Oh My Gawd!!!

There is no dearth of books on the assassination of JFK. I've read many. The one I referenced has been the best. The author doesn't even take a solid stand as to who was responsible, he simply compares the evidence included in the Warren Commission report with his own 30 year investigation and interviews, and it becomes clear that Oswald did not kill President Kennedy. He referenced and documents evidence ignored and/or altered by the Commission. Read it, and decide for yourself. Maybe it's bullshit, but I have never believed the Warren Commission. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

COG you are clearly a very intelligent person. Until you have read Bugliosi's book, I can understand you having doubts about Oswald since so many books are pro-conspiracy. Posner and especially Bugliosi present the other side.

I've never spoken with anyone who read the entire Bugliosi book who doesn't think Oswald did it. It is extremely long but very interesting, and exudes the thoroughness of a man who won all but one out of over a hundred murder prosecutions in LA County, including Charles Manson.

Even Posner's book doesn't come close, and Posner wrote an excellent book.

When I was about 21 or 22, I took a summer course in college called Terrorism and Executive Protection. I took it because it fulfilled electives in both my major and minor, and it was probably one of the most fascinating classes I took in college. No one slept through those classes LOL

Since it was a summer class, it was on an accelerated time table. The class lasted just one week, but it was 8 hours a day. We studied all sorts of things - we looked at the Oklahoma City bombing, then only a few years past, looked at how buildings can be designed to resist a bombing, learned about the history of the secret service, and many other things.

One entire day though was dedicated to Kennedy's assassination. On that day, two experts spoke to the class. One argued that Oswald acted alone, the other argued for conspiracy. Each man was given 4 hours to make his case.

Before we began the instructor asked for a show of hands of those who believed Oswald acted alone, those who believed in conspiracy, and those who either didn't know or hadn't decided. The result was mixed. "I don't know" probably got the most hands (that is when I raised mine), but there was a sprinkling of hands for both Oswald alone, and for conspiracy as well.

Then the Oswald expert went to work with photographs, diagrams, models, everything under the sun. For four hours we listened to his very good arguments in favor of Oswald being the lone gunman. Then we went to lunch. When we came back, the conspiracy expert went to work with his photographs, charts, diagrams, and his persuasive arguments. Altogether, it was fascinating stuff.

When we came back the next day we spent about an hour or so discussing our thoughts on the presentations we had heard. The instructor once again polled us. Here is where it gets interesting. When polled the day before, the class had been fairly well divided between conspiracy, no conspiracy, and undecided. The second day when the instructor polled us again, the entire class was unanimous. Every single hand went up in favor of conspiracy.

When I was about 21 or 22, I took a summer course in college called Terrorism and Executive Protection. I took it because it fulfilled electives in both my major and minor, and it was probably one of the most fascinating classes I took in college. No one slept through those classes LOL

Since it was a summer class, it was on an accelerated time table. The class lasted just one week, but it was 8 hours a day. We studied all sorts of things - we looked at the Oklahoma City bombing, then only a few years past, looked at how buildings can be designed to resist a bombing, learned about the history of the secret service, and many other things.

One entire day though was dedicated to Kennedy's assassination. On that day, two experts spoke to the class. One argued that Oswald acted alone, the other argued for conspiracy. Each man was given 4 hours to make his case.

Before we began the instructor asked for a show of hands of those who believed Oswald acted alone, those who believed in conspiracy, and those who either didn't know or hadn't decided. The result was mixed. "I don't know" probably got the most hands (that is when I raised mine), but there was a sprinkling of hands for both Oswald alone, and for conspiracy as well.

Then the Oswald expert went to work with photographs, diagrams, models, everything under the sun. For four hours we listened to his very good arguments in favor of Oswald being the lone gunman. Then we went to lunch. When we came back, the conspiracy expert went to work with his photographs, charts, diagrams, and his persuasive arguments. Altogether, it was fascinating stuff.

When we came back the next day we spent about an hour or so discussing our thoughts on the presentations we had heard. The instructor once again polled us. Here is where it gets interesting. When polled the day before, the class had been fairly well divided between conspiracy, no conspiracy, and undecided. The second day when the instructor polled us again, the entire class was unanimous. Every single hand went up in favor of conspiracy. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Proverbs 18:17
"The first to put forth his case seems right, until someone else steps forward and cross-examines him."

This is why the prosecution gets to go last, they need the advantage since they must prove their case, the defense only has to poke holes in it.
If Bugliosi had advocated in that class, the results would have been different.

It's been awhile but I'm sure I read the Bugliosi book. But I'll look at it again. Most of the conspiracy books are bullshit, and are embarrassing. The Girl on the Stairs was different in that the author states he started out supporting the Warren Commission, but was challenged by a friend to look into it, and spent 30 years researching, tracking down witnesses and examining evidence. And like I said, he doesn't point fingers which is usually the point of most conspiracy books. You might like it.

It's been awhile but I'm sure I read the Bugliosi book. But I'll look at it again. Most of the conspiracy books are bullshit, and are embarrassing. The Girl on the Stairs was different in that the author states he started out supporting the Warren Commission, but was challenged by a friend to look into it, and spent 30 years researching, tracking down witnesses and examining evidence. And like I said, he doesn't point fingers which is usually the point of most conspiracy books. You might like it. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy Hardcover – May 15, 2007 by Vincent Bugliosi (Author)
At 2000 pages, it is a long read.
I will check out The Girl on the Stairs since you recommend it.

Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy Hardcover – May 15, 2007 by Vincent Bugliosi (Author)
At 2000 pages, it is a long read.
I will check out The Girl on the Stairs since you recommend it. Originally Posted by DSK

I hope it's on Kindle. I've forgotten how to hold a real book!

I hope it's on Kindle. I've forgotten how to hold a real book! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It is!

There is no dearth of books on the assassination of JFK. I've read many. The one I referenced has been the best. The author doesn't even take a solid stand as to who was responsible, he simply compares the evidence included in the Warren Commission report with his own 30 year investigation and interviews, and it becomes clear that Oswald did not kill President Kennedy. He referenced and documents evidence ignored and/or altered by the Commission. Read it, and decide for yourself. Maybe it's bullshit, but I have never believed the Warren Commission. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You can't even respond to the one simple factual statement I just made.....if there was a conspiracy, the conspirators were clairvoyant. Otherwise, how would they have known to get Oswald a job at the depository when the motorcade route had not been decided upon when he went to work there?

Explain please....with something more than "it is clear that Oswald did not kill Kennedy." Come on...you started it.

Proverbs 18:17
"The first to put forth his case seems right, until someone else steps forward and cross-examines him."

This is why the prosecution gets to go last, they need the advantage since they must prove their case, the defense only has to poke holes in it.
If Bugliosi had advocated in that class, the results would have been different. Originally Posted by DSK

Among the many things we saw that day in class was a picture of JFK laid out on an autopsy table. There was a small bullet hole in his forehead, and you could see brain matter hanging from the back of his head.

To this day, I have not been able to find that picture anywhere else. That picture more than anything else is why the entire class unanimously switched to conspiracy after both presentations.

From that day until now, I have remained 100% certain that Oswald could not have acted alone because that picture left no doubt that JFK was shot from the front, while his back was to Oswald.

I doubt if Bugliosi's book could turn me around on that, but I would still be interested in reading it.

Among the many things we saw that day in class was a picture of JFK laid out on an autopsy table. There was a small bullet hole in his forehead, and you could see brain matter hanging from the back of his head.

To this day, I have not been able to find that picture anywhere else. That picture more than anything else is why the entire class unanimously switched to conspiracy after both presentations.

From that day until now, I have remained 100% certain that Oswald could not have acted alone because that picture left no doubt that JFK was shot from the front, while his back was to Oswald.

I doubt if Bugliosi's book could turn me around on that, but I would still be interested in reading it. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

You're thinking is pretty much correct. Although we are all suppose to believe the Warren Commission Report and that Oswald acted alone, I'll take it one step further Oswald didn't act at all. There is too much evidence that points to more than one person and more than one gun. Guys like Bugliosi and Posner are just reinforcing the Warren Commission. Like I previously stated the history books gave us Oswald as the perpetrator that doesn't mean that is what really happened but nothing else will be officially accepted. So if you ever get a call from a radio DJ to answer a trivia question for money or a prize and the question is "Who Killed Kennedy" you may as well say Oswald or just tell him to fuck off , which would be more noble.

Jim

Among the many things we saw that day in class was a picture of JFK laid out on an autopsy table. There was a small bullet hole in his forehead, and you could see brain matter hanging from the back of his head.

To this day, I have not been able to find that picture anywhere else. That picture more than anything else is why the entire class unanimously switched to conspiracy after both presentations.

From that day until now, I have remained 100% certain that Oswald could not have acted alone because that picture left no doubt that JFK was shot from the front, while his back was to Oswald.

I doubt if Bugliosi's book could turn me around on that, but I would still be interested in reading it. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

I remember that too. Haven't seen that shot in years. Another thing, Oswald was confronted by the police in the 2nd floor break room, calmly drinking a Coke, 90 seconds after the shooting. No one has been able to recreate stashing the rifle and running down 4 flights of stairs in that amount of time, let alone being able to do it without running out of breath. There are many inconsistencies. In fact, I believe there was a special House Select Committee convened a number of years ago that concluded that the Warren Commission was wrong. I will look that up. And the "magic bullet" theory is ridiculous.

Among the many things we saw that day in class was a picture of JFK laid out on an autopsy table. There was a small bullet hole in his forehead, and you could see brain matter hanging from the back of his head.

To this day, I have not been able to find that picture anywhere else. That picture more than anything else is why the entire class unanimously switched to conspiracy after both presentations.

From that day until now, I have remained 100% certain that Oswald could not have acted alone because that picture left no doubt that JFK was shot from the front, while his back was to Oswald.

I doubt if Bugliosi's book could turn me around on that, but I would still be interested in reading it. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

There was no "small bullet hole in his forehead". The exit wound is gaping.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy


More @:

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm


And there's still this:

...if there was a conspiracy, the conspirators were clairvoyant. Otherwise, how would they have known to get Oswald a job at the depository when the motorcade route had not been decided upon when he went to work there? .... Originally Posted by timpage

Kennedy was supposed to appear the next day in Austin.

His route had been selected and pre-planned. Just like in Dallas.

It was not necessary for the "route" to be known that far in advance. All that one needs to know is the possible routes and have a person designated for the various alternatives. Ruby was a police groupy who hung around the DPD. He "knew" Oswald's "route"!

Your "assumption" is that LE in Dallas was "above reproach" ... and the same for the Feds. Not the case at all. The "Mafia" had the highest motivation to get rid of Kennedy with the least possible risk of retaliation.

http://www.cyberlearning-world.com/n...fk/autopsy.htm

Kennedy was supposed to appear the next day in Austin.

His route had been selected and pre-planned. Just like in Dallas.

It was not necessary for the "route" to be known that far in advance. All that one needs to know is the possible routes and have a person designated for the various alternatives. Ruby was a police groupy who hung around the DPD. He "knew" Oswald's "route"!

Your "assumption" is that LE in Dallas was "above reproach" ... and the same for the Feds. Not the case at all. The "Mafia" had the highest motivation to get rid of Kennedy with the least possible risk of retaliation. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I agree

I have stated this before in other similar threads, I had many dinners with Henry Wade and he never wavered on Oswald being the single shooter. On the other hand a friends dad who fought with Patton swears nobody could get 3 shots off in that short of time

The Mafia had the most to gain