Reporter claims to have uncovered ‘smoking-gun proof’ linking Oswald to the CIA

[Subduction Zone]

The United States is the only country in the world where confessions don't have value of evidence?

I didn't know that.
So I can confess to any murder while I am in the US and get away with it?

Naughty naughty. I did not say that. Confessions can be of value, but one has to remember that sometimes a person has his own reasons for confessing to a crime that he did not do.

For that reason police often do not give out all of the information on crime investigations. Crazies will claim to have done it. If a person's confession does not match the crime one can be fairly sure that that person was lying. There is a very small chance that that person did the crime, but people will doubt any further confessions. File's description did not match the crime scene.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a matter of distance. It's a matter of precision. Jacqueline unwounded?
She was practically attached with her body to JFK.
Especially after the first shot.

Did you see the footage? I am not blind: I can clearly see two shots from two opposite directions.
What about you?

It was a rifle. Not a shotgun.

I have my doubts if you have ever fired a gun.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a matter of distance. It's a matter of precision. Jacqueline unwounded?
She was practically attached with her body to JFK.
Especially after the first shot.

Did you see the footage? I am not blind: I can clearly see two shots from two opposite directions.
What about you?

You are blind. You also disqualified yourself with quite a few of your comments. You thought that something that would be a bit over half of a soccer field in length was a terribly long distance. I have hit a squirrel at about that distance. A squirrel is a lot smaller than a human. You seem to think that a rifle would injure a person sitting next to the target. The only person in danger was the one just past Kennedy. Rifle bullets follow very straight paths. They do not break up and hit the person to the left or right.

 

[Estro Felino]

Naughty naughty. I did not say that. Confessions can be of value, but one has to remember that sometimes a person has his own reasons for confessing to a crime that he did not do.

For that reason police often do not give out all of the information on crime investigations. Crazies will claim to have done it. If a person's confession does not match the crime one can be fairly sure that that person was lying. There is a very small chance that that person did the crime, but people will doubt any further confessions. File's description did not match the crime scene.

I would have loved to hear Oswald explain how he did it before a jury of his peers.
But they killed him before he could say the truth...because a jury is made up of sensible people.

Do you think it is credible someone is killed just before a criminal trial?

 

[Estro Felino]

You are blind. You also disqualified yourself with quite a few of your comments. You thought that something that would be a bit over half of a soccer field in length was a terribly long distance. I have hit a squirrel at about that distance. A squirrel is a lot smaller than a human. You seem to think that a rifle would injure a person sitting next to the target. The only person in danger was the one just past Kennedy. Rifle bullets follow very straight paths. They do not break up and hit the person to the left or right.

We are speaking of a moving car.
It's not an immobile target.

 

[Estro Felino]

Let's try visual:
it's not credible that all three shots were shot from that building. Not credible. Because in the footage I can clearly see two shots from two opposite directions. So...a shooter was surely hidden in the treed area and fired the deadly, lethal shot we all see. The previous shot had come from the exact opposite direction.

 

[Heyo]

What questions? The "magic bullet" was shown not to be magical.

You need to remember that Connelly was about six inches to the interior, and six inches lower than Kennedy. If you are talking to someone that is behind you to your right and higher than you the natural reaction is to turn to the right and look up a bit. See what your right arm does. It will naturally move to the left. It was not unreasonable for Connelly's shoulder, right wrist, and left thigh all to be in line with Kennedy's head.

That's your "theory". The video @Wandering Monk posted doesn't say that. It is only implied. And it's not the only one using that kind of manipulation.
And then there is at least one other shot heard in recordings, for which Oswald would have near inhumanly fast reloaded and no bullet has been found. (I don't remember the details but that was one of the unanswered questions I have in the back of my mind.)
I don't know what, but something is fishy with that whole story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are speaking of a moving car.
It's not an immobile target.

Going rather slowly. Not a difficult shot at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's your "theory". The video @Wandering Monk posted doesn't say that. It is only implied. And it's not the only one using that kind of manipulation.
And then there is at least one other shot heard in recordings, for which Oswald would have near inhumanly fast reloaded and no bullet has been found. (I don't remember the details but that was one of the unanswered questions I have in the back of my mind.)
I don't know what, but something is fishy with that whole story.

From my understanding the time was not difficult at all. I got my claims from the discovery special where they recreated a human head.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's try visual:
it's not credible that all three shots were shot from that building. Not credible. Because in the footage I can clearly see two shots from two opposite directions. So...a shooter was surely hidden in the treed area and fired the deadly, lethal shot we all see. The previous shot had come from the exact opposite direction.

Please, you can't see that because you lack the expertise.

 

[Estro Felino]

Going rather slowly. Not a difficult shot at all.

That's a good point. Moving slowly but in a curve.
In a very bent street. Not straight at all.

 

[Estro Felino]

Please, you can't see that because you lack the expertise.

I don't need the expertise to figure out that what my eyes can see is two shots from two opposite directions.
Because in that slow motion footage you do see the bullets before entering JFK's body.
I have 10/10 eyesight. No color blindness, I can distinguish 10 shades of red and 10 of green.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a good point. Moving slowly but in a curve.
In a very bent street. Not straight at all.

So what? Find some friends that go duck hunting. Those can be hard to hit.

 

[Heyo]

From my understanding the time was not difficult at all. I got my claims from the discovery special where they recreated a human head.

? What has the recreation of a human head to do with the motions to reload a rifle?

 

[Estro Felino]

I am not saying that Oswald was not in on it.
He probably was.
What I am saying is that there was, at least, a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
And some say there was even a third shooter.

 

[Estro Felino]

I have rewatched it in 0.25 slow motion.
The second, deadly shot clearly comes from the right side of JFK.
I can clearly see the bullet exploding in his right ear. And the blood coming out from that spot.
What is at the right side? The treed area.

And do you guys demand I believe the shooter was in some building?
Yes, I will believe kobolds and fairies too then.

 

[Stevicus]

Who then present their own "theories". When the official version doesn't answer some important questions, everyone is allowed to speculate about them, the government apologists as well as the government critics.

It probably wouldn't be an issue if everyone agreed to follow the same standards and rules of evidence, but oftentimes it gets into a peeing contest of "the government's evidence is better than your evidence."

Sources of information also become an issue. People make value judgments as to whom they're going to believe or not believe based on whatever subjective evaluations they wish to make.

 

[Heyo]

It probably wouldn't be an issue if everyone agreed to follow the same standards and rules of evidence, but oftentimes it gets into a peeing contest of "the government's evidence is better than your evidence."

Sources of information also become an issue. People make value judgments as to whom they're going to believe or not believe based on whatever subjective evaluations they wish to make.

I am usually not a conspiracy buff. I respect official evidence and don't listen to hearsay. But when questions remain after an official investigation is closed, I get sceptical.

 

[Mock Turtle]

My position, given I am mostly sceptical about nearly all conspiracy theories, is that there are enough grey areas surrounding this incident so as to be suspicious of official explanations - from the fact that the 'killer' was killed himself before coming to trial, that the autopsy was not exactly cut-and-dried (with 'missing' bits apparently), that there were more than enough enemies of JFK (and capable of carrying out such a successful operation), that there were possibly more shots fired, and that there is sufficient reason to believe a cover-up might have occurred.

 

[Stevicus]

I am usually not a conspiracy buff. I respect official evidence and don't listen to hearsay. But when questions remain after an official investigation is closed, I get sceptical.

I try to take a neutral and more agnostic stance on things. Some conspiracy buffs are merely hobbyists, not with any real agenda except perhaps a sense of justice and social conscience. The very idea that someone in our government could be doing something anti-democratic, unconstitutional, or against the principles of human rights or liberal democracy is absolutely unconscionable to many people.

Even the remotest hint of impropriety on the part of those working for government raises hackles with some, even if there's a possibility it may not be true.

In my view, the government is big enough to defend itself, even if there are those among the hoi polloi who spread rumors or say all kinds of nasty stuff about the government. I'm not going to be the one to tell people that they're wrong about their criticisms of the government. I don't work for the U.S. government, so I have no stake in defending it.

I consider it merely a matter of good citizenship to be skeptical of what government says, as well as being ready to question and criticize what they do. A vigilant populace is the best hedge against tyranny.

That's my overall position in these discussions about government and conspiracy theories. It's not that I actually believe any conspiracy theory, but I don't disbelieve them out of hand either.