• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So did Oswald act alone or what?

According to my foggy recollection of this, didn't the guy who figured out that the acoustic analysis was bogus, do it by listening to a vinyl record insert into a girlie magazine (like Gallery IIRC)?

ETA: Yes, I was right for once! Here is Steve Barber's own account of it.

Yes, I'm speed postin' at work and forgot to add that! He's quite a character, but sadly his life seemed to have taken a sad downturn at some point.

As of last year, Steve was still part of a group researching the acoustic issues surrounding the JFK case. He said that his group was supposed to issue their lastest findings soon. Anyone heard anything?
 
Can you point me toward a source on this? I'd be interested in reading more about it.

Thanks.

This was from an article I read back in the early 90s. During that time I've must have read over a hundred articles, plus some books, on the case. I tried a quick google, and couldn't come up with the specific article. What I do remember is, the article didn't list all 20 something self proclaimed assassins, instead it just named 4 or 5 of the 'murderers', along with a brief discription of them. The article was a broad overview of the JFK assassination, and the 'confessed assassin' portion was just a small part of the story. I also recall that the article stated that some of them were dead. I believe that most of them were in jail, and all proclaimed that they were a top secret special forces type hired by either some branch of the miltary or mob. If I remember correctly, the article then went on to state, that these were actually just two bit loser career criminal types.
 
Last edited:
I'll admit, I used to be a huge believer in JFK conspiracy theory, thanks in no small part to my [much] older brother. For the record, he won't be bothered to even pay attention to the 9/11 CTists. He enjoyed Abby's Conspiracy Wars video, but has expressed complete disinterest in anything regarding the Truthers and the debunking thereof. I guess that's OK.

I still can't buy the "jet effect" explanation for the "back-and-to-the-left" bit. I now think it's more likely that it has to do with the tension of Kennedy's back brace suddenly being unopposed by the muscles that of course slackened at the moment his brain was obliterated.

When I first moved to the DFW area, one of my first stops was of course Dealey Plaza and the grassy knoll, etc. My first impression was that the actual scene is much smaller in real life than it had appeared to be in all the photos I had seen. I haven't fired a rifle in decades, but there was a time (and this is not an Internet Tough Guy brag, it's just the facts, ma'am) when I could hit a running prairie dog at ~50 yards with a Marlin bolt-action .22 caliber rifle using only iron sights. (I could also hit them with a Ruger .223 caliber Mini-14, but the end result was a bit more gross than I cared for at that age). I do not have the least bit of difficulty believing that Oswald could have hit JFK with a scoped rifle at the distance of a mere 60 yards. It's hardly a feat, and frankly I'm surprised that he took 3 shots to do it.

A much easier and closer shot could have been made as the motorcade was coming down Houston street, directly towards the TSBD. Why would a well-orchestrated conspiracy dictate that the "patsy" pass up the easy shot in favor of a slightly harder one which would "necessitate" multiple shooters thereby multiplying the complexity of the coverup? Why fear being seen by the approaching motorcade if everyone who isn't In On It has been intimidated or ridiculed into silence?

I could go on for ages, but frankly I need to get back to World of Warcraft. :Banane39:

For a very long time I'd been coming to reevaluate my JFK conspiracy leanings. I couldn't really express why (some of the JFK debunkers leave a lot to be desired, Gerald Posner being a prime example), but it just sort of started not to smell right to me. The final nail in that coffin was the never-ending Loose Change thread on this forum. There are a lot of parallels between the two conspiracy cults, and the blistering light of logic and reason I've seen here over the past several months contributed a lot of tools I've used to slice through that particular bit of BS occupying my mental real estate.

A sincere 'thank you' to the contributors; you know who you are.:cool:
 
Last edited:
According to my foggy recollection of this, didn't the guy who figured out that the acoustic analysis was bogus, do it by listening to a vinyl record insert into a girlie magazine (like Gallery IIRC)?

Er, I just subscribe for the assassination recordings.
 
Years ago I remember watching a special on the JFK assasination on PBS, and they actually sat a cadaver in a chair and fired the same type rifle at the correct angle into the back of it's head. The head reacted exactly as JFK's head did in the Zapruder film, it's been so long I don't recall all of the details, but it covered the motorcycles audio and just about everything else. I think the final verdict was one gunman.
 
The CT that will not die. Why?

It reminds me of one of the first influences I had in the realm skepticism and skeptical enquiry.... Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time". In it, her detective hero is laid up with a broken leg and entertaining himself looking at pictures of famous historical personages. He comes across a conundrum that one of the people perceived to be completely vile in English history has what he perceives to be a decent, sincere and honest face. Being a detective, this launches him on further study, and he goes through all kinds of research to learn that Richard III had been totally converted to 'bad guy' by Shakespeare.

More important, as he's thinking of writing the whole thing up and straightening out the record, his research reveals that this had already been done several times through the last couple of centuries. in fact, when viewed in historical context, Shakespeare wrote for patrons and those patrons were Tudors, who detested Richard. Once the Tudor era ended, there was already a movement to straighten out the record on Richard III, but it never took hold. Shakespeare's play is brilliant and it became the standard version of "the evil king and the two poor little princes".

The point? No one wants to believe that Richard III was not the hunch-backed foul dastard that Shakespeare portrays him as. I think that regardless of how often it's debunked, there are people out there who've been believing in the grassy knoll, mafia link, bay of pigs, CIA, etc... for forty years and they're no longer looking for an investigation and prosecution. They're looking for confirmation of one tenet of their faith that they've held to for half or more than half of their lives.

It takes a willingness to shake off the cobwebs and say, "Dammm, did I really believe all that crap?", to be able to reverse yourself on such a seminal emotional experience as the JFK assasination was. I was able to do it - I was a true believer for years. But when the preponderance of evidence convinced me that Oswald could have and most likely did do it alone, I began to question not just the official versions, but the "evidence" of the CT crowd.
 
Crungy said:
Last count of admitted JFK gunmen that I remember was somewhere around 25 ...
Can you point me toward a source on this? I'd be interested in reading more about it.
Not exactly that, but the headline from an issue of The Onion:

KENNEDY SLAIN BY CIA, MAFIA, CASTRO, LBJ, TEAMSTERS, FREEMASONS
President Shot 129 Times from 43 Different Angles
 
I don’t know the answers. Evidence not found or misinterpreted, cover ups, etc. The thing that bothers me the most about Oswald acting alone is the fact that Oswald was killed. The first rule in a conspiratorial assassination is, kill the target. The second rule is kill the assassin.
 
I don’t know the answers. Evidence not found or misinterpreted, cover ups, etc. The thing that bothers me the most about Oswald acting alone is the fact that Oswald was killed. The first rule in a conspiratorial assassination is, kill the target. The second rule is kill the assassin.
its always been my theory (and this may be as wooish as any others) that the mafia killed oswald to make it look like they killed kennedy, to scare off RFK
 
I don’t know the answers. Evidence not found or misinterpreted, cover ups, etc. The thing that bothers me the most about Oswald acting alone is the fact that Oswald was killed. The first rule in a conspiratorial assassination is, kill the target. The second rule is kill the assassin.
Yes, but who kills the assassin's assassin?
 
Everyone knows Vinnie "Pulmonary" Embolism was a mafia hitman, just like Jack "Ruby" Rubenstein. Two clots, straight to the pulmonary artery, typical gangland style execution.
 
On another forum I'm on there's a nutter who believes in every conspiracy theory.

Currently he's claiming that JFK had a small wound on the front of his head and a large exit hole at the back. He refuses to acknowledge this drawing:
dox2big.jpg


Is there anything else I can hit him with?
 
On another forum I'm on there's a nutter who believes in every conspiracy theory.

Currently he's claiming that JFK had a small wound on the front of his head and a large exit hole at the back. He refuses to acknowledge this drawing:
[qimg]http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dox2big.jpg[/qimg]

Is there anything else I can hit him with?

Try to find the clip from Penn & Teller [rule8] about conspiracy theories. They use a similar gun and shoot at a pumpkin, which 'explodes' at the other site re the entry, and falls to the side the bullit came from.

ETA: I touched the drawing :boxedin:
 
Try to find the clip from Penn & Teller [rule8] about conspiracy theories. They use a similar gun and shoot at a pumpkin, which 'explodes' at the other site re the entry, and falls to the side the bullit came from.

I've seen similar examples offered up before, and frankly I think they're a bit weak. There is not much similarity between a pumpkin and a human skull. A pumpkin's interior is mostly air**, has nothing analogous to bone, and is not connected to anything else. Using the pumpkin model, we should expect a solid blow from a baseball bat to send one's head flying. There are better explanations for Kennedy's motion after the head shot which don't involve a shooter from the front.


** OMG!! The WTC towers were ALSO mostly air... obviously JFK was killed by means of controlled demolition. WHAT DID JFK KNOW ABOUT THE 9/11 PLOT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
 

Back
Top Bottom