy theory is probably the juiciest of them all. That's because it's plausible, there were plenty of people with motivation to do it, and it's just shooting one man in a convertible car, something that could easily be pulled off with a handful of skilled people in the 1960s. Not to mention that there is just so much about the assassination and the strange or suspicious events around it that make it seem like we haven't heard th
  • by jollyreaper ( 513215 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @04:13PM (#19168413)
    The whole JFK assassination thing never sat right with me. For the most part I believe that your typical conspiracy theory, the ones that would be called kooky, rely too much on the omniscience of the shadowy "they." We're talking a level of coordination and control that any overt organization would be hard-pressed to match, PLUS the ability to keep it all secret! Your typical Illuminati conspiracies fall apart under analysis. But then there's your more realistic conspiracies, what I call the Mafia-type. They're possible, plausible, and have happened in the past, the only question is whether event X involved one. The Loose Change theory that the Pentagon was not hit by a passenger jet, that's kook. The idea that the WTC was taken down by controlled demlolition charges, that's kook. The idea that the Bush administration was behind the whole thing with detailed involvment in the planning, made it happen on purpose, that's kook. But what about the stuff that really happened? Coverying up Pat Tillman's death? Fact. Lying about Jessica Lynch? Fact. Outright fabrication of evidence to steer the nation towards war? Fact. Shutting down and firing anyone within the administration, military, and government agencies who questioned the war? Fact. Basing selection criteria for who to recruit for the rebuilding of Iraq based on party loyalty rather than professional qualifications? Fact. The textbook definition of a conspiracy: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. If I plot to kill my wife and my brother is in on it, this is a conspiracy to commit murder. If I plot to steal money from my employer and my coworker is in on it, that is a conspiracy to steal.

    But back to what I was getting at originally, the whole official story for the Kennedy Assassination smells funny. You have passionate people on both sides of the issue arguing about whether this point or that validates or disproves the government's story. If Oswald was not the lone killer, it's a conspiracy. If there were some gigantic lapse in security that let Kennedy be killed and officials moved to coverup that embarassment, it's a conspiracy, but not in the sense that "they" ordered him killed. But who would "they" even be? If there is a "they", why kill him on Dallas? Why the whole fancy shooting from the Schoolbook Depository?

    And this all leads around to another explanation, maskirova. That's a russian word for camouflage, deception, or misdirection. Take Area 51 for example. The Air Force wants to play with some crazy toys out in the desert. Seeing as the Western powers were the Soviet's best source for military research, the last thing anyone wanted was to give the game away to their spies. So, the public has a fascination with flying saucers and little green men, right? Well, the new experimental aircraft look pretty odd, especially at night. Why not play up that angle? Everybody assumes the government is hiding something so why not really give them something to talk about? Act mysterious, give ludicrous explanations for what people might have seen in the sky, call it swamp gas or venus low on the horizon, act like you've got something to hide. Pretty soon everybody is talking about flying saucers and nobody is talking about stealth aircraft.

    So, is there a real conspiracy there or not? Is the government hamming it up to make us think there's something there to misdirect us from the truth? Or is this just typical government bungling and we're just seeing a pattern of deception that isn't really there?

    Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left.
  • *sigh* (Score:5, Interesting)

    by coaxial ( 28297 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @04:45PM (#19168979) Homepage
    Ahh yes. Someone stokes the consipiracy flames to sell a book, and that makes news. Meanwhile Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutior of Charles Manson, writes a book [] explaining in excrutiating detail about how the Oswald was the lone gunman and fired the shots from the book depository, and no one says a thing.

    All this talk about conspiracy theories is absurd. There's a group of people that that refuse to believe that shit happens. One guy can kill a president. A cult would willingly set themselves on fire rather than be arrested. That 19 guys from the desert can hijack airliners with boxcutters and crash them into buildings. I think it comes from that the need to place some meaning and reason on these acts. They can't fantom the power of a single commited individual, and so they find a vast and all powerful secret conspiracy is behind it all. The Knights Templar. The Illuninati. The Zeta Reticulians. The Water Fluoridation Industrial Complex. The Left Handed People of Borneo. The large underground homosexual population of Des Moines, Iowa. You name it. It's quite absurd.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Dude, don't argue with conspiracy theorists. You'd have more luck debating pork consumption with a Islamic extremist or abortion rights with an evangelical.

      Cpnspiracy theories are, in all important aspects, religions.
  • by MutualDisdain ( 998780 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @04:57PM (#19169283) Journal
    I was surprised that no one commented here on E. Howard Hunt's audio tape confession of involvement in the Kennedy assassination: taped_confession [] Within the audio tape Hunt names Cord Meyer, Frank Sturgis, David Sánchez Morales, and David Atlee Phillips as co-conspirators. He also claims Lyndon Johnson approved of the assassination for political gain. "I think that LBJ settled on Meyer as an opportunist, parent--like himself a parent--and a man who had very little left to him in life ever since JFK had taken Cord's wife as one of his mistresses. I would suggest that Cord Meyer welcomed the approach from LBJ, who was after all only the Vice President at that time and of course could not number Cord Meyer among JFK's admirers--quite the contrary." E. Howard Hunt was also famous for organizing the bugging of the DNC in the Watergate scandal.
  • From what I understand, it was because the voters of Texas outright hated him and not even Johnson's voting fraud buddies could be counted on to keep things in line. He was there to try to gin up some good will.

    Of course, his assasination was the biggest boon to his legacy ever.

    He was actually a horrible president with a self-centered high school mentality, put in place by the political mechanations of his father and the Daley's in Chicago. Lyndon and Kennedy actually hated each other, and he was only brought onto the ticket to deliver Texas- fraudulently. JFK's only real gift was charisma, and that's all he needed to win given his father, the Daleys, and Johnson.

    If he wasn't assisinated his presidency would have been nothing more than a painful, distant memory by now.
  • by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @12:25AM (#19174735) Journal

    The first is how to find the suspect the Murder She Wrote way. You walk around investigating the suspects and then tell all of them that you know who did it and are going to reveal it tomorrow. The one who turns up that night to kill you, is the murderer. For the JFK assasination we need to go to the twist on that plot. Namely that the person who turns up is the one who wants to protect the person they think really did it.

    How does this relate? What is most intresting about the whole JFK thing is NOT who actually pulled the trigger, but the sheer number of people that turned up at night to kill Angela Lansbury. An awfull lot of people/groups/institutions reacted as if they feared that "they" had done it. Not they themselves but perhaps some over ambitious underling, some group they supported and could be traced back.

    Since plotting to kill the president of US of A is not what organisations like the FBI and CIA should be doing, just having them react guiltily is enough condemnation.

    Think of it like this. I am thinking of killing CowboyNeal and have talked about this with various people. Then all of a sudden CowboyNeal turns up death. I will then offcourse panic, what if someone I talked too actually did it, it could be traced back to me and so I start covering my tracks even though in reality there may be nothing to cover up.

    But for me to plot to kill CowboyNeal is not a crime in itself. If it was, millions of lovers of the english language would be in jail right now. It is not quite the same if a security agency plots to kill the president. It does not matter if Oswald worked for them, or even if he was the actuall shooter, that fact that they reacted as if they thought he might have is enough.

    The SECOND thing I learned from TV is that conspiracy people are dreamers. They like to believe that the world is run by someone with some degree of competence. Not someone they agree with offcourse but at least that someone is in control.

    Sorry. Nope. Unless someone out there is a truly amazing human with skill far beyond any know living being in all of history it just doesn't seem that likely that anyone could pull a shadow goverment type thing off for so long.

    People just ain't clever enough. If you look for instance at the 9/11 conspiracies you get the idea that these people desperately wish for a world in wich someone is in control. To set all this up would require a lot of skill that I have never seen displayed before.

    In a way conspiracy theorists HELP the powers that be. By looking for order they allow chaos to thrive.

    Again the JFK shooting and the Murder She Wrote method. By focusing on trying to find out who DID it, the conspiracy theorists are leaving in the clear everyone who THOUGHT they did it. Who has there been no investigation of the known facts that goverments officials had formed plans to kill the president? These are not disputed, they are know and well documented. BUT because they did not actually do it they get off because everyone wants to find some non-existant secret organisation.

    Same with 9/11 by wishing to find that the US goverment planned it all they are ignoring the facts that someone in the US goverment made some really bad choices. Those bad choices did NOT plan the attack but also did nothing to stop it. For some people, charged with the protection of the US, this is a crime itself. Just as plotting to kill the president is.

    In my darkest hours I fear that conspiracy theorists are the wetdream of every conspirator. By focussing on the outlandish they are letting the mundane go unnoticed.

May all your PUSHes be POPped.