SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

Conspiracy Central <br /> <small>Dealey Plaza, JFK, and LHO</small>

by Michael Shermer, Dec 14 2010

Dealey Plaza

On Tuesday, December 7, I walked through and around Dealey Plaza in Dallas where JFK was assassinated by a lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO). Or was he? A lone assassin, that is? Yes, he was, but that is not what anyone giving informal tours of the plaza will have you believe if you give them a few minutes (and a few bucks).

I was in town filming a documentary for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The subject was conspiracy theories, so it was with some irony that we happened to be filming on December 7 because there are many conspiracy theories surrounding that date as well, a date that will live in infamy, as Franklin Roosevelt so crowned that fateful day in 1941, because he supposedly either helped orchestrate the attack on Pearl Harbor or else he knew about the attack and allowed it to happen in order to galvanize the American public into supporting England against the Nazis and getting the United States into the war.

There is no more to the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory than there is that President Bush helped orchestrate 9/11 or knew about the pending attack and allowed it to happen in order to unite the American public into supporting his wars of aggression in the Middle East. Nevertheless, there is something particularly appealing to conspiracy theorists when they describe “what really happened” in their alternative universe of events. You can see it in their eyes when they begin to talk about what “they” want or don’t want you to know about said event.

This was certainly the case for me when I interviewed several conspiracy theorists hanging around Dealey Plaza that day. Their eye light up and they grow ever more animated (and even agitated) as their story grows in complexity about all the different people, elements, and events that almost miraculously (it would be a miracle in most re-tellings) came together to assassinate JFK. One fellow had so many people involved in the assassination that they would have needed a small sports arena to meet to plan out the day. This improbability seems to bother conspiracy theorists not one tiny bit, as they spin out their narratives, drawing you down their causal pathway that resulted in the end of Camelot.

The most striking thing about being in Dealey Plaza for me was how small it is. Perhaps because the assassination itself was bigger than life we expect the geography to match the eventuality, but that is certainly not the case here. Two X’s on the street mark where JFK was hit: first in the throat causing his arms to move up and splay out, and second where the bullet found its cranial mark and literally blew his brains out (and, according to one conspiricist there, sent the skull cap flying across the street and onto the adjacent lawn). What is astounding is how close both X’s are to the sniper’s nest in the Book Depository building. Both from the street level looking up and from the window looking down (there is a museum on the sixth floor from which you can gain the perspective of the assassin), it seems clear that Oswald could hardly have missed. Given the fact that he was designated a sharpshooter by the Marines during his time in the service, and the fact that Kennedy’s car was traveling less than 10 miles per hour after making the sharp left turn onto Elm street, one is left whispering under one’s breath, “Kennedy was a sitting duck.”

Look at the two photographs (at the top of this post), each taken from one of the X’s on the street (I tried to snap a pic from the sniper’s nest, but this must be a problem for the museum because in addition to “No Photography” signs there is a guard standing there the entire time). The window from which Oswald fired is the square window on the far right of the building, second from the top.

Is it really necessary to invent additional assassins when it is obvious that one could have done the job? No. LHO acted alone in killing JFK. QED.

127 Responses to “Conspiracy Central <br /> <small>Dealey Plaza, JFK, and LHO</small>”

  1. Scott says:

    Yaaa, CBC! When will it air? I think you should come visit us too, and not just Toronto, maybe something out west :)

  2. Dorian says:

    I see he pulled out the Occams razor. Well thought. I don’t know much about conspiracy theories, so forgive me if I sound ignorant on the subject. It’s a nice article but, it seems that Mr. Shermer has arrived to a conclusion based on hearsay. Where’s the science man? :)
    Can the J.F.K. autopsy report be compared to our current knowledge of ballistics, in order to know where the shots came from? If the results fit the angle then we can definitely say that he did it alone; no magical bullets required.
    A reply would be welcome.

    • John Greg says:

      If you’re hoping for a reply from Shermer, forget it. He does not participate in his blogs. He just posts his pontifications and then pulls out.

    • It has been done, more than once. See other comments of mine, and even more, links posted by Steve Novella and others.

      That said, not all conspiracy theories are alike psychologically.

      Shermer mentioned “Camelot.” That was largely myth spun by Jackie after the assassination.

      Fact? Jack Kennedy was not that popular in November 1963. That’s why he was in Texas in general — fundraising, and trying to quell divisions within the Texas Democratic Party that even LBJ couldn’t totally douse.

      Had Jack not been shot, he would have done little more for civil rights than he had to date. Many Democrats would have been lukewarm in supporting him. Even had Goldwater gotten the GOP nod, with civil rights less front and center, he would have seemed less radical. That said, without the LBJ push on civil rights, Goldwater might not have been nominated and Jack would have lost re-election.

      And, at bottom line, contra the myth of Camelot? Possibly the best thing Jack Kennedy ever did for civil rights was to get himself killed.

      • Joe says:

        It’s become obvious that the only liar on this blog is the SocraticGadfly, the hilarious half-wit who has misappropriated the name of the legendary Athenian philosopher in order to engage in name calling and distortion of facts when not insisting that his opinions ought to be treated as fact. From his comments it appears that the only book he’s read in his life is “Case Closed”. Nothing Socratic about him.

        He calls it “fact” that JFK was not that popular in Nov. ’63, but, as with all of his posts, he does not support his opinion with any data. (Just like his numerous contentions that the improbable Single Bullet Theory has been replicated “more than once”, but won’t provide the data so that others might see how flawed the sources are which he uses, other than the discredited Posner). According to Gallup Polls JFK had a higher average approval rating at 70.1% than any U.S. President from Harry Truman to present. While it is true that during the late summer/early fall of ’63 JFK’s numbers were lower than his average, the American President Project shows him at 56% on 9/10/63, 58% on 10/9/63, and the same 58% from 11/8-13/63. That’s a fact, and not opinion as Soc-fly prefers to spew, and 58% cannot be said to be “not that popular” by reasonable people, which naturally excludes Soc-fly.

        Next up in his comment above is a paragraph of worthless idle speculation on what would have happened had JFK not been murdered. Again, opinion without a shred of support to construct a bizarre reality which, thankfully, only he occupies. In three sentences he has “proven” that “Jack would have lost re-election”. But this is his method for “proving” all of his half-baked, ignorant pronouncements.

        The cavalier attitude towards the murder of a U.S. President (a POPULAR U.S. President) which he expresses in his final comment above about JFK “getting himself killed” being possibly the best thing JFK did for civil rights, says all anyone needs to know about the Soc-fly mindset, attitude toward the Kennedy presidency, and his irrationality.

        Next time somebody sets out to “prove” the Single Bullet Theory, perhaps Soc-fly will do the world a favor and volunteer to be the Kennedy dummy in the car.

      • I’m too polite to step forward, Joe, so, re your last sentence, no, “you first.”

      • On the details of Kennedy’s declining poll numbers, by Nov. 1963, he was down to 59 percent favorable, from the 76 percent that he had, yes, had, earlier in the year, in January. Robert Dallek notes that in “An Unfinished Life.”

        In fact, he was down to 56 percent two months earlier. In Texas, he was down to a flat 50 percent.

        Poll numbers aren’t static, Joe, even when you try to cherry-pick them, or average them out over a whole 33 months.

        Now that I know how clueless of American history you are, it’s understandable why you’d buy into a Camelot-based conspiracy theory.

      • Joe says:

        Soc-fly, now that you’ve made it abundantly clear what an idiot you are, there is really no longer any point in trying to educate you. You are beyond all learning due to your closed mind and your lousy reading comprehension.

        Read, carefully, my post. I’ve clearly already cited the same stats you’ve used, so repeating them here is pointless, like most of your comments. And, as already stated, they certainly do not support your statement, “Jack Kennedy was not that popular in Nov. 1963.”

        But then only a lone-nut nut who believes in the “Magic” Bullet could distort logic and common sense by claiming that 58% or 59% approval (trending upward from 56% two months earlier as you noted) is “not that popular”.

        Perhaps a remedial reading comprehension course at your local adult continuation school is in order. Oh, and while you’re at it, a course in basic logic would also serve you.

      • Joe, I know you had the stats, but, you tried to run them through a different filter. You posted the numbers, sure, but you ignored that there was a continual drop-off through most of 1963, and what that meant for Kennedy’s election chances and concerns.

        “Not that popular” is certainly a legitimate statement, when taken relatively, compared to both his standing less than a year earlier, and the Camelot-myth haze. 58 percent, or 56 percent, is relatively popular, but it’s not THAT popular, especially when trending downward.

        It’s clear that you’re putting JFK on a Camelot pedestal, as many conspiracy theorists do.

      • Fact is, Kennedy WAS worried about the 1964 election, polls aside. And, because it wouldn’t have been LBJ on martyr’s coattails, the 1964 Kennedy-Goldwater, had it been that, would have been relatively close. Assassination “halo” for LBJ aside, Goldwater consistently has said he would rather have run against Kennedy than LBJ.

        In fact, the last polls on a hypothetical Kennedy-Goldwater showed Goldwater closing the gap.

        So, Joe, you’re ignorant of American history in general, not just Nov. 22, 1963.

      • Joe says:

        Soc-fly, oh Soc-fly, now you’re making me sad. Why do you keep avoiding sincere discussion and address my points rather than go off on diversionary paths? Why are replies denied to many of your most nonsensical comments?

        You, funny man, are the only one running facts, ideas, hypothesis through filters. “Not that popular” means exactly what it says. No relativity needed. Had you said, “Not as popular as he had been”, you might have been accurate for the first time in your life. Any politician would be perfectly content with 58% approval, and ALL reasonable, rational people (which leaves you out, I’m afraid) would consider that as popular. And, as usual for you cherry-picking lone-nut nuts, you ignore what undermines your case by failing to acknowledge that JFK’s numbers were trending up from an earlier low.

        For a person who pretends to be rational, you engage in monstrous speculation, equivocation, and paucity of facts. We’re talking about the assassination here but you accuse me of putting JFK on some Camelot pedestal of your own making, yet I’ve never said any such thing. JFK, like most of us, had good points and bad points. I see him clearly. You are the one who appears to be using this forum to engage in more character assassination of the man. Your assumptions about a possible Kennedy-Goldwater campaign are further proof of your lack of rationality and attempt to filter things through your JFK hatred/jealousy. Anyone paying even the slightest attention to American politics in the last 1/2 century knows that fortunes can change for a candidate nearly overnight. To claim certainty on the outcome of a JFK-Goldwater race is the worst kind of speculation. And utterly pointless, as are the majority of your comments.

        Which is also true of your Edwin Walker comments below (which have also been denied any further comments after your last post). In my post I answered every one of your points and pointed out how ridiculous the “Oswald shot at Walker” statement is (and there’s lots more to support that . . . but again, you digress from the main topic at hand here). You respond to none of them but make the asinine claim that my comments only “prove”, via your twisted reasoning, that I won’t “BELIEVE evidence”. Of course, as is typical of all your posts, you provide no evidence at all.

        Soc-fly, the only “faith-based” person here is you. You have “faith” in Posner and the WC. You offer only opinion without fact. You carefully avoid any questions, comments, or challenges which undermine your faith. And then you say you won’t engage with me anymore. Boo hoo hoo, Soc-fly takes his ball and won’t play anymore.

        You, and your comments, are so hilarious to me, please don’t deny my the pleasure of engaging with you. Consider it your Christmas present to me. Merry Christmas, Soc-fly, and Happy Solstice, too!

      • Joe says:

        Oh! P.S. you might consider writing your own book. Since the title “Case Closed” is already taken, I’m going to give you the title for yours: “Mind Closed”. Happy Chanukah!

      • More on Jackie Kennedy and Camelot – a long story on her struggles with William Manchester over “Death of a President,” with this quote:

        In the end I concluded that [the Warren] report was correct on the two main issues. Oswald was the killer, and he had acted alone.… Those who desperately want to believe that President Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy have my sympathy. I share their yearning … if you put the murdered President of the United States on one side of a scale and that wretched waif Oswald on the other side, it doesn’t balance. You want to add something weightier to Oswald. It would invest the President’s death with meaning, endowing him with martyrdom. He would have died for something.

  3. I used to live in metro Dallas, and actually liked driving by Dealey Plaza and stopping on a couple of Nov. 22nds, just to see all the different conspiracies being hawked.

    It’s clear the shot wasn’t that hard; the distance isn’t great, the entourage was moving slowly, and much more vertically than horizontally, re Oswald’s line of sight, as Shermer notes.

    That said, the Warren Commission did get one thing wrong. Per Gerald Posner, it’s pretty clear Oswald’s first shot was the one that missed, likely deflecting off a tree branch as he fired a bit early, the second was the “pristine bullet” shot and the third the head shot.

    I cannot recommend “Case Closed” enough, as well as Posner’s work on Ray and the MLK assassination. I simply ask people who give credence to conspiracies “Have you read ‘Case Closed'” as an opening question. If they dismiss it out of hand, I move on.

  4. Andrew says:

    Whats the documentary called? Do you know when it will air?

  5. Majority of One says:

    I used to work downtown Dallas and have gone through there many times. Agreed, it is a small area. I haven’t read Case Closed, but will, it sounds good.

    Also, just asking, why can’t there be another shooter? No conspiracy, just another shooter? Both guys new he’d be a sitting duck and just happened to show up and they only caught the one. Again, just asking.

    • Oh, there “could” be … but, there’s never been any proof brought up that comes even close to meeting skeptical scrutiny. So, it’s incredibly likely there wasn’t.

  6. Barry says:

    I agree that there only had to be one shooter, but the story doesn’t end there. For Oswald to then be gunned-down by Jack Ruby?! Ruby didn’t want Oswald to rat out who put him up to it. That is the most logical explanation.

    Maybe there was a lone gunman who assassinated the Lebanese president too! All these conspiracy theorists at the UN trying to make the case that Syria and Hezbollah were behind it!

    • Jack Ruby’s behavior superficially seems suspicious as a silencing – but if you read the history of this man, his behavior actually fits his personality. He was a nutcase who wanted to be the hero that killed the man that killed JFK. Again – read Case Closed.

    • Joshua Hunt says:

      “Ruby didn’t want Oswald to rat out who put him up to it. That is the most logical explanation.”

      Can you provide hard/credible evidence for this claim?

  7. Bryan baker says:

    It doesn’t look like such an easy shot from the pics, but my real question, the thing that still makes me lean toward conspiracy is the magic bullet… The one that entered, exited, changed direction in mid air and entered and exited again. Isn’t the simpler explanation a second shooter?

    • It is NOT a “magic bullet.” Read Case Closed. Period.

    • Joshua Hunt says:

      “It doesn’t look like such an easy shot from the pics, but my real question, the thing that still makes me lean toward conspiracy is the magic bullet… The one that entered, exited, changed direction in mid air and entered and exited again. Isn’t the simpler explanation a second shooter?”

      The conspiracy theorists always place Governor Connally directly in front of Kennedy in the presidential limousine. They claim that in order for the bullet to have hit Connally it would had to have made a turn in mid air after exiting Kennedy. This is incorrect.

      Governor Connally was NOT seated directly in front of Kennedy. Connally was seated on a jump-seat to Kennedy’s left front. The bullet traveling on a down-ward straight path, passing through soft tissue would have had nowhere to go except to hit Governor Connally.

  8. Bill Morgan says:

    Michael’s views on conspiracies dove tail beautifully with someone who would be a deep cover CIA/Mossad asset. Some of us see Michael for who he really works for, and it’s not the American people.

      • Bill Morgan says:

        There are over 1,000 Bill Morgans in the US alone. I’m not the one you cited. I’m also NOT A CHRISTIAN!! I’m retired now and a former intelligence asset. You figure it out.

      • Geekoid says:

        I have figured it out, you’re a liar.

      • I can’t figure it out. If you’re really a “former intelligence asset,” I don’t know that “Bill Morgan” is your real name. And, since it’s obviously the CIA who killed JFK, where were YOU on Nov. 22, 1963, Mr. So-Called Bill Morgan?

      • Bill Morgan says:

        On Nov. 22, 1963, I was a college student getting a degree. And of course my birth name is not Bill Morgan, as you very well know.

      • Max says:

        Ok, then it’s not you, because the Bill Morgan described in that post is not only a Young Earth Creationist, but also “the opposite of a raving lunatic, or a paranoid delusional conspiracy theorist.”

      • Bill Morgan says:

        I’m not a paranoid delusional conspiracy theorist. Just a pragmatic realist who knows how the real world operates. There are no boy scouts. That’s only a myth created for the gullible.

      • steelsheen11b says:

        A “pragmatic realist” wouldn’t out themselves as an “intelligence asset”, which means absolutely nothing, as such nut case. See the doctor get the meds adjusted your brain chemistry is out of balance.

    • OK, Bill- you caught us fair and square!
      Michael is too shy to reply here, but I will.
      You seem quite clever and able to uncover a conspiracy when you see one. This talent is rare.
      We need more people like you on OUR SIDE – join us! But, you must keep quiet.
      Too many people are beginning to suspect the truth about 9-11, the faked moon landings, and yes, the real assassins of JFK.
      The world is your oyster, Bill! We are slowly establishing our World Order, and you appear to be a worthy candidate.
      Bill, you can apply here! – Click on it. Do not be put off by your initial impression of this site- many folks want to join, but most are obviously inadequate and rejected, so we make the application process difficult.
      But you should have no problem and seem to meet our standards. Join us!

    • itzac says:

      Michael’s views on conspiracies likely match up very closely with the views of readers here, including myself. I’m sure you won’t take my word for it, but I am no one’s intelligence asset, and I suspect the same is true of the majority of the readers of this blog.

      Also, Michael is libertarian, and likely works primarily for his own interests.

      • Bill Morgan says:

        More likely works for hidden special interest groups. I’m sure he is well paid.

      • Steve Thoms says:

        Do you have evidence?

        No? Thought not. Then why don’t you call me naive instead, and make vague appeals to how much more you know about the world than I do.

        Have any evidence yet? Still no? Oh right, that’s just proof that the conspiracy runs so deep. I can’t see it, therefore it MUST be there.


  9. The first ever episode of Dr. Who aired on November 23, 1963. Coincidence? I think not. He was obviously involved.

  10. tmac57 says:

    Worst 3D picture ever!!! ;)

  11. WilburChucklebutt says:

    “Bill Morgan,” a prime example of Poe’s Law in action.

    “Poe’s Law points out that it is hard to tell parodies of fundamentalism (or, more generally, any crackpot theory) from the real thing, since they both seem equally insane.”

    • BillTheGorilla says:

      I agree on the Parody/Real Thing confusions. When I first heard a Rush Limbaugh radio program I was convinced that he was the greatest parodist of the right wing ever. I still have suspicions.

      • tmac57 says:

        Rush is a savvy,cynical,entertainer,who is laughing and demagoguing all the way to the bank.When he retires,he should write a memoir entitled “I Can’t Believe That They All Fell For My Bulls**t!!!”

  12. sunny says:

    The FBI attempted to reproduce the shooting using a trained marksman and failed. It is impossible to shoot that bolt action rifle as fast as it was shot on that day and have any accuracy on what is considered a difficult shot (sharp down angle on a moving target). Additionally there is the magic bullet. The explanation of the magic bullet defies logic and implies the investigators were covering up something. Then there is the video of JFK’s head being knocked towards the supposed direction of the bullet that hit him defying physics. We may never know who shot JFK but one thing seems clear; it was not Oswald.

    • I do confess, there is a large number of us that know the truth.
      Yes, and the truth about 9-11, and about those faked moon-landings.
      But, alas, we have been sworn to secrecy.
      Tell us more, “Sunny” – we may include you in our cabal if you can keep your mouth shut.
      Right now there’s millions of us and the number is growing every day! Why haven’t you been included? Because you keep exhibiting this scepticism of our fantastic job of covering up our operations!
      Come join us! Membership is lifelong, but we provide you with our patented Power-Pyramid protection. But you MUST keep quiet!

    • Foosnut says:


      I think everything you said has been proven to be the exact opposite of the truth. I have watched people make the same shot on video. The magic bullet lines up perfectly with the window once the (forgive me for forgetting his name) guy in front seat was turned and looking back. The explosion of fluids from the exit wound act like a rocket pushing the head towards the entrance wound.

    • Sunny – seriously, read Case Closed.

      The shot can and has been replicated – it is no extraordinary feat for a trained shot with that rifle.

      The “magic bullet” is not so magical. The trajectory and effects are well explained and consistent with the evidence. The “magic” is an artifact of sloppy analysis and incomplete information.

      JFK’s head being knocked back is a result of the physics – his brain shot out of the resulting exit wound, essentially rocketing his head back. This can be demonstrated on the video, and it has been replicated.

      The case for Oswald as a lone shooter is actually overwhelming.

      • Lorne says:

        SketicWiki has a good entry on the JKF assassination:

        It refutes a number of the conspiracy claims and looks like it uses information from Case Closed. An interesting summary of the events, physics etc.

      • sunny says:

        Two different issues that you kind of combined out of ignorance. What you need to look up is how much time elapsed between shots. Then, I assume you never shot a bolt action rifle, You need to try to duplicate it yourself. Then you will discover why the FBI could NOT duplicate it. As for the bullet causing JFK’s head to be pushed towards the bullet I can only say YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING!!! Perhaps I overestimated the people on this blog. I thought you had a science background…

        But the magic bullet, the one that changed direction four different times and gained weight (lead) in the process. The bullet left lead in the bodies but when weighed had not lost that much lead. Go figure! More magic then we thought. The answer to the magic is that there was an additional bullet but since that would have meant an additional shooter the commission was forced to resort to magic! TADA! Then there is the bullet, in perfect condition, that magically (no can’t use that word, mysteriously) appeared on the stretcher at the hospital. This magical, oops, mysterious bullet was indeed fired from Oswalds gun ( the gun they claimed Oswald owned) but it was also just as clearly never fired at a body because it was captured in pristine condition. Clearly this bullet was planted for the purpose of implicating Oswald. So we have two Magic bullets.

        Oddly, a blog on skepticism rejects skepticism out of hand. You have bought into the coverup.

      • Ahh, you claim this blog rejects skepticism then says we’ve bought into the coverup.

        Ms. “Mind Closed,” read “Case Closed.”

    • Geekoid says:

      This weapon can fire 2 round in 1.2 seconds by a trained person. There was plenty of time.

      • sunny says:

        Let me correct you. This weapon can be fired even quicker then 1.2 seconds. That is not where the skill comes in. It is in acquiring the target again and compensating for the change in the drop of the bullet due to the acute angle of the target. Experts couldn’t do it. They tried and if they had succeeded their feat would have been made part of the record. But they couldn’t do it!!!

      • You’re lying again. Experts have done it. Stop lying. Go away if you can’t.

    • The fact that you call it a “magic bullet” says enough. It doesn’t “defy logic” at all, as it is not logically impossible. If you meant it “defies science,” it doesn’t do that, either.

      Read Case Closed; Posner shows that a human head will react exactly the way Kennedy’s did when shot at that angle.

    • madmaty says:

      I think it’s a bit of an overstatement to say the the magic bullet “defies logic.” The Discovery Channel did a remarkably thorough job of demonstrating that there’s really nothing magic about it.

      If you’re interested, the relevant footage starts at 1:15:21

      • sunny says:

        The magig bullet changed direction 4 times. It’s path after it first hit Kennedy was apporximately like a Z with a little left turn at the end. What you read was rationalization not evidence. But the changed direction was only part of the magic. The bullet left a small amount of lead in the body when it hit bone but the magic bullet they extracted from the body had not lost that much lead. The obvious answer is there was at least one other bullet.

      • Sunny, it’s time to call you a liar, as well as a conspiracy theorist.

        FACT: The shooting has been replicated, and such replications have been documented. Comments to that end were posted before your last comments that the shooting had NOT been replicated. Therefore, you are a liar.

        On the lead amount, that’s been documented and tested and accounted for too.

        When you use the word “rationalization,” I suggest you look in the mirror.

      • Joe says:

        The “magic” of the “magic bullet” is not only its peculiar travel route (entering JFK’s back, exiting through his throat, travelling forward into Connelly’s back, taking a piece of his rib as it exited through his chest, then tearing into his right ulna bone, shattering it, and finally leaping from his right wrist and jumping over to embed into his left thigh . . . NONE of which, by the way, has ever been duplicated by anyone who has attempted to replicate the shot), but what is most “magical” about this bullet is that after traveling this peculiar route, when it was conveniently “found” at Parkland Hospital, it had only the slightest imperfection to its tip (after hitting two bones, shattering a rather thick, dense bone)and no evidence of any blood, tissue, or bone residue on it.

        Furthermore, for all you “Case Closed” freaks, you know that Posner is a recognized plagiarist, right? Why would you trust anything written by such a person?

        And for those of you who proffer the “physics” of JFK’s head moving back and to the left due to the intense pressure of his brain matter and fluids being ejected forcefully from the exit wound of the bullet (which you folks must erroneously place at the front, right side of his skull), what “physics” do you use to explain that all this spray from the wound went back and left, soaking the 2 Dallas Police Department motorcyclists on that side of the limo and none of it covering either Connelly or the jump seat in the limo he was in (front, right)????

        There are many, many more enlightened and better informed people to read on this subject than Gerald Posner or ANY of the posters on this blog. Read Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease. Read Jim Douglass’ “JFK and the Unspeakable”. Read Vince Saldaria or David Mantik. All of these authors deal with ALL OF THE KNOWN FACTS of this case, not simply the cherry-picked pieces which support their nutty lone nut theories.

      • His plagiarism more than a decade later has nothing to do with the quality of his work. Besides, as one commenter noted, Bugliosi goes even deeper.

        Jim Douglass? He’s a loon.

      • Joe says:

        Socrates must be rolling in his grave to have you assuming his name! Plagiarism has nothing to do with the quality of his work? How do you define quality? And now, stop and think for a minute or two before responding. You skeptics are supposed to be a thoughtful bunch. Plagiarism may (or may not) have anything to do with the quality of his work but it has much to do with the quality of his character. That same quality which will plagiarize someone else’s material will find no difficulty in concealing facts, ignoring uncomfortable truths, distorting logic, etc. in order to “prove” a thesis. You know, Socrates, a little like you.

        Dismissing Jim Douglass’s impressive work with a three word reply “He’s a loon”? I thought this blog had higher standards of intellect than puerile ad hominem attacks. Shame on you, Soc. By the way, Daniel Ellsberg, Gaeton Fonzi (former Investigator US House Select Committee on Assassinations), Marcus Raskin (co-founder, Institute for Policy Studies), Richard Falk (Professor of Intntl. Law, Princeton Univ.), and Mark Lewis Taylor (Princeton Theological Seminary), among many, many others think quite highly of Mr. Douglass and his work. Stacks up on the scale a little differently than “He’s a loon”, SocraticGadfly, don’t it?

      • SocraticGadfly says:

        Joe, plagiarism has nothing to do with factual/empirical or logical quality. You’re conflating two entirely different things.

        I can plagiarize from the Journal of the AMA and write a 100 percent accurate story or book on kidney transplantation, etc.

        In short a lapse of ethics in no way equates to a lack of accuracy.

        The plagiarism is irrelevant in a second sense; nobody’s ever accused Posner of plagiarism in “Case Closed.”

        There. “Socrates” has just taught you a lesson in definitions.

      • I haven’t even touched your other nonsense.

        First, the bullet didn’t change paths four times. Second, even if it did, how could you prove it?
        Third, per Carl Sagan, that’s an extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof is on you.

    • steelsheen11b says:

      Sunny it is entirely possible to work a bolt action rifle fast enough to get of shots in that time period. I could do it by the time i was 13. It takes practice but it is entirely possible.

      Oh an it has be reproduced on numerous occasion with in both practical situation and computer models. The one that has proven to be false is the ground level shot from the storm drain.

    • Joshua Hunt says:

      “The FBI attempted to reproduce the shooting using a trained marksman and failed.”

      That’s not true, sunny.

      Look here:

      • Joe says:

        And your link proves what, exactly? It took me to volume XVII of the Warren Commission Report, page 261, showing black silhouettes with bullet holes in them, painted on wood, and used to demonstrate the accuracy of the rifle. It certainly did not disprove any comments made by Sunny.

      • Joshua Hunt says:


        You can also look at the words above the photos of the targets.

        If you look here again:

        You will see the words telling you what the pictures are,

        “CE 582-584 – Photographs of three targets fired with the C2766 rifle at varying distances.”

        I was just looking at Sunny’s comment,

        “It is impossible to shoot that bolt action rifle as fast as it was shot on that day and have any accuracy on what is considered a difficult shot (sharp down angle on a moving target).”

        This assertion is false. Reading volume 3, pages 446-447 of the Warren Commission, we learn that way back in 1964, one “Specialist Miller” of the U.S. Army, using Oswald’s own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, not only duplicated what Oswald did, but improved on Oswald’s time.

        Look here for those pages:

        This shows that Miller was able to get off three rounds at three separate distances with two out of three hits in the limited amount of time Oswald had.

      • Joe says:

        Joshua, thanks for the temperate tones of your comments. Given the knee-jerk hostility of some of the commentators here, your approach is appreciated.

        I read the words above the photos the first time I opened the link and after you suggested I read them again. Essentially they make the claim that a target can be hit from the specific distances within a particular time frame. But it is misleading (by the WC, by you) to suggest that such a “test” in any way duplicates or replicates the shots attributed to Oswald, or in any way “proves” that the shooting attributed to him can be done.

        Sunny’s assertion, which you quoted, “It is impossible to shoot that bolt action rifle as fast as it was shot on that day and have any accuracy on what is considered a difficult shot (sharp down angle on a moving target).”, is not false. Your eyes saw the words, your fingers then typed them, but you haven’t fully absorbed Sunny’s point, which is the impossibility to shoot that rifle accurately on that “difficult shot (sharp down angle on a moving target)”. Your friend, Spec. Miller, did not shoot at a moving target nor from the same height as the 6th floor Depository window.



        scroll down to the section which begins with the sentence, “Test Two was on the rifle.” A little further down you’ll read, “Later, in March 1964, Frazier helped the army run their test at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Their test was supervised by Roland Simmons and used three marksmen, Miller, Stanley, and Hendrix. They fired the real rifle from a 30 foot tower, half that of the sixth floor, and at a stationary target.”


        the same information as above is supplied on pages 11-12; with the additional info that the three army marksmen were master riflemen who added shims to correct the defective scope. It is also my understanding that these three marksmen were able to practice shooting the rifle prior to their tests. There is no credible evidence that Oswald ever fired that rifle, let alone got to practice with it prior to the feat attributed to him.

        You don’t seriously believe that an army trained master rifleman shooting from half the height and at a stationary target can be said to have “duplicated what Oswald did”, as you claimed, do you Joshua?

        I am always flabbergasted at how people who claim that Oswald made these shots, and claim that it was easy, always ignore or fail to take into account the many significant complexities and difficulties inherent in their claim. Their tests involve stationary targets, or shooting from angles much less severe than that from a 60’height, or use a different rifle, or fire into gelatin molds with no attempt made to reproduce the two bones which were hit and would have deflected and distorted the bullet, and then they say, “See, it can be done.” They have a look around Dealy Plaza and a peek from a 6th floor window (not THE 6th floor window), then proclaim it an easy shot (I’m talking to you, Mr. Shermer). All the while disregarding the details which render the shot highly improbable if not utterly impossible.

        To better understand what those details are, go to:

        and scroll down to the section “A Valid ‘Oswald’ Rifle Test”.

  13. Joe says:

    For a so-called skeptic, Shermer is awfully gullible. At least in so far as the JFK assassination is concerned. (And yes, I’ve read “Case Closed” . . . loaded with errors and inconsistencies and, like the Warren Commission report, a lot of cherry-picked evidence and refusal to consider evidence which does not support its thesis.) After discussing FDR and ridiculing the various characters hawking goods in Dealy Plaza, Shermer finally makes his case, which is, uh the plaza is small and the windows of the TSBD are close to where JFK was shot, therefore “it seems clear that Oswald could hardly have missed”. The assumptions in that phrase alone, and complete lack of skepticism for the “official story”, are laughable. There is no proof at all that LHO fired a rifle that fateful day. LHO’s classification as a sharpshooter comes with multiple caveats (took him several attempts at the range, occurred during basic training when he was at top form, fired at stationary targets not moving targets regardless of how slowly, fired a different and superior weapon to the so-called assassination weapon, barely qualified as a marksman – the lowest grade – the 2nd time he had to qualify meaning his “skills” deteriorated by ’58 I believe, and I could go on). Google the name “Sgt. Carlos Hathcock”. He was a legendary Marine sniper. As an exercise he and some colleagues set up a replica (as close as possible) of the so-called assassination from the 6th floor window of the TSBD, same height, same angle, same time frame, same obstructions, etc. Hathcock said he could not make the shot and if he couldn’t there was no way in hell that LHO could have. But the great skeptic for the ages, Shermer, has determined from his little stroll around the plaza and peek about in the Depository (and one can’t actually look from the actual window as it’s blocked – a little detail Shermer leaves out)that it was easy. One thing Shermer got right is that “Kennedy was a sitting duck”,but not for LHO. Sunny at #5 got it right. Shermer is simply misguided and gullible.

  14. Chris Howard says:

    Some of us spike our dopamine, and serotonin levels with drugs, and extreme activities, sexual conquests and the like. The more imaginative prone of us choose the supernatural, aliens and conspiracy theories. The last three have the added bonus of making the believer feel special, above “the sheep” arbiters of special knowlege, better than the closed minded others, around them. It’s Simone De Beauvior’s sub-man, making believe he’s something special, while all the while hawking a fruitless theory, usually guilty, of being the closed minded person he claims others to be.
    As the kids are want to say these days “put up, or shut up.”

    • Ally says:

      Oh Chris! Nicely done.
      This post of yours should be in poster form and hung next to every ‘Don’t Do Drugs’ poster in schools, buses etc.

  15. Jeffery2010 says:

    Let me add my vote for “Cased Closed”. As a side note; I really admired the way the book also does away with the “Mafia used Ruby to kill Oswald” bit. I have read 2 books that support the conspiracy angle, and I have to say they don’t come close to making a case as well as Case Closed.

  16. Gerald says:

    I have not read the book by Posner that many are recommending, but I will also recommend “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi. I suspect that those who enjoyed Posner’s book will like this one as well.

  17. Tom says:

    I’m sorry to hear it was an easy shot. That kind of ruins one of my favorite movie scenes: Gunnery Sergeant Hartman lauding the outstanding marksmanship displayed by LHO – because of his Marine training – in Full Metal Jacket.

  18. Darryl Britt says:

    Everyone keeps bringing up Posner’s book “Case Closed”. Outstanding as it is I believe Vincent Bugliosi’s “Reclaiming History” much more thorough. At 1,400+ pages is is intimadating (An additional 1,100+ pages of endnotes are on an included CD) but a great read.

    “Two conspiracy theorist, Jack and Ted, die and are arguing with God in Heaven. After days of arguing, God finally says, “I am tired of this! Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy all by himself! It was Oswald, by himself, alone!!! Got it?”

    Jack leans over to Ted and says, “Jesus, this goes up higher than we thought!”

    From Bugliosi’s book.

  19. Kenneth Polit says:

    The problem with conspiracy nuts is that there is no amount of contrary evidence that will convince them. They are True Believers, and will dismiss any fact against their theory as further “proof” that the conspiracy is even grander in scope. They don’t really want to know the truth, they just want to keep the conspiracy alive.

    • Joe says:

      The problem with lone-nut nuts is that there is no amount of contrary evidence that will convince them. They are True Believers, and will dismiss any fact (I will add eyewitness accounts, trauma room doctors’ reports, and simple logic) against their theory (or theories of “magic bullets”, brain spray pushing heads opposite to a bullet’s trajectory, etc.) as further “proof” that people who question, doubt, are skeptical of the “official” story and its many and obvious flaws are “loons”. They don’t really want to know the truth, they just want to keep their fantasies about mom, apple pie, santa claus, and American exceptionalism alive.

  20. sunny says:

    I only believe in three conspiracies: 1)Oswald did not act alone. 2)Two tons of AMFO did not bring down the Murrah bldg in OK City. 3)Flight 800 did not just blow up and 122 people who saw a missile were not all wrong.

    I am leaning towards believing that the so-called missile sighting in Southern California last month was indeed a missile.

    • Well, Sunny, you’re wrong on all three. Congrats, you’re batting 1.000 in the realm of closed-mindednesss. See Kenneth Polit — you’re a “true believer” just as much as a fundamentalist Xn is.

      • Sunny says:

        Clearly AMFO cannot sever a 5′ thick reinforced concrete piller from a open air detonation source 20 yards away. SO the AMFO didn’t and couldn’t do it. No expert disagrees with this fact. It is physically impossible for one individual to mix 2 tons of AMFO. It is about the same effort as mixing concrete. So the official story is physically impossible.

        A large number of people saw a missile before the aircraft blew up. The extent that the investigators went to trying to hide this tells a story. You can buy into this if it works for you, I do not.

        The exact location of every commercial aircraft in an around the U.S. is absolutely known. If the “jet” in Southern California were indeed a airliner as claimed they could have told us which flight it was. But they could not. Furthermore every expert who saw the “contrail” said it was from a single source and not from a multi-engine aircraft.

        You sound lke an anti-skeptic to me.

  21. sunny says:

    I suspect that it was the Mafia that shot Kennedy. Joe Kennedy made a deal with the Chicago Mafia to steal the election and promised that if elected JFK wouldn’t target organized crime. For whatever reason after the election JFK and brother Bobby did in fact go after the Mafia. To cover their tracks the Mafia paid off Ruby to kill Oswald before he talked and since Ruby knew he was dying anyway.

    • Joshua Hunt says:

      “I suspect that it was the Mafia that shot Kennedy. Joe Kennedy made a deal with the Chicago Mafia to steal the election and promised that if elected JFK wouldn’t target organized crime. For whatever reason after the election JFK and brother Bobby did in fact go after the Mafia. To cover their tracks the Mafia paid off Ruby to kill Oswald before he talked and since Ruby knew he was dying anyway.”

      Do you have a shred of credible evidence to back up this claim?

      • Sunny says:

        It is a well known fact that Joe Kennedy made a deal with the Chicago mob to steal the election (credible evidence #1). Ruby worked for the mob and was dying of a terminal illness (credible evidence #2). The kill shot to JFK was clearly from the front and thus couldn’t have been fired by Oswald (credible evidence #3).

    • Max says:

      Did the Mafia shoot Bobby Kennedy too?

      • Joe says:

        No, not the Mafia. But do you believe the “official” story that it was Sirhan Sirhan playing the role of lone gunman? That story requires that one believe that all eyewitnesses who claim that Sirhan was never closer than 3′ to RFK and directly in front of him were wrong, and, despite Sirhan’s position relative to RFK, also managed to shot him in the back of the head, behind his right ear, at an upward trajectory, with the muzzle no farther than 1″ from RFK’s skull. As per Los Angeles coroner T. Noguchi.

  22. Here is my summary of the JFK headshot evidence:

    It overwhelmingly supports a single shooter from behind. In fact, in te video you can see JFK’s head move forward slightly with the initial impact, then the spray of brain pushing his head back. It’s totally clear for anyone who is not blinkered by conspiracy thinking.

    The “magic bullet” did not change direction and it was not “pristine.” It was flattened in the way that bullets often are after going through a target like a person. Also, when the angles are properly accounted for, the bullet’s trajectory was basically straight with only slight deflections.

  23. sunny says:

    There is no evidence, hard or soft, that supports the single bullet theory (SBT). Its defenders have spent a lot of time proving that it could have happened that way, which is not the same as proving that it did, a distinction they don’t make. But the can’t even prove it hypothetically because the sniper’s nest and the various wounds of Kennedy and Connally do not line up. In addition, witnesses say the men reacted at two different times to two different bullets, and the Zapruder film seems to prove them right. To solve the problems of geometry and timing, promoters of the SBT have resorted to the use of junk science and chicanery.

    The bullet found on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital in virtually pristine condition, with apparently no blood or tissue on it by two hospital employees (Tomlinson and Wright). This bullet hit JFK in the throat/back then hit Connally in the right shoulder (it had to zig right about two feet then zig left to hit Connally’s shoulder). This bullet broke a rib then shattered Connally’s wrist and zigged downward one more time to injure his right thigh. All in all this magic bullet caused 7 wounds in the two men and left fragments in Connally’s wrist and leg but was in such good shape that it clearly had not fragmented. The Warren commission noted “there is also the issue of whether the metal fragments taken from Connally’s wrist and left in his leg could possibly have come from the nearly intact bullet.”
    Look at for more information about this magic bullet.

    Then there is the issue of the wound in Connally’s thigh. Experts have said this could not have been created by a 6.5mm bullet traveling at low velocity. And in fact the commission lied about where the fragment in Connally’s thigh was because it allowed them to “claim” it couldn’t be removed to be analyzed. Conveniently when Connally later died the fragment was left in his thigh and not removed to “prove” the single bullet theory.

    Another irresolvable problem concerns the wound in Connally’s back. The attending doctor originally described accurately but in a way that seemed to refute the single bullet theory. Later after much bullying and “leading” the doctor changed his testimony to fit the requirements of the single bullet theory. But over time this lie was exposed and the doctor admitted he revised the testimony under pressure by the Warren Commission.

    Then there is the pesky Zupruder film which clearly shows Kennedy being hit and connally being hit a few seconds later. Her is an excerpt from:
    “Our previous article in The Minority of One pointed out some of the Commission’s insurmountable problems in its effort to build a structure–without the benefit of evidence–to support the claim of a double hit of the President and the Governor. Governor Connally recoiled to the right, from a hit which, according to the Commission, struck him from behind while he sat erect. This bullet crossed from the extreme right of the Governor’s back leftward and deposited a fragment in his left femur. Newton’s third law of motion would have naturally dictated the Governor’s fall or reaction leftward and not rightward from a bullet coursing left to right.
    In the same article we showed how the Commission required us to believe that the Governor was able to turn right, after being hit on the right of his back, and to execute this right turn against the force of the bullet’s impact. Further, although the Governor’s right wrist was shattered by a bullet, it was not in alignment to be struck, at the time of the alleged wounding of the Governor, by a bullet following the course described by the Commission. An additional problem confronted the Commission. This bullet, Commission Exhibit 399, according to the Commission, weighed in combination with its alleged fragments more than the weight of the heaviest test bullet. In concluding that 399 and the fragments all came from the same missile, the Commission violated the physical law of conservation of mass.”

    • Joe says:

      Excellent information and analysis here, Sunny. Unfortunately, many of the commentators here do not wish to consider and weigh the mountains of testimony and evidence which refute the conclusions of the Warren Commission. They seem more impressed by the fact that both the Warren Commission Report and Bugliosi’s ridiculous door-stop of a book have a lot of pages. (Tried to read Bugliosi’s screed but had to give up after wading through the multitude of straw man arguments he made, the stream of insults and insulting tone he took with serious questioners and researchers, and especially after I got to the section where he spent about 5 pages detailing the finances and salary of Dallas PD Captain Will Fritz! A good editor would get that brick down to about 300 pages of nonsense and it would still be useless).

    • SocraticGadfly says:

      Again, you’re a liar, Sunny. There’s plenty of evidence in support. Posner, in his book, beyond the scientific evidence, assembles numerous eyewitness stories.

      • Joe says:

        Again with the name calling, ticfly? Is that all you’ve got? How pathetic you lone-nut nuts are, and you are the perfect example. Re: the SBT, Sunny offers a fine and nuanced position, “Its defenders have spent a lot of time proving that it could have happened that way, which is not the same as proving that it did, a distinction they don’t make.” Why don’t you meet that head on instead of crying like a baby?

        Yeah, plagiarist Posner assembles numerous eyewitness stories, but he also leaves out a heap of them which don’t concur with his preconceptions. And as for scientific evidence, surely even a feeble thinker like yourself understands that the scientific method requires that in order to prove a theory (SBT, Single Bullet THEORY) anyone must be able to replicate the experiment and produce the same results. Despite your insistence, NO ONE has ever exactly replicated what SBT adherents claim. There is always one or more missing or fudged elements, or some adjustment made or assumed in order to produce the preconceived results. A little like J. Edgar Hoover telling LBJ that the Warren Commission had to find Oswald to be the only assassin, and lo and behold, they did.

      • If people are lying, why shouldn’t I call them a liar? If a creationist said there’s no evidence the world is more than 10,000 years old, I’d call him a liar.

        If Michael Behe continued to trot out something like cilia development as “irreducibly complex” even after proven otherwise, I’d call him a liar too.

        As for you, well, since you can’t shoot two living people, it can’t be reproduced “exactly.” And, that said, it never could, in the sense that a shift of 1mm left or right by Kennedy on the second shot would have made the bullet track slightly differently.

        That said, all the serious objections made by CTNs (Conspiracy Theorist Nuts) like you HAVE been answered.

        So, go on … sobbing …

  24. Dan Kennan says:

    Having lived in Dallas, and worked in a bookstore there, here is my theory: If anyone came up with incontrovertible proof, utterly ironclad and impossible to argue with, they would be immediately killed and the evidence erased by the authors of all the other conspiracy books so the gravy train would keep running…

  25. Why not let the entire body of evidence from all credible sources inform what will remain an inconclusive theory of the events that occurred and those that led to the killing of our President on November 22, 1963?

    The presentation of authentic and factual data and personal testimony in concert with potential motives will continue to add to the growing body of insight. No conclusion will be irrefutable.

    I have my own current opinion of the identity of the perpetrators of the JFK assassination, but am willing to change it if further evidence would compel me to do so.

    My personal opinion is that it is wasteful in time and energy to argue the possible, without establishment of the probable, based upon the full body of evidence. Occam’s razor does not always get it right – as Michael Shermer, more than most, should know. That a renowned skeptic with his credentials should write a piece such as this one upon which we comment, is utterly contemptible. I echo Joe’s assertion – the possible does not denote the probable.

    For example: Take the filmed demonstrative excercise of the mingling white and black teams passing balls to team members whilst the black “gorilla” passes through the picture. Michael Shermer himself has used this demonstration of our distracted senses to show that obvious elements can easily be ignored when not needed to explain the events upon which we are focused. Yet, the unnecessary (anti-Occam’s razor) was indeed the factual. Why? Because the motive was there to provide a gorilla for the purpose of demonstrating our capability to ignore seemingly “irrelevant” events.

    I challenge each to read a recent book from a writer whom has his own conclusive explanation of the JFK assassination based upon the aggregated evidence of the last 47 years, even well beyond. He presents the evidence of several other researchers, thus building a body of evidence more throughly developed than any that I have read on the matter.

    The book is – LBJ: Mastermind of the Assassination of JFK, by Phillip Nelson.

    You may not come to the conclusion of the author. But, I will gaurantee – if you are of an intellectually honest persuasion, the information provided in this book will leave you with little doubt that there were others involved in the assassination of our 35th President of the United States of America.

    Like the “gorilla”, however unnecessary it may seem, truth is in the facts of the matter not our ego driven desires to conceive conspiracy theories or to adopt fanatical skeptic simplicity whilst ignoring reality, wherever it may lead.

    • Oh, puhleeze. When History Channel ran its show based on Nelson etc. I realized it had stopped actually promoting history on the channel. You’re as loony as Sunny or Joe.

      A more serious response? Things like ballistics tests, shooting tests, etc. are NOT memory or perception distortion. They can be and are repeated. Nice try, but, a clear red herring.

      Oh, and for what reason would LBJ whack Jack? A secret plot to escalate Vietnam, kill thousands of US troops and age by the day being called a baby-killer? Yep, I’m sure that was it.

      • Terry McKibbin says:

        Read the book, then respond to the motives asserted. Then we can have a meaningful discussion of the topic.

        LBJ had one way of achieving his lifelong and singular ambition – to become president of the United States of America – by ascension to the role due to the incapacitation of the President. He believed that the best presidents, of which he wanted to be among, were those whom conducted successful war campaigns.

        Additionally, the Vietnam war allowed the military industrial complex to prosper and to test many new tactical weapons as supported by the Pentagon. It is asserted that LBJ’s own prosperity was tied to several military-oriented corporation profits.

        Further, there was what seemed to be a strong perception (whether conjored or justified) that communism was set to spread to many nations in a “dominoe effect”. Vietnam was considered to be an essential battleground for stopping that process.

        JFK was set to bring all U.S. troops out of Vietnam by 1965, after he won the election of 1964. He had been advised by General MacArthur and outgoing President Eisenhower that the internal civil war in Vietnam was not significant, and further, could not be won by U.S intervention.

        JFK had fired the assistant director of the CIA for “unauthorized” activities that the CIA considered essential to covertly fight communism and other “perceived threats” throughout the world. As Vice Presidents, LBJ was covertly and insubordinately (with respect to the policies of the Kennedy administration) supporting CIA and military actions against what were considered (or at least presented as) threatening regimes around the world.

        Finally, there was an investigation of LBJ links to fraudulent government activities that prospered both he and his aide, Bobby Baker – investigations that could have led to further revelations of LBJ’s alleged government/business fraudulent activities. It is asserted that these investigations were shut down after LBJ became president.

        There were plenty of motives. There is plenty of evidence.

        Regarding the ballistics tests: It is imperative that the results of the shots fired in Dealy Plaza within those few seconds be well understood before there can be any meaningful explanation of how many, from where, or what weapon(s). As you hopefully know by now, the evidence of the results (crime scene investigations such as autopsies, vehicle forensics, potential sniper location forensics) have all been tampered with to the point of rendering the simple ballistics tests rather meaningless.

        I suggest that you broaden your scope before attempting to isolate the meaning of particular bits of ballistic data. Your myopic insight into the ballistics of the possible can obscure the inclusion of information that may well point to the most probable.

      • No proof, just speculation, that Jack would have gotten us out of Vietnam. Innuendo against LBJ. Don’t forget, Jack supported the Vietnam coup.

        Tampering with evidence? Proof’s on you.

        Let’s take a somewhat less famous case – Leonard Peltier. We DO have proof the FBI has obstructed justice, played with evidence, etc., in substantial ways. Burden’s on you to prove similar with JFK.

    • Joshua Hunt says:

      What would it take to convince you that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone?

      • Joe says:

        Just some credible, “hard” evidence that LHO had anything whatsoever to do w/the assassination rather than the mountain of speculation, hearsay, manufactured “evidence”, and innumerable “coincidences” which occurred and supposedly “prove” LHO’s guilt.

        Only 2 people claim to have seen LHO carry anything with him to the Texas School Depository that morning, Wesley Frazier and his sister who lived nearby the Paine residence where LHO spent his weekends. Problem is they described the alleged package as being carried under LHO’s armpit and held in the upturned palm of his hand, and the dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano is still too long to be carried this way. Add to this that, with the exception of these 2, no one else who saw LHO that morning, saw him walk from the parking lot into the TSBD, claims to have seen him carrying anything.

        No one can place LHO in the supposed “sniper’s nest” at the appropriate time nor on the 6th floor. Something like 45-90 seconds after the shooting, a Dallas Police Officer and the manager of the TSBD find Oswald in front of a soft drink machine on the 2nd floor with an open Coke in his hand, calm, not perspiring. Recently, a female co-worker’s testimony has been uncovered which claims that at the exact time of the assassination she was giving LHO change for the soda machine.

        Paraffin tests conducted by Dallas PD on Oswald to determine if he’d recently fired any weapons turned up negative on his cheek (where nitrates are found after firing a rifle) and positive on his hand (where nitrates are found after firing a pistol). Problem with the hand nitrate positive is they were found on the palms of his hands, consistent for someone handling large amounts of cardboard, but not on the backs of his hands, consistent with the nitrate dispersion after firing a hand gun. LHO’s job at TSBD involved moving cardboard boxes. Thus the positive on the palms is easily explained.

        There is no indication that LHO had the skill set necessary to shoot with the deadly accuracy exhibited by whoever shot JFK. In the Marines LHO fired M-1’s, not a bolt action Mannlicher-Carcano, at fixed targets rather than moving; his marksmanship deteriored considerably from ’56, in basic training, to ’59, shortly before his discharge; and no one ever saw him fire a rifle again from his discharge until his death. Yet we’re asked to believe that one morning he got up, went to work, chambered a round and fired at JFK, missing wildly, then focused himself and put two successive rounds into nearly perfect bull’s eyes (nearly dead center on the throat and just off center of the head) in a matter of seconds with a crappy, remaindered, $21 mail order bolt action rifle, all the while accounting for the complexities of the shot which Sunny has admirably detailed in other posts.

        Finally, the Bugliosis and Posners of the world will tell you that LHO’s motivation was that he was desperate to leave his mark on the world; that for his entire life, LHO was a miserable failure, a loser, a guy who couldn’t get anything right; that by killing JFK, Oswald believed that he would finally get the recognition he deserved. But then, at his most triumphant moment before the television cameras of the world, instead of a bold “Sic Semper Tyrannus” moment, he softly and persistently denied knowing anything about the shooting of the President, denied having shot anybody at all.

      • Sure there’s evidence. As far as skill? He damn near killed Gen. Walker not too long earlier.

        Complexities of the shot? Not complex. A former conspiracy theorist leaner has said as much on this page, as far as the distance.

        And, Sunny has “detailed” no such thing. Instead, he/she has engaged in repeated arm-waving.

        To that end, here’s a comment on Novella’s conspiracy theory post that described you to a T, Joe:

        Conspiracists (9/11, JFK, moon landing etc.), creationists, climate change deniers, and Holocaust deniers are all birds of a feather. They all adopt a belief which runs entirely contrary to the evidence and remarkably similar mechanisms to attack it. Quote mining, pseudoscience, making lists of experts, nitpicking inconsequential details, putting undue weight on unreliable data to discount overwhelming data, impossible demands, shifting the burden of proof etc. Anything in fact which throws up enough smokescreen that they can pretend that their other theory somehow wins.

        Finally, especially with something like the coworker’s claim, where’s your URLs?

      • Joe says:

        Soc-fly, I must say that I look forward to your posts as they give me a hearty chuckle! Whether you’re being flat out ignorant or brazenly stupid or insanely belligerent, you are hilarious! Thanks for keeping me laughing.

        The Gen. Walker comment is a howler, more reverse engineered “proof” (like the SBT, like Ford moving the wound on JFK’s back for the WC so the wound would more appropriately align w/the SBT) from the lone-nut nuts. Where is there any credible, tangible evidence that LHO took that shot? If the JFK shooting was so easy (as per you, Shermer, Prager, and assorted other lone-nut nuts) for the “skilled sharpshooter” Oswald, how in hell could he miss Walker who was stationary at his desk under bright light and less than 90 feet distant?!? Talk about a sitting duck. And, Soc-fly, is it mere ignorance from you or are you lying to make your point (like Posner & Bugliosi) when you state, “He damn near killed Gen. Walker not too long earlier”? The Walker incident occurred 10 April of ’63, or 7 1/2 months earlier.

        Your Warren Commission quality “proof” that the shot was not complex, “A former conspiracy leaner has said as much on this page, as far as the distance.”? Well the distance is only one, and probably the least, of the complexities. While counter to your “former leaner”, we have legendary Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock, former armed forces sniper Craig Roberts, and Jesse Ventura (ex-Navy Seal w/an “Expert” qualification), all of whom set up similar conditions and said they could not make the shots the WC, Bugliosi, Posner, “former leaner”, and you claim Oswald did.

        Sunny’s comments have only been thoughtful, detailed, and informative (unlike yours). And as for “repeated arm/waving” (whatever that means), again you crack me up! This from you, who engages in foot-stomping, chest-beating histrionics and spiteful name-calling! Seriously, am I missing the irony here? Are you actually trying to be funny with your crazy comments?

        I’m not going to waste time w/Novella’s gross generalizations and grab-bag method of lumping together different characters and circumstances (some serious, some not). His comments, which you’ve quoted, are nothing more than an opinionated, unsubstantiated rant. As such, worthless and meaningless.

        For the coworker’s claims see Robert Groden’s (I know, I know, according to you he’s a liar or a loon or some ad hominem attack) interview on BlackOp Radio from 17 Sept, ’09 or;wap2.

        Hey, Merry Christmas Soc-fly. I hope you’ll keep me laughing.

      • Well, Joe, the dismissal of the Walker assassination attempt is Proof Positive, or “Case Closed,” that you simply won’t, not accept, but won’t BELIEVE evidence that doesn’t fit your conspiracy theory.

        Above all other big conspiracy theories, I think the JFK conspiracy theories are evidence of how faith-based they are.

        So, not going to bother with you anymore.

        And, I don’t believe in Christmas. It’s a Mithran/Aquarian conspiracy.

        Would that I could say you make me “laugh”; you don’t. You make me shake my head at your faith-based credulity.

  26. feralboy12 says:

    I have two problems with the official story: Bullet 399 and Jack Ruby. The bullet pictured in the Warren report looks to be in awfully good shape for a round that broke a rib and a wrist bone, and Mr. Ruby doesn’t seem like a guy who would have great love for President Kennedy or would throw his life away by killing Oswald on TV in front of cops. Neither proves a conspiracy, and I know life isn’t always neat & tidy, but loose ends annoy me (possibly I’m just obsessive/compulsive).
    Basically, I’m still undecided. There’s a lot of “perfect storm” elements here–FBI knew what & where Oswald was and did nothing, Secret Service reacted very slowly, Depository not secured quickly enough (Oswald was allowed to walk away), cops botching Ruby’s transfer, etc. And the Warren Commission failed to follow up on a number of things.
    But I also have watched the Zapruder film numerous times, and it looks to me like the kill shot came from roughly Oswald’s position, hitting Kennedy above the right temple, near the front of his head, which would cause it to turn left and appear to move backwards.
    I just watched an episode of “Bones” the other night in which some hush-hush government agency brought in a body that may or may not of been Kennedy’s to be examined using modern forensic tools. I wish that could happen in real life with the real body.

  27. Kenneth Polit says:

    The one thing that the Kennedy assassination(and, subsequently, MLK and RFK)gave us was a mistrust of government. This is a good thing in the end and for it I’m thankful. Regardless of what one believes about these killings, that doubt in the “official” stories does and will continue to benefit us as a democracy. As the bumper sticker says, “I love my country but distrust my government.”

  28. Joe (not the conspiracy believer) says:

    I don’t remember the name of it or where I saw it (maybe it was the Discovery Channel show mentioned earlier). But they did a computer mock-up of the shooting. It showed the positions of the people the trajectory of the bullets and all the wounds attributed to them. It all supported the single shooter theory. It all made sense to me since I’ve been an avid target shooter and hunter for over 40 years. I don’t remember seeing the bullet so i don’t know how deformed it was or what type it was, but a full metal jacket military can take a lot of abuse. Last but not least even if “it hasn’t been duplicated” (I don’t remember what this show said), in a scientific world that would be ‘inconclusive’.

    • stuartg says:

      I recall the documentary, having seen it a couple of years ago. I’m sorry, but I have no idea what the name of the documentary was. From memory, it’s origin was a couple of conspiracy theorists employed by the BBC who persuaded the BBC to finance a documentary into the conspiracy theories.

      The Zapruder film was digitised and used to create a 3D computer model of the Plaza, car, occupants and their movements within the car. They located the roads, buildings and all of the witnesses within the model. They could then use the model to investigate the assassination from any perspective at all, including that of the witnesses, the assassin, and even the car occupants.

      They were able to demonstrate that the trajectory of the “magic bullet” was a straight line from the sixth floor window through both Kennedy and Connally, no deviations or zig-zags needed. The second bullet came from the same window and the head movements were consistent with a shot from that location.

      The model showed that the assassin had a lot more time to place the shots than he actually took, but the first shot was probably taken a little early and missed. They then had a marksman (over 70 year old, ex Royal Marine? – memory again) take the three aimed shots with an identical rifle in about two seconds less time than the original assassin took.

      These guys admitted they originally set out to disprove the Warren Commission report, yet they managed to prove to their own satisfaction that the report was accurate. They turned into conspiracy denialists.

      • Yep, that’s what Posner says, too. The first shot was the one that missed, not the second, from firing too soon. (The biggest Warren Commission error.)

        Shock me that Sunny, below, immediately goes into hand-waving mode, claiming no expert has duplicated the shots.

    • Milton says:

      JFK was not killed on a computer. It doesn’t matter what the “graphics” say. You know full well that you can prove anything on a computer and in physics labs.

      • Joe (not the conspiracy believer) says:

        But, as I said, with the understanding of ballistics that I have, and the computer constructed image of the way everything was. I could see that the bullets would have acted the way they were shown. It is a matter of physics (as in ‘is it physically possible?’). No you cannot “prove anything” in a physics lab, it is either possible or inconclusive. This is possible (it may have been dumb luck…but possible).

  29. sunny says:

    Joe: I saw that same show and was incredulous about what they left out. IF the single bullet theory was so believeable why would you feel the need to create a documentary and leave out important facts? Just that alone makes you wonder. The simple conclusion is a single bullet does not explain what happened and if there were mulitiple bullets then there were multiple shooters. If you are in the crowd covering that up then the SBT must be defended and anyone asking questions must be demonized.

    Regarding the duplicating of the event, let me clear that up. No one is saying we should be able to duplicate the SBT event. What cannot be duplicated is something SO MUCH EASIER! Even the expert marksmen cannot take the weapon used (the Mannlicher-Carcano) and duplicate the firing of the three bullets. The difficulties are: 1)it is bolt action. 2)It has iron sights which means it takes a second or two to reacquire the target and fire. 3)Rifles are sighted in for a level shot (parallel to the ground) and gravity acts on the bullet in a predictable way. When shooting at a sharp down angle gravity acts differently and at 100 yards the shot will be high by as 3″-5″ above what the gun is pointed at and that is in addition to any sight errors or other factors. The list goes on..

    • Blair T says:

      Sunny – while I can see how a bolt action rifle would make it more difficult to fire multiple shots accurately at a target in a short time, you other 2 points have no merit.

      Where do you get the number 1-2 seconds to reacquire a target with iron sights? (you seem to be implying iron sights are slower than some alternative, but I can’t think what that would be – surely a scope would be slower since it has a narrow field of view.)When I was a kid I practiced fast drawing my air rifle (with iron sights) so that I would fire it relatively accurately within the time I could raise it to the target – it’s not that hard and would be much easier if the gun were resting on something and already pointing roughly at the target.

      As for the affect of gravity and sighting – even if what you say is true it is irrelevant. I would guess the exposed target of JFK is somewhere around 18″ or say a 9″ radius from the center (a rough guess) – that is a lot less than your worse case error margin of 5″. But of course you point rests on Oswald not having a clue as to how to adjust his sights – something as an untrained teenager with an air rifle I was able to easily grasp.

      These are trivial points either way – but the main point I would make is that you sight these as the top of a longer list (“The list goes on . . .”), which tell me you are not thinking critically about some of the evidence that you find compelling.

      • tmac57 says:

        In addition to your good points,Sunny also ignores the possibility that Oswald may simply have gotten lucky.

      • sunny says:

        Oswald could have gotten lucky but that does not explain the fourth bullet.

      • sunny says:

        The three points are from the experts. I merely cited them.

      • Joe says:

        With all due respect Blair, your own critical thinking needs a little work before you start pointing your finger at others. You must realize how quickly a second (or two) goes by, literally in the blink of an eye. Take a look at a digital clock which indicates hours, minutes, and seconds. When it flashes a time blink your eyes once and you’ll see that a second has passed. Blink twice, two seconds. How much faster than that do you think a target can be reacquired? And what critical analysis have you used to determine that it can be done faster than the blink (or two) of an eye?

        Your false analogy between the Mannlicher-Carcano and an air rifle is . . . well, a little juvenile and hardly qualifies as critical thinking. And, by the way, was yours a bolt-action air rifle? Critically thinking, don’t you think that would make some difference? You also stated that you could fire your air rifle “relatively accurately within the time I could raise it to the target”. There is a critical difference, Blair, between relative accuracy and the deadly accuracy which killed JFK.

        Your next critical thinking flaws are in your guessing and rough guess as to the target which JFK presented. Critical thinking requires more than guesswork. Furthermore, your guesswork supposes a circular target with an 18″ diameter. But place a man’s silhouette in your circle and you’ll see a lot of negative space. You have to put your bullet within the silhouette, not simply within the 18″ circle. A human skull is no more than perhaps 6 or 7 inches wide (not 18), and the claim is Oswald put a bullet nearly dead center in JFK’s skull. Gravity and sighting become highly relevant under such circumstances. When you start considering the evidence a little more critically, you will understand that the marksmanship displayed on 22 Nov.’63 was exponentially more sophisticated than a kid with an air rifle.

  30. laursaurus says:

    Dennis Prager devoted all 3 hours of his radio talk show to interviewing Bugliosi about his book mentioned above. Those who aren’t likely to read a 1600+ page book can checkout the podcast.
    Link to part one of the podcast:

  31. Henry says:

    Thanks for the dose of reality, Michael. I had exactly the same impression when I visited Dealey Plaza. The simplest explanation seems very credible when you see the site for yourself.

    • Joe says:

      Michael’s article is more a dose of naivete or disingenuousness but hardly of reality. The lone assassin theory requires a very particular and precise alignment between two men sitting at different heights and off center from each other, a superior marksman with lightning reflexes and preternatural calmness and steadiness, and an uncanny bullet which passes through the back of one man and out his throat without hitting a scapula or vertebra or clavicle but still beginning to tumble before slamming into the back of the second man, emerging through his chest and taking 5″ of rib with it before tearing into his right wrist and shattering the radius, then jumping from there into his left thigh where it embeds nearly to the bone until it happens to fall out and conveniently onto a gurney approximately half an hour later while showing only the slightest deformation and possessing not a trace of blood, tissue, nor clothing fibers. There is nothing simple about that explanation. If you prefer simple explanations, a far simpler explanation for that many wounds and broken bones is two or more shooters. That explains everything without any recourse to circus acts.

  32. Just got done reading “The Kennedy Detail.”

    Secret Service agent Jerry Blaine notes that not a single member of the President’s Detail believes in any conspiracy theory. And, Blaine notes that the rise of the Camelot myth is probably part of what prompted the rise of conspiracy theories, as I’ve said.

    Of course, Sunny and Joe probably believe the Men in Black are part of the cover-up.

    • Joe says:

      Secret Service Agent Jerry Blaine and the entire Kennedy detail failed totally and miserably in their one assigned task on 22 Nov., 1963. They did not protect the president. In fact they left him wide open to be “the sitting duck” which Shermer noted in his feeble article (“sitting duck” being the single accurate phrase from the article). OF COURSE they don’t believe in a conspiracy; OF COURSE they believe in the lone gunman nonsense; otherwise, a legitimate, in depth inquiry into the conspiracy might expose their woeful inadequacy, culpability, and/or treachery.

      Eventually, when the shooting was over, Secret Service Agent Clint Hill made it to the back of the limousine in order to fulfill his assignment, which was to protect the first lady. That is seen on the Z film. Ask yourself: Where the hell was the Secret Service Agent whose assignment was to protect the President? How come we don’t see him in the Z film running to the limo to throw his body over the wounded president? What is that Agent’s name? Why is it that not a single member of the Kennedy Detail, nor any superior officer of the SS, was ever disciplined or demoted or fired for the utter failure of 22 Nov, ’63?

      Now, let’s deal with Soc-fly’s factual errors (does this guy EVER get anything right?). “Secret Service agent Jerry Blaine notes that not a single member of the President’s Detail believes in any conspiracy theory.” Google the name: Abraham Bolden. That may open the eyes of some of you. Then Soc-fly adds, “Of course, Sunny and Joe probably believe the Men in Black are part of the cover up.” Of course, the beliefs of Sunny and Joe are somewhat well explicated in the text of their various posts. Read them again. Nowhere will you find any mention of “Men in Black”. But then fantastical ravings with no basis in fact are what readers of this blog will come to expect from Soc-fly. And, sadly, from many of the other lone gunmen theorists like Shermer, Novella, etc.

      • Hah, I knew it!

        Wrong, Joe Blow-hard. As you actually know, Kennedy requested in Tampa that agents not crowd his vehicle.

        I know about Boldin. AND about his ax-grinding, too.

        His claims of racism don’t play out, either, as you well know, with white Secret Service agents standing up for the second black agent on the President’s Detail at the Texas Hotel.

        Specific to Hill, he ran forward before the shooting was over.

        And, you know the story on the JFK agent. Because of way the follow car had turned, he would have been hit by it if he had tried to run up.

        You’re sick, sick, Joe.

        Anybody who “blames” the Secret Service and claims it had a massive failure on the Kennedy assassination is sick.

        Presidents from Lincoln on, and including Kennedy, have said that whoever really wanted to could assassinate the president.

      • Joe says:

        Steven Novella ought to write an article on the many logical fallacies, distortion of facts, misuse of language, etc. which lone nut theorists use to support their alterna-reality view of the JFK assassination, and he could find no better examples than in the posts of Soc-fly. (But Novella would never think to examine and point out the many instances of such incoherent thinking among the ranks of people who express faith in his own beliefs.)

        The assignment of the Secret Service is to protect the President (and other officials assigned to their protection). When the President is killed under their watch, the only reasonable conclusion is that they failed. Unless you’re Soc-fly, you wouldn’t think to call their performance on 22 Nov., ’63 a success. But Soc-fly will tell you that you are sick if you speak this truth. That is the “looking-glass” world inhabited by too many of the “Oswald did it” crowd.

        In the well known Altgens photo one clearly sees that JFK is reaching up to his throat in response to the wound he received there. One can also see Mrs. Kennedy’s left hand reaching for JFK’s left forearm in a gesture of concern and assistance. This photo corresponds roughly with Z film frame 254. According to B/P Theory (Bugliosi/Posner Theory, but any allusion to the slippery ethics of an oil company recently in the news is intentional), this would be after the second shot (the “magic bullet” that they don’t like to call a magic bullet) and before the fatal head shot which occurs at Z film frame 313. According to B/P Theory then, Gov. Connally must also have 5 wounds in him and 2 broken bones by the time Altgens snapped this photo. At this point pandemonium must have been rampant in the back of the limo, what with two critically wounded men and two confused and frightened spouses trapped and wheeling toward tragedy. Let us be clear, the Altgens photo shows the aftermath of the second shot, and shows Mrs. Kennedy responding to this shot by reaching out to her husband. The Altgens photo also shows the follow up car and the 4 Secret Service Agents standing motionless on the floorboards. 2 of the Agents are looking back in the direction of the TSBD, Agent Hill appears to be looking directly at JFK. Surely he can read in their body language that something is dreadfully wrong? Yet none of the Agents in the follow up car have moved from their position after 2 shots! Mrs. Kennedy, who was not trained to respond and protect the President, has responded and begins to offer protection, yet none of the Agents in the follow up car have moved even one foot from the floorboard. One sees the wounded President and does nothing, two do not even have their eyes on their assignment. Spin it how you will, that is a failure. There is no other term for it.

        Agent Wm. Greer, the driver of the limousine, also had an assignment which was to drive the limousine and engage in evasive maneuvers in the event of threat. In the Z film one can easily see that Agent Greer turns around twice to look toward the back as the shooting is occurring. There is every reason to believe (and evidence to support) that he also slowed the car down while turning to look in back. He failed in his assignment, and many speculate that had he followed his training and began evasive maneuvers at the sound of the first gun shot, or even after the second, JFK would not have been in position to receive the fatal head wound.

        But for Soc-fly this is “blaming” the Secret Service, and one is sick to do so. Instead he prefers to “blame” JFK and offer the disproved canard that Pres. Kennedy called off the protection around the limo during the Tampa portion of the trip. Vince Palamara has done exceptional research on the Secret Service, has interviewed many of the still living members of the Kennedy detail, and anyone who was alive and would speak with him all said that JFK was cordial, easy to work with, and never interfered with their job. They also say that they are and were unaware of any order to withdraw protection from the rear of the limo. This is a myth perpetuated by lone nut theorists and is easily disproved by googling Vince Palamara and reading his research.

        There is something ludicrous, really, in the notion that “because of the way the follow car had turned, he (the Agent) would have been hit by it if he had tried to run up”. Ludicrous because that’s the Agent’s assignment, to risk his own life and limb in order to protect the President. Is Soc-fly saying that the Agent didn’t do his job because he was afraid he might be hit by a car? That’s a failure. Or are we to believe that Secret Service protocol is to steer a follow car with protective Agents on board in such a manner as to render half of the protective Agents inoperable? Where will the distortions of reason and reality end with these adamant believers in the lone nut theory?

        Vince Palamara has shown something on the order of 22 failures in the Secret Service protection given to Pres. Kennedy in Dallas. Put Posner down, educate yourself with some of the massive amount of research done which has uncovered facts, details, and suppressions which the Warren Commission, Bugliosi, and Posner don’t want you to know about. Then you will get closer to the truth about who assassinated JFK, who covered it up and continues to cover it up, and you will stop mindlessly believing and parroting the propaganda of the “official story”.

        As far a Abraham Bolden goes: Stop with the nasty innuendo already! That’s another one of your lone nut theorist’s techniques which Novella can add to his examination of your fallacious methods. And stop with the name calling, too! These things you do, Soc-fly, only reduce your arguments to the level of a petulant child.

      • Joe (not the conspiracy believer) says:

        In your description (of the photo and film) I get the impression that everyone is confused and trying to figure out what is going on. These aren’t the actions of people who are involved in a conspiracy and allowing an action to happen, but a group of concerned individuals who have realized they missed something.

  33. Milton says:

    A bullet passed through two men and came out with no blood on it?
    Pristine condition?

  34. Milton says:

    If Oswald wanted attention for killing JKF, why didn’t he say he did so? If he wanted to let everyone know how important he was, he had the perfect opportunity when the cameras were rolling to admit what he had done.There was no trial, due process. No note were taken during his interrogation. The only “court” that was held was during the late night press conference with Jack Ruby stalking him. The fact that J.Ruby spoke up by correcting a reporter that the correct name for the oragnization was called the “Fair play for Cuba Committie” should have told people something.LHO didn’t shoot anyone; not JKF or Officer J.D Tippit.

  35. Joe (not the conspiracy believer) says:

    And no one ever had second thoughts about what they’ve done…or why they did it.