Proud,

You listed two books. If you had to pick one, which would it be? Let me know and I'll read it and report. With respect to Bugliosi it is my understanding that he was a meticulous researcher and claims to have read everyone of the sources and his bibliography. I obviously can't testify that that is true but I do believe that is what he claimed. Yes I do haveFamily connections on the issue. My father was a staff attorney on the Warren commission. I myself have been interviewed by a couple of authors writing books on the subject, and who wanted my take on my father's intellectual honesty probity and rebelliousness. I do not place blind trust in anything government does. But I believe the Warren commission got this one right and I believe that's demonstrably true.

I assume you know that Bugliosi put on a mock trial in this issue against Jerry Spence in London many years ago and the jury came back convincingly bugliosis way. Spence was on the side of the conspiracy therapist such as yourself that posited some other theory, I believe it was garrisons, are as to what actually happened.

My apologies for typos and otherwise in precise language. I'm dictating this as I drive.

It's not even possible. The famous Altgens photo of the approaching motorcade, taken after the first shot, with Mrs Kennedy trying to help her injured husband and a couple of the agents on the running boards of the back-up car just turning to look towards the School Book Depository, shows that Agent Hickey hasn't reacted much yet. So he did not have time to stand up in the car, pick up, raise, cock and load the AR-15 and then accidentally fire the thing before the fatal shot hit. Even if he did, the chances of his coincidentally hitting the exact target Oswald was aiming at would be vanishingly small.

With respect to the poll and the views of the average person who doesn't know anything about the issue, I blame that on idiots like Oliver Stone. I should know his stork leave it when his silly movie came out my father challenged him to a debate and stone steadfastly refused to do so. I think it's quite clear from their exchange of letters that stone New perfectly well that he had no possibility of proving up the theory he articulated in the movie.

Stone by the way is in my view a brilliant director, but his stories are pure fiction

Destiny Betrayed (Second Edition) is probably the better of the two to get an overview of the whole case.

If a discussion of Bugliosi's book is of more interest to you, then Reclaiming Parkland would be more specific.

It's my understanding the book was co-written with Fred Haines and later Dale Myers. It could be some errors of fact are attributable to them.

AFAICT I have no family, personal, or professional connections to either the Warren Commission and its supporters, nor to any of its critics. I believe that with respect to naming Oswald as the lone assassin of Kennedy is a demonstrably unsafe conclusion.

Yes, I have heard about that particular mock trial, and also I am aware that several mock trials have been held and that they have come to a variety of verdicts.

That is fine - it would be churlish to try and exploit typos or grammar as if such minutia were important.

I'd suggest that Oliver Stone in writing the script for his film did much more research than his average critic.

Tell me why you think it is flat.

I don't. I assumed you did.

Well, there you go.

With any luck this will be a lesson to you not to jump to unwarranted conclusions.

if that was his motivation why did he steadfastly deny any knowledge of or participation in the assassination?

He may not have thought it through. He was not the most stable guy you would meet in a day's march. People often want the notoriety without the punishment and they don't quite bother to resolve that contradiction. When he drew on an officer in the Texas Theater, after he'd already murdered Patrolman Tippit, he may have been tending towards suicide-by-cop in the usual sad manner of these self-dramatising killers who think they're somebodies.

Yep, the 'did it for fame' idea takes all of two seconds to refute. All indications are this dog won't hunt.

I don't think Oswald shot anyone that day, and that he was telling the truth when he told reporters he was set up as a patsy.

The idea that anyone but Oswald shot Kennedy is lunatic.

what are your thoughts on the house committee on assassination's findings?

Yup. Thinking Oswald didn't shoot JFK is on par with 9/11 conspiracy theories and flat earthers.

the sad thing is we are in a huge minority. I bet if polled 9/10 people believe it's a conspiracy

Including the government.

Generally accepted theory is a Mafia hit helped by a mole in the CIA.

There's a reason why a majority of records were sealed, and I doubt it's the reasons publicly given.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

Generally accepted by lunatics.

So is religion,what's your point?


If testing LSD on soldiers,forced sterilization on Indian reservations,letting black men suffer from syphilis to see what happens, why isn't killing a political enemy a viable government conspiracy?



Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

You are wrong.

Anyone who thinks Oswald shot Kennedy is mistaken.

Wrong.

Anyone who thinks Oswald shot Kennedy is shockingly ignorant - much like creationists and climate change deniers.

True - for a crime involving a guy with supposedly no government connections who just randomly got a lucky shot at JFK for no discernible reason, it seems that some folks in government were so scared they had to put tens of thousands of documents under top secret protocols.

How dumb would you have to be not to smell a rat?

Polls that just ask "was it a conspiracy?" typically get a majority saying yes.

However, polls that ask "Did Oswald shoot JFK?" also get a vast majority of people saying yes. The people who believe Oswald didn't shoot JFK are a very small minority.

So sad. Anyone who has done the least bit of research on this topic knows this is bull****. Of course there was a conspiracy, a whole lot of very powerful/rich people had a plethora of motive. Do some reading ffs.

The committee actually affirmed the findings of the Warren Commission that Oswald, so far as can be judged, acted alone, and they were drafting a report to this effect when at the last minute they were presented with a supposed acoustic analysis showing that a second gun was fired in Dealey Plaza and therefore there must have been a conspiracy. Not all of the committee were swayed by this but unfortunately the report was changed to accommodate this supposed evidence.

The acoustic analysis was subsequently reviewed and found to be worthless. The police radio transmission was made after the shooting and some distance from Dealey Plaza and did not contain the gunshots, only random blips of static, some of which the 'analysts' pretended were gunshots.

To this day there is no evidence in the case which requires to be explained by assuming the involvement of anyone but Lee Oswald.