not sure if this has been posted but JFK has a pretty plausible answer

I saw some documentary where they set up the JFK shooting thing in exact detail, with those balistics gel dummies with actual skeletons, and they got the bullet to do exactly what everyone says it couldnt do (aka, the magic bullet), fired from the exact spot where oswald was in the depository.

seemed pretty cut and dry

altho much like the documentary that shows convincingly how the "Phoenix lights" were actually flares, I've never seen it on TV since.

You're probably talking about the ABC thing on JFK.

Iirc that was on Discovery and they went above and beyond with a fairly large budget to create as good as a recreation as possible and it was very concise and logical.

I don't know the Discovery one. Looked it up, I was talking about "Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy" with Peter Jennings. Got an Emmy.

I'm pretty sure Jennings was no longer around for this one, but I bet the one he did (like most things he did) was very high quality.

Here is the discovery piece, first video seems to not work, click the second one:

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/di...assination.htm

Edit: Actually that second video is about denying a second shooter, but discovery did do a realistic model of what actually happened.. might be in the series of videos.

The actual shooting isn't the most interesting thing to me, the motives and circumstance of Oswald and Ruby are.

Wait, a highly trained, secret service guy's reaction to an attack on the president, was to shoot the president in the head?

Hmmmmmm, that would have been an interesting disciplinary hearing.

It's not really that interesing. Oswald was a mentally unstable wife-beating scum, who had ended up at a ****ty low wage job at the School Book Depository despite having huge hopes for his life and career. He wanted to be something, but he ended up as a nobody who could barely support his wife and child.

The murder of JFK was his chance to be something. He could write himself into history books. Besides the guy was a communist, so it's likely he thought he would become a hero among communists if he shot the POTUS.

As for the Secret Service guy shooting JFK, it seems pretty far fetched. It's not impossible for the type of bullet fired by Oswald to explode once entering a skull, and a shot from a Secret Service agent would probably be heard and seen by a lot of witnesses.

I thought Oliver Stone painted a decent picture of Oswald and Ruby's motives. Def on my top 5 of unsolved mysteries. I also think there's no question that Oswald was a government agent. Defecting to Russia after being so well trained in Russian that his wife thought he was a native speaker when first meeting him.

Government coup, but it would be nice to see concrete proof.

did you mean to write no evidence or no question?

Most of you commenting on JFK- You need to read more. Here are a couple suggestions:
-JFK & Sam
-Crossfire

If you want to read a pile of bull****, those two are very good places to start, yes. Then you can also buy The Great Zapruder Film Hoax and buy the James Files book and you have a nice collection of books to laugh at.

Whatever you say, sir. Happy V Day!

Met a guy at the public library earlier this year who was working on a JFK book. His theory is that it was a suicide. Seemed pretty far fetched to me, but he had it all tied together somehow.

-JFK and The Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
-Marys Mosaic
-The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ

Three more must reads imo.
This is even more absurd than Jackie or the driver did it.

^^^

This book is quite good at showing the context of the murder.

Historian James DiEugenio has a couple of recent books that deal with the coup against Kennedy:

Destiny Betrayed details the case made by DA Jim Garrison which revealed Oswald's connections to US intelligence and the rightwing Cuban exiles.

Reclaiming Parkland recounts the failed attempt to make a film based on Bugliosi's dubious JFK book.

Ahh, the internet.

Are you intimating there wasn't a coup?

Yes, and many other books on the subject.

One of the problems with Bugliosi's book is that he doesn't take into account a lot of information which has come to light since 1964.

I obviously can't assess the issue of what evidence Bugliosi didn't examine unless you're much more specific. But I can say from a two-minute skim of that work's bibliography that it cites at least two hundred sources published between 1990 and 2006, in addition to the select committee report and twenty or thirty government reports subsequent to the warren commission report. If you're intending to suggest that Bugliosi wasn't a meticulous researcher, I think you're wrong.

Caveat: I'm biased on this issue. Bugliosi signed a copy of his book for me with an affectionate note with respect to my father, to whom Bugliosi referred in the book twenty or so times. My view: anyone that doesn't think Oswald was the sole killer is a stone-cold loon.

It always amazes me that there are those that don't think this.

You probably didn't notice in the post of mine you butchered gave the title of a book on the subject. That would be a place to go if you had any sincere interest in the case.

Unless a person is well versed on the subject I'd venture to say that it takes a little more than a bibliography to have an understanding of developments over the past 50 years or so.

For instance, Bugliosi states that Jack Ruby was 'no more a mobster than you or I...'

While I can't vouch for Bugliosi's mob connections, I can certify that I don't have the links to organized crime that Ruby is documented to have. Anyone who can claim Ruby wasn't mob connected is a stone cold lunatic or a liar pushing an agenda.

That's interesting. So you have some family ties in this story.

Some folks are climate change deniers, some are creationists, and some are believers in the 'lone nut' story.

It takes all kinds...

Interestingly, it is believers in the flawed Warren Commission Report who are in the minority.



It's surprising there are still folks who place blind trust in these government blue ribbon panels after all that's happened since then.

There will always be fringe groups like that, I suppose.

How do you feel about the flat earth?