Oh yeah, I read that one too. Maybe I read more than I initially remembered. I also read Posner's "Case Closed" and found his attitude to be very condescending and pompous. He didn't change my mind to believe his premise that Oswald was the lone gunman.

I remember the first time I watched the movie JFK. I had never seen the footage of Kennedy being shot. I watched the 3 hours and was mesmerized. As soon as it was over, I rewound the tapes and watched it again until 2 a.m. From that point, for about the next year & a half, was when I did all my reading on the assassination.

On the 30th anniversary of 11/22/63, NBC re-ran its original coverage of the news of the killing, Oswald's arrest, etc. It was fascinating to watch b/c it was so different than coverage of modern catastrophe's, like 9/11 for instance. There was so much less information back then and so much more speculation. It was also amazing to see these television guys just talk on-air, smoke incessantly, and offer anything that came to mind.

Well, I certainly don't think that the Discovery documentary is disinformation from some government source. I'd recommend the documentary to anyone interested in the JFK assassination. As someone who was skeptical about the magic bullet, it has pretty much convinced me that it could have happened. The point of the film, as aforementioned, isn't to prove whether Oswald was the lone gunman or not, but that the shot fired known as the "magic bullet" could have occurred and was successfully recreated.

I also highly recommend the History Channel/A&E's documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy.

Walter Cronkite's famous broadcast, which is seen in JFK, is an image that stays in your mind forever.

As I say, "So they say".

Hey JJ, what happened to you in the Fantasy Hockey Game?

Just kidding. I absolutely DO NOT want to know.

It was a government conspira....



:p

I agree with you 100% on this

Have you read either ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASINS by Jim Garrison or CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY by Jim Marrs? These 2 books were what the movie was based off of [/b][/quote]I have read both. The movie borrows quite a bit from both. That's why Oliver Stone was attacked so much for basing the movie on Garrison's account. [/b][/quote]Really? I didn't know much about his bashing. I received both books for Christmas but it'll be awhile before I read them (got too much to read first) but I am very much excited to read both of them

Well didn't some military branch conduct a reenactment shortly after Kennedy's murder? And their 2 best sharpeshooters couldn't match Oswald's performance, who was a medium shot at best. Not to mention the defective scope that was on the gun and the piece of sh*t gun that it was in the first place.

I beg to differ, JJ.

I was working in Jersey City on 9/11, with a great view of lower Manhattan. Everyone in my building who didn't have a clear look from their windows at the World Trade Center was standing in the street, watching the towers burn.

I was standing next to a woman who was somewhat older than I am, who was standing next to a young man in this twenties who was obviously a co-worker of hers.

I remember remarking to the woman, as I gestured to the young man next to her, "Just as the Kennedy assassination was the defining moment in our lives, this will be the defining moment in his."
I'll say it again, IM:

Who knows?

If you believe, as I do, that the coverup is on-going to this day, then any piece of evidence, photograph, statement, test, re-enactment, or what have you, is suspect.

We just don't know whether or not it's tainted, and we don't know the true motives of those who are presenting it.

You want to talk about the gun? Well, how's this:

If Oswald wasn't one of the shooters, then the gun found in the Texas School Book Depository may not have been one that was used in the first place.

Or maybe Oswald was a shooter, using a different gun.

I don't want to get into a lot of detail here, but the first cop on the scene (supposedly a firearms expert) who found the gun described it as a german mauser. It wound up becoming an italian Mannlicher Carbine (sp?).

Maybe someone else was there as a shooter using a different gun.

Maybe there are interests who at first wanted us to think that Oswald was a shooter, and then to cover up who the real shooters were threw up a smokescreen about Oswald being one of them.

Or not being one of them.

We just don't know

Although both books have many similarities in their theorizing, both have somewhat different POVs.

The Stone film is based primarily on the Garrison book. But because of his interweaving of some of the theories presented in Crossfire, Stone was roundly criticized.

One good thing the film did, though, was to bring the JFK assassination back into the limelight and renew public interest, not to mention creating interest among a new and younger generation, people like you and JJ.

Long after I'm gone, it will hopefully be the curiosity of people like you guys who will keep the questions alive and keep pressing for answers.

I've not read as many books a you guys, but have seen probably most documentaries on JFK's assassination. I have gone over the several main scenarios in my mind every now and then throughout the years, and can't say I know any answers either. The "Cuba" connection, to me anyway, seems the least likely. The mob and/or our government (CIA, FBI????)I don't rule out. There "had" to be insiders involved in order to pull it off.

Posted by PLaw:

You should also know that my being alive at the time of JFK's assassination and watching the events unfold and being old enough to understand them,and believing in a conspiracy and coverup, was probably the biggest single factor which contributed to my present distrust of our government.

You're not alone there PLaw. I dare say most babyboomers would concur. We never want to be so naive again. I know I followed the events, watched them unfold" throughout the weekend. Bought everything the media fed us. I can't remember however, a single "event" or "clue" that made all of us doubt this story. Do you?? Even that Sunday afternoon watching Ruby shoot Oswald, shocking as it was on live tv, I don't think I thought "consipracy" at that time. it seemed only a couple years later the doubts set in.

PLAW

If you are still studying the case, what you should realize, if you don't already, is that there is a strong possibility that the coverup is still going on.

My fear is we will never know. And it is truly a shame. The more time that passes, the more people involved in any way, shape or form, are dying off.

Plaw, my kids never can understand my passion/interest in the JFK story. When 911 happened, and we were all glued to the shocking events. I told them "This is your JFK." I think they grasped the connection, cause they were living this one, even though miles away.

Btw, I have "heard" that Jackie Kennedy has either a book/memoirs/paper/diary....something in writing, that she left to be opened only after her grandchildren are gone. Don't know if it involves the assassination so not saying there's any connection, cause that's all I know. But I wonder if perhaps even she had her suspicions???

Btw, I'mm gonna buy "Rush To Judgement".


TIS

I did.

As soon as I saw Oswald get shot, I was thinking "conspiracy."

I personally find it very hard to believe that Ruby was able to "sneak" a gun into the transport area.

There was nothing "sneaky" about it.

He was supposedly friendly with half of the Dallas police force, who he treated to free drinks at his strip joint.

He just walked in as pretty as you please, to watch the fun.

No one searched him, no one questioned him, no one gave it second thought.

But if I remember my facts correctly, no one posted at any of the entrances to the building "remembers" him entering.

So either someone on the Dallas PD just doesn't remember, was afraid to remember, or was in on the plot.

There is precious little about anything in the entire case that we can be totally sure of.

Looking at the picture on the left, it "appears" that no one even notices Ruby. I remember, even at the time, it seemed he did breeze right through. But by this picture it appears he simply walked up to him with a gun aimed. I wish I had a larger picture because I can't tell if Oswald is the only one looking at Ruby????

TIS

There is speculation by some theorists that the two knew each other.

BTW, I love the days when almost all men wore fedoras, but a couple of these Dallas guys are wearing kinda modified cowboy hats.

Plaw,
Can you refresh my memory- What was Ruby's motive for shooting Oswald?

Ha ha, speaking of hats, andnot to change the subject, but did you see the footage of Jack Ambranoff today (you know the Republican Lobbyist who is being indicted). He was dressed like a gangster all right, with hat, dark coat. He looked like he was trying for the "mafiosa" look.

The funny part was, several times while they're discussing his indictment, they play the GFII scene with Michael Corleone saying to Senator Geary; "Senator, I'll give you my answer now if you like..." Ha ha

TIS

Mig, supposedly Ruby was a big Kennedy fan and was so distraught. I have also read that Ruby wanted to spare Jackie the agony of going thru/testifying at Oswald's trial. Both pretty lame excuses if you ask me. PLaw can elaborate I'm sure.

Keep in mind that Ruby had found out he was dying of cancer...he had nothing to lose. Another speculation of consipracy theorists is that he was offered a deal to take care of his family financially after his demise.

TIS

TIS pretty much nailed it on Ruby's motive: sparing Jackie the agony of having to come back to Dallas for Oswald's trial, but I don't think Ruby knew he had cancer until after he was tried and convicted.

Ambranoff may be an Orthodox Jew - I'm not sure. But if he is, that would explain the hat.

AAMOF, it's the hat that makes me think that he is.

PLaw,

FYI...I didn't mean to put the "rolling eyes" in my earlier post saying "PLaw can elaborate". Slip of the finger I guess. :p Just wanted you to know.
I changed it.


TIS

I didn't even notice :rolleyes:

Plaw & TIS

I don't remember now, when Ruby found out he had cancer You're probably right PLaw.

I was browsing thru stories on Ruby tonight,I read that his prison guard said that Ruby maintained the same reasons we mentioned here for shooting Oswald, during his time in jail. He said he was glad he did it. However, didn't he want to go to Washington to testify and/or make a statement, saying he had some "vital" information, but the powers that be wouldn't let him go and/or didn't take him seriously??


TIS

Hi Mig

Yes.

Earl Warren himself went to Dallas to take testimony from Ruby, who supposedly told Warren that he had much more to tell but didn't feel safe doing so in Dallas.

He asked to be taken back to Washington to testify in front of the entire commission, but his request was refused.

Hmmm.... :rolleyes:

As far as the cancer goes, I'm positive that he didn't have it, or at least know he had it, at the time he shot Oswald.

PLaw, if you believe that Oswald did not act alone, what scenario do you favor for other shooters?

Perhaps it was the "three tramps" who were responsible for the shooting, in addition to their patsy Lee Harvey Oswald and the "art imitates life and if anything in this life is certain -- if history has taught us anything -- it's that you can kill anybody" precursor to Rocco "Difficult, Not Impossible" Lampone, Jack Ruby.

Jack Sturgis, E Howard Hunt, and Charles Harrelson...those were always the three names I often associated with the identification of the "three tramps" though it appears those names were never lumped together in a single group. However, they were the names I heard after they had achieved some prominence for some other act (Sturgis and Hunt for Watergate, Harrelson (yes...it's Woody's dad) for murder) and that makes it easier for me to create that association in my mind.

Does anyone remember Geraldo Rivera's first big network TV gig in the mid-'70's? A late night show called Good Night America on ABC-TV? I believe one of his first investigative reports was a review of the Warren Commission report and his show probably did as much to advance the conspiracy cause as anything at that time.

Also, compare the cinemetography of Rocco Lampone's shooting of Hyman Roth in GF II to the actual shooting of Oswald by Ruby. Was FFC making some sort of political reference when he staged that scene, especially when considered in the possible historical context of Michael Corelone's "if history..." statement moments earlier in the movie?

tony b.

p.s. At first glance, I initially thought the subject of this discussion was Cubs paid Oswald to kill JFK? and I couldn't imagine a conspiracy theory that has the Wrigley's involved in any way.

I really can't go any further than to say that I believe, as most do, that there was at least one shooter behind the fence (or was it a wall? I forget) atop the the infamous grassy knoll.

I wouldn't even begin to speculate about their identities, but that's not really the important thing anyway, IMO.

What I would like to know, of course, is who they were working for.

And that, alas, is what I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

Even if the day comes when the supposedly absolutely and unequivocally 100% truthful version comes out, I'll still be wondering if it's not something that the real conspirators somehow threw out there to throw us off the track even further.

I beg to differ, JJ.

I was working in Jersey City on 9/11, with a great view of lower Manhattan. Everyone in my building who didn't have a clear look from their windows at the World Trade Center was standing in the street, watching the towers burn.

I was standing next to a woman who was somewhat older than I am, who was standing next to a young man in this twenties who was obviously a co-worker of hers.

I remember remarking to the woman, as I gestured to the young man next to her, "Just as the Kennedy assassination was the defining moment in our lives, this will be the defining moment in his." [/b][/quote]True, but it isn't necessarily fair to measure 9/11 with the Kennedy Assassination yet because enough time hasn't passed to weigh the consequences of 9/11 on long term policy and the direction of the nation. Though perhaps I should have said that Kennedy's death was a defining moment of the 20th century, rather than the last 50 years in general.

If nothing else, JFK's speech at the American University showed that there was a new life being breathed into the United States. The New Frontier, as it were. In fact, the speech that Kennedy was set to deliver at the Trade Mart in Dallas likewise emphasizes the new direction of this nation. The course was forever altered, however, on November 22nd, 1963. Had Kennedy not died, we may not have entered into Vietnam, and the country may appear very different than it does now.

I couldn't agree more. Who the shooters were is, to a large degree, inconsequential in the bigger picture. But the focus of who they were distracts many from asking the deeper questions - who hired them and what was their specific motivation?

Was it the Mob acting in revenge for Bobby Kennedy's pursuit of Hoffa and Joseph Kennedy's mob connections? Was it radical pro-Cuba revolutionists? Were the shooters hired by the CIA to reverse certain policies of JFK? Was it someone within the military complex getting revenge for JFK's refusal to invade Cuba and his attempt to withdraw troops from Vietnam?

It just does not seem at all plausible that a single, "lone nut" could have done this all on his own as the Warren Commission contends. Laws of physics and common sense just fly in the face of so many of the Commission's claims.

You forgot LBJ and his Texas oil buddies.

I'm just wondering out loud here, maybe someone knows. Did Sirhan Sirhan (Robert Kennedy's killer) ever get mentioned as a conspiracy suspsect for JFK? And were there some mysterious things involving Sirhan that cast doubt upon his guilt? I really don't know much about the case, just wondering...

Sirhan is still alive, no?