• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Who killed JFK?

  • Lee Harvey Oswald

    Votes: 32 28.3%
  • Mafia

    Votes: 7 6.2%

    Votes: 41 36.3%
  • Cubans

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • KGB

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • The Illuminati/Masons/Lizards

    Votes: 10 8.8%
  • all of the above

    Votes: 21 18.6%

  • Total voters
I have the films on a video disc fromMacmillian digital usa and it has a overview of the assassination with diff views of it with both waren and house ideas on it showing the view from diff points where they say shots could have came from
Nice show of respect there - Jackie O didn't even change her jacket before the swearing-in. Probably still had bits of brain on it and everything... :hmm:
In response to Jackie O comment - she wanted America to "see the full horror" so kept bloodied clothes on. Grief does strange thing.

Also new lead - another man with umbrella at scene.
story says

"And there was at least one surprise, not thought to have been commented on before -- a man seen holding an umbrella in the first few seconds of film, some time before the motorcade arrived.

One conspiracy theory surrounds another man seen in photographs who holds an umbrella aloft at the instant Kennedy was first shot.

Analysts questioned why he had the umbrella -- it wasn't usual for men to carry umbrellas against the sun -- and suggest it may have been a signal or even a weapon."
I'm surprised this topic hasn't been more popular on the Board. I'm just reading a summary of the evidence at the mo.

Bottom line, overwhelming evidence points to Oswald as patsy and second gunman behind knoll. Most unequivocal evidence for cover-up in conspiracy history.

Who the hell was responsible and why haven't we found out a whole 40 years later?
Anyone read 'American Tabloid' by James Elroy? Got some interesting theories about Hoover, the Company and the Mob conspiring to oust Kennedy as he left the CIA in the lurch over 'the whole bay of pigs thing' and his brother was cracking down on Mob casinos etc. Hoover had a prediliction for smut tapes of celebs, and (in the story) and agent records JFK with some hooker and pretends in Marilyn Monroe - Hoover's tres excited by the tape...
Jackie was probably in deep shock.She should have never been allowed in front of cameras at that point.
I can't remember where heard it but I was told that at the hospital she approached a doctor and handed him what turned out to be part of JFK's head with the words "You might need this.".The doctor said she looked like she was in severe shock.Apparently she is supposed to have picked it up from the boot (trunkj) when she is seen in the Zapruder stretching across the car. Incidentally her actions at this point have been used against her i.e. "Look after yourself then!" although some have said she was leaning across to help the secret service agent on board.
As an aside;through all my JFK reading I've not really found anything that gives Jackie's account.Does such a thing exist?
How she must have suffered after seeing that.Poor woman.She always seemed to have a distant look in photos of her after the assasination.
Re: New JFK footage shows movement in window

St.Clair said:
In the footage, movement in the sixth-floor window of the building can be seen.......

Amazing what they can do with CGI these days...


OK, I'll get me coat.

Kal Korf and his Unconvention JFK speech. Oh dear. A superb example of shoddy research. The number of people whose minds have been poisoned by his rantings makes me shudder.
JFK you say? But wasn't he shot by a crazy loner. I thought this was all cleared up at the time. Case closed.
Yeah...it was the mad guy with the crappy rifle and the aerobatic bullets. Everybody knows that.
Nah, it was the guy who worked in the same place and looked so much like him not even their wives could tell them apart...
Korff seemed pretty convincing to me but I'm not an expert on these matters. His presentation also appeared to meet the approval of most of the attendees too.
Being serious for a minute what did he have to say on the issue?

His slective use of evidence to back up his case and his trumpeting of the three worst witnesses, whilst ignoring dozens of more reliable people, was particularly nauseating.

I'm not surprised that people in the audience found his talk palatable; after all, it would be to anyone who doesn't know much about the case.
Re: ......

DPL said:
His slective use of evidence to back up his case and his trumpeting of the three worst witnesses, whilst ignoring dozens of more reliable people, was particularly nauseating.

Isn't that what you are supposed to do with evidence? Use it in a selective manner?

Sorry, I'm being annoying, I know. Why don't you expand a bit on where you feel that Korff went wrong? If you have the time and patience of course. :)

Will do when I have a spare couple of millenia...watch this space!
he did a "dave"

the guy "playing the pres." who was shot
him and his family had done a special deal with the then govt. something like this:-
1) paying no taxs forever
2) several million $'s a yr
3) children (if any) in good jobs
4) their names changed
5) new location
6) 24 hr protection

and the same deal with oswald lee harvey and jack ruby?

or jfk was helped by hollywood sfx to make it look like a shooting so he could retire to anonimity

or he did he commit suicide with a concealed gun in the back of the car seat?
Here you go then!

Here are my comments on the Assassination Apologist's lecture at the weekend. I've written them up according to my notes, and
there are sure to be points that I have missed.

The evidence concerning shots from the rear:
A crack in the windshield of the Presidential Limousine was referred to in the lecture,
based on a photograph by press photographer James Altgens. This picture shows
a starfish shaped crack (although the resolution is low), and eyewitnesses
reported the damage as being on the interior surface of the car (although
some witnesses at Parkland did report that there was a bullet HOLE in the
windshield). This was seen as good corroboration for rear shots fired at JFK.
However, the windshield is made of a special laminate of safety glass, whereby
the damage occurs on the opposite side to the point of inflection. In other words,
damage on the inside surface would have come from a shot from the front. When this
was pointed out, the "damaged" windshield vanished, to be replaced by an undamaged one.

When was the first shot fired?
The lecturer made much of the statement by Phil Willis's daughter (whose name I
cannot recall off the top of my head!) saying that she stopped running alongside
the limousine when the first shot went off. She allegedly said to the lecturer
that she had seen a funny man in the Texas School Book Depository (presumably
the assasin), and the lecturer made a great play on this fact. However, what the
lecturer did not say was that, in 1988, she was interviewed for TV and said that
she was under the impression that the headshot came from the FRONT.
I must also point out here that Phil Willis said that as the first shot was fired,
he stepped off the curb into the road and he took a picture at this time, which
can be found distributed on the internet. Also, JFK stops waving and looks around
at this time, so there is good corroboaration from the 8mm Zapruder Film.
However, some of the lecturer's other assertions are laughable, even more so when
he constantly used his apologetic mantra "this is physics" to justify shoddy research.
I recall the lecturer saying that the first bullet went through the tree outside the
Book Depository, and that such passage can cause "great defection" in its path, citing
witnesses who saw something in the street behind the Limousine, and then mentioning
bystander James Tague who was hit by richocheting debris from this missed shot.
All very well and good, except that it doesn't bear scrutiny.
Ignoring the laughable assertion that passage through a tree's branches would deflect
a bullet significantly, this first shot would have been angled more or less downwards.
For the shot to hit near Tague, some distance away, near the Triple Overpass, the bullet
would have had to have gone a lot more horizontal - and miss the Limousine by a couple of
hundred yards!
James Tague's evidence was ignored until it reached such prominence (in the local press)
that officialdom had to do something about it. So, the upper echelons of power traipsied
off to the spot and rather than finding the mark in the pavement from which metallic
fragments could be obtained, they found that SOMEONE had cemented over the mark.
This pavement slab dug up and carted off to Washington for analysis, and a picture was
indeed displayed by the lecturer. Shame he didn't mention that someone tried to destroy the evidence.

Ballistics Evidence
Two things for which I am indebted to the lecturer: he showed what had actually happened to
JFK's brain after he had been buried (his body was exhumed and his reburied with the brain).
The second one are the ballistics signatures of Bullet 399 ("The magic bullet") which showed
that it had come from Oswald's rifle. I don't think anyother disputes this. What we are not
sure is whether it was indeed fired that day! And, to counter the lecturer's argument that
the bullet's chain of evidence was unbroken; it travelled from the Hospital to Washington
in the pocket of a Secret Service agent!!! And some witnesses at Parkland Hospital remembered
seeing a bullet with a pointed nose, not a round one like the Carcano exhibit 399 bullet.
Indeed, the metal fragments recovered from Governor Connally (who was seated in front of
JFK and was also hit) make it dubious that they could have come from exhibit 399. What a shame
the lecturer didn't discuss this point; instead he wavered by taking Warren Commission critics
to task by their description that this bullet is "pristine". Well, it isn't, but to argue over
semantics is trivial obsession raised above all else.
Another point of contention: the lecturer said that, initially the police identified
Oswald's Manlicher-Carcano rifle as a Mauser, but recanted later on. Granted, shown pictures
of the two, they are extremely similar. However, the poicce officer recalled that the rifle
he was shown had the word "Mauser" stamped on the barrel!
With reference to the boxed-off sniper's nest, and the positiong of the three rifle bullets,
different photos exist showing different layouts. The photo that was shown of the positioning
of the three spent cartridges show two close together and one further away, which is plausible.
However, one of the first police into the Book Depository picked up the three bullets (lying
SIDE BY SIDE - surely impossible for a bolt action rifle!) for the sake of a journalist who
wanted a picture of them, and then tossed them back down on the ground!

The Single Bullet Theory
The Warren Commision relies on two people (JFK and Connally) being hit by the same
bullet for a non-conspiracy finding to be tenable. In this, Kennedy is hit in the throat
and Connally is hit in the back. If this is not true, then more bullets are needed, and
the Warren Commission's case collapses. It got tedious listening to the lecturer saying
that the Magic Bullet antithesis to the Single Bullet theory is a "fraud" and "it never
happened". His arguments were as vacuous as the Single Bullet Theory.
We know when the first bullet was fired, and it seemingly had no effect on the limousine.
We know roughly when Kennedy was hit in the throat ( as he emerged from behind a street
sign, as seen by the Zapruder film, even though Doctor's impressions in Dallas was that this
was an entry wound in the front of the neck!). However, the lecturer used bogus logic
to try to convince us that Connally was hit at the same time, by citing his lapel flapping up.
Let us consider what Connally said: he heard a rifle shot, and recognised it as such. He turned
round to look over his right shoulder (where the noise had come from) but couldn't see anything.
He was turning round to look over his left shoulder when he felt the impact of the bullet that
hit him. It doubled him up and he saw that he was covered in blood. If you watch the Zapruder film,
you can see this happening. One slight problem for the lecturer: JFK's neck shot and Connally's
"bent over" reaction are a couple of seconds apart. Did the bullet pause in mid air during this
And despite the lecturer saying that the JFK/Connally trajectories could be aligned when one
considers that they weren't sitting quite in front of each other (Connally was on a jump seat),
photographs taken that day show that, to all intents and purposes, they were sitting almost in
a line.
Another laughable point raised by the lecturer. He said that critics were "wrong" to suggest
the Magic Bullet could not have happened because of the low location of the wound in the back
of his clothing. Obviously, a downwards trajectory requires a bullet going through (say) the
neckline and emerging from below the adam's apple, where the wound was located. The lecturer
made the feeble remark that the shirt and jacket could have ridden up (showing an unconvincing
photograph), to make the wounds line up.
The holes in Kennedy's back, shirt and jacket are 5 1/2 inches below the neckline. How on earth
could the clothing have ridden up so high to ensure that the trajectories line up? Simple: they

Jet Effect
One again, this old chestnut was raised as an attempt to explain why Kennedy's head
flew backwards upon impact from a bullet to the back of the head ( and the lecturer using
the repulsive suggestion that "this is how you go on holiday" - ie. the jet effect).
Its almost as ludicrious as the Neuromuscular spasm used to explain away the effect when
the Zapruder film came to the American people's widespread attention in the mid-1970s.
Personally, I prefer Newton's 3rd Law ("Action and reaction are equal and opposite").
It has remained inviolate for millenia and explains why, when you hit something, it moves
in the opposite direction. Kennedy may have been unique in history but I doubt even he
could break the laws of physics!

The Backyard Photos
Again, the lecturer disparaged the Warren Commission critics for suggesting that the photos
showing Oswald holding guns and rifles in his backyard may been faked to incriminate him.
What the lecturer did not say was that, after the film JFK was released, another backyard
photo was unearthed from the police,
showing a blank, white space where the figure of "Oswald" would have been. Who made this,
why, and where was Oswald?

Bogus Witnesses
It was right of the lecturer to decry the bogus witnesses of the assassination, such as Jean Hill
et al. A shame his logic amounted to little more than a dismissal of all eye and earwitnesses.
Why didn't he mention people like railroad worker S.M.Holland who was standing on the Triple
Land Overpass, and saw not only that the JFK throat shot and the Connally shot must have
been from different bullets, but also saw a puff of smoke that emerged from behind the
picket fence on the Grassy Knoll as the fatal head shot was fired? By the time he and
his colleagues got to the location, whoever it was who had fired the shot had gone,
leaving footprints, cigarette butts, and a muddy mark on one of the cars there where someone
had stood to get a better view of the motorcade. Also in the air was the smell of gunpowder.
And there are other credible witnesses, like Billy Newman who was with his young son.
When the fatal shot occurred (from behind him, on the Knoll), he dived to the ground and
covered his son. When interviewed a few minutes later by a TV station, he affirmed that
the shot had come from over this shoulder.
It seems ludicrous that the lecturer could get away with the bald statment that "80% of
witnesses said the shots came from the Book Depository". That percentage of people may
indeed have said that some shots came from the building, but the majority said that
some shots, included the fatal shot came from the Knoll. Interestingly, all these witnesses
were dismissed by the Warren Commission on the grounds that they were mistaken.

The "paper bag"
The lecturer made peripheral mention of the paper bag used to transport the broken down
Carcano rifle into the School Book Depository Building. However, there are a number
of problems with this.
Oswald was driven to work that day, and yes, he did have a large brown paper bag with him.
He was asked what was in it, and he said "curtain rods" (for refurbishing someone's house
- sorry, I can't remember whose!). He left the car carrying the bag by cupping the contents
between his armpit and his palm. The problem is the broken down rifle is significantly longer
than this distance! And when the paper bag was found, there were no traces of oil on it - odd,
for a very oily rifle!

I've amplified some of my notes, and included a few pictures on my website here:


Best wishes

i know this thread's been dormant for a while and that what i'm going to ask is probably unrelated but has anyone heard anything about john frankenheimer, director of the manchurian candidate and prospective passenger in jfk's motorcade on the day of the assasination (apparently he pulled out at the last minute)? my source is someone more interested in films than conspiracy theories which makes me wonder why i've not heard it anywhere else.
You are refering to the Carcano rifle?

Is this the one that FBI rifle experts refer to as "a very accurate weapon" with "a low kickback compared to other military rifles, which help in rapid bolt-action firing.

With a 4X scope, even an untrained shooter could fire at a target like a marksman. FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier noted "it requires no training at all to shoot a weapon with a telescopic sight" and that particular sight needed virtually no adjustment at less than 200 yards, the range of the eventual assasination shots. The Carcano is rated an effective battle weapon, good at killing people, and as accurate as the US Army's M-14 rifle.....some game hunters use the 6.4mm Carcano shell to bring down elephants".

So, the weapon was fine.

Combine that with the fact that Oswald was a good shot (contrary to popular belief) and all becomes probable again.

Please note - all quotes reference to Gerald Posner "Case Closed."
JFK - Posner / Oswald / Case Closed?

I am playing Devil's Advocate here...........

In light of Gerald Posner's excellent "Case Closed" in which a very convincing case for Oswald as lone assasin is argued, why do the conspiracy theories still run and run?

Isn't the conspiracy that people are still led to believe in conspiracies? We are still told that Oswald was a poor marksman - we are still told that Oswald's weapon of choice was an innacurate piece of rubbish etc.etc.etc. All untrue.

Those trying to find the conspiracy have created their own - thus it is a self-perpetuating circle.

I guess it's cos of who he assassinated (as opposed to murdered, important difference - if it had been Joe Bloggs, of Main Street, Dallas, who caught the bullet no-one would bother to elaborate it) - that said, it is fairly surprising that someone with as much security around them could be taken out by a lone gunman. It's odd though that the same scrutiny hasn't been applied to (edit)John Hinckley*(/edit) - Reagan's security was one hell of a lot tighter, the political climate not that much healthier, etc, but everyone accepts that it was a deluded loner with a Jodie Foster-fixation.

Part of it could, I suppose, be down to the security service themselves trying to offload some wounded pride, making it look like a much more complex case rather than admitting that no-one had bothered to check a building properly.

*Cheers Anome - see below.
stu neville said:
It's odd though that the same scrutiny hasn't been applied to Mark Chapman - Reagan's security was one hell of a lot tighter, the political climate not that much healthier, etc, but everyone accepts that it was a deluded loner with a Jodie Foster-fixation.
Of course, Stu means John Hinckley, not Mark Chapman, who shot John Lennon.

There are conspiracies about the Reagan shooting, as pointed out on the other JFK thread (or one of them, anyway). Events like this are the bread and butter of conspiracy theorists. The thing about JFK, though, is that he was the first assassinated leader of the Television Era. Before last century, news of an assassination could take days to get around. The immediacy of the media is what helped turn the event into the icon it has become.
I've never been able to make up my mind about it all TBH - the "magic bullet" is the sticking point with me. Having only heard second-hand about Posner's conclusions, I can't really judge, but he is quite convincing from what I've heard.

My post above was in response to Bilderberger's question as to why this could have so much momentum to it as a conspiracy theory, regardless of the actual facts of the case.
Emperor Zombie said:
Oh he was an amazing marksman, to miss his mark, and to fire out of the window like that...and to have actually fired a bullet that could turn corners...Really, that alone should be celebrated, not buried under conspiracy right?

That is an example of exactly what I am referring to. The conspiracy of people to ensure that the murder remains a conspiracy.

Have you read Posner? Try Appendix A for starters - tests in 1992 by the "Failure Analysis Associates" suddenly reveal the second bullet as not "magic" in anyway at all. Your other obviously sarcastic remarks detail a catalogue of nonsensical reasons why it couldn't have been Oswald. Such "facts" are in the general zeitgeist of opinion - and I have no doubt that, to most people, your post makes absolute sense.

The amazing lesson from Posner's book is that it is not all mysterious. What happened is that rumour and innacuracy has led to second hand quoting of false conclusion and evidence and....wahey.....suddenly everything is inexplicable.

The standard of gun used is a classic example. I used to believe that Oswald was a poor marksman - and that he used a crappy rifle that was impossible to fire three times in the time allowed.

Turns out he was a decent marksman, the gun was of a good standard and that the timeframe is perfectly acceptable (in any case the shots did not require a decent marksman). Why did it take until 1993 for such simple facts to come out?

Apologies - I digress to make a point. This thread is for discussion of why the conspiracy is so believed in - to the extent that anyone who supports the Oswald lone assasin theory becomes an object of opprobrium? Posner suggests it is a need to believe that something so huge could not result from the act of one madman - such momentous events require momentous causes................

P.S. I am perfectly willing to discuss the falsehoods of the conspiracy theories in the "Who wacked bad bad Jack" thread - and I have already laid out some facts about the gun used on that thread.

Posner's a shill for the establishment and his pathetic book has been long-since debunked. It's an absurdity on the face of it, and not a very good reference to cite at all.

As to the Mannlicher Carcano, it's not a bad rifle, but surely not a good one. And it's true that Oswald was a marksman of sorts, although his military record is spotty on that.

Trouble is, no one can get off that many shots in so short a time, let alone be accurate about it.

And of course the coup de grace came from the front. Not even Oswald, whom they have covering ground like the Roadrunner, could move THAT fast. lol
Have you read Posner for yourself - or are your references for its debunking second hand?
Like a lot of these things, there is a house-of-mirrors quality to it, and will never truly be resolved. Without getting into JFK policies/wounds/ballistics/witnesses/photos to me the two most damning things to a 'lone nutter' expalanation are Oswald behavior after the assasination and his death at the hands of Ruby.

Virtually every other 'lone nut' shows up with a handgun, right in front of the attempted target, makes no effort to get away and loudly proclaims "I did it for Jodie, or Charlie Manson, or the glory of God, or the working man, or my country", blah, blah. But not LHO, who in the time he was in custody said "I didn't shoot anyone. I'm a patsy. US policy towards Cuba won't change if LBJ is president."

And I'm sorry, but anybody who studies the tranfer of Oswald that Sunday, and that Jack Ruby, of all people, plugged him "to save Jackie from having to testify at a trial" is really accepting a lot more than most people would be able to swallow.

If I'm up to it I may elaborate, but this subject tires me at this point, honestly.