What’s your favourite conspiracy theory?
I like the fake moon landing ones.
sharei have a sort of sentimental fondness for the kennedy/oswald conspiracy, mostly because when i was younger i went down a bit of a rabbit hole with that topic. i wouldn't say i was ever a full-blown believer, but i read garrison's book & a few other conspiracy oriented things. but i also read critical things & fairly quickly sorted out that the story as it's been told - oswald acted alone, was a troubled lone actor - was the right one, & i now point to that topic as one that helped hone my own personal bs detector (i like to think, anyway) & sent me down the path to being a skeptic & being interested in science & how truth is determined.
i highly recommend vincent bugliosi's & gerald posner's books on oswald & the assassination. they're both great examples of sifting through tons of information & using critical analysis to get at the truth.
I have no problem believing Oswald was the lone gunman, but there's seriously something wrong with the magic bullet theory. It may not be physically impossible, but what are the chances of it happening during the, already suspicious, assassination of the president of the US?
sharethere's a very good video narrated by gerald posner that outlines what happened with that bullet.
he lays this all out perfectly in his book 'case closed.'
the short answer is that it really wasn't magic at all. if you look at the position of kennedy (he was on a raised seat, turning to the sound of the missed shot) & connelly, the bullet lines up perfectly.
i'm in the middle of a movie, but i'll dig up some links later this evening. it's actually really interesting.
this is the posner video.
the whole thing is worth watching, but i've set it to start at the point where he talks about the magic bullet.
https://youtu.be/tTsPpjKhch4?t=2016
this is a good video as well!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nUvSPFKJ3o
I'm sorry, but this guy seems just as biased as those who believe Oswald was not the lone gunman. I can't do anything with someone who won't even acknowledge the flaws of the official explanation. And I had forgotten, but Posner was the plagiarism guy from the Daily Beast!
Like I said, I can believe Oswald was the lone gunman, but I just would like to hear some alternative theories instead of that of the Warren commission.
And let's get real, at the very least Ruby got free rein from the authorities to shoot Oswald.
well, i think the facts are the facts.
i don't think that little plagiarism business has any impact on posner's book. i think he ceded that the plagiarism was wrong, but it was an honest, deadline driven mistake, no?
regardless, the book & its arguments stand on its own merits. but if you think it does poison his work, then i would direct you to vincent bugliosi's comprehensive work on the assassination.
& he does criticize the things the commission got wrong while acknowledging what they mostly got right.
ruby is another matter entirely. he did have free reign, but that was just shoddy work on the part of the dallas police. i certainly don't think they wanted oswald shot or expected ruby to do that.
but no sense on going back & forth on this endlessly.
i'd encourage you to read case closed & reclaiming history, but i'll leave that to your discretion!
I don't know, it seems Bugliosi's intention is just to viciously attack and ridicule conspiracy theorists. There must be someone who supports the lone gunman theory but is still fair.
"i certainly don't think they wanted oswald shot or expected ruby to do that."
Okay, we have to disagree on that. I think it's a strong possibility.
I've seen a documentary on it before and I just wasn't convinced. This case is just vague enough to be able to convince anyone of any theory. I mean, I'm no gun expert with access to all of the files who's capable of challenging somebody else's theory. I do think it's quite a feat this bullet "traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of muscle tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone". Not even all members of the Warren commission were convinced of the probability of this theory.
Like I said, it's a hell of a coincidence that something extremely rare should happen during the assassination of Kennedy of all people.
i think the case for the single bullet at this point is locked down.
it's true that it did go through all those things - but it is a bullet going at high velocity.
and it went through kennedy without hitting any bone - just tissue, which was enough to cause it to start to tumble & slow down slightly.
it then entered connelly - it hit & shattered his rib, and made contact 'sideways' which causes the flattening we see in the bullet.
it then exits connelly's chest at a deflected trajectory, shatters his wrist & lands in his...left thigh if i remember correctly?
the bullet followed the trajectory from oswald's position through kennedy to connelly.
it didn't really do anything remarkable or other-worldly.
certainly it didn't do any of the 'zig-zagging' that conspiracy types claim.
"it didn't really do anything remarkable or other-worldly."
So there are countless of similar examples from the real world?
Like I said, I'm no expert and I haven't studied this case enough to have a definite opinion on it, but the single bullet theory is certainly remarkable enough to not take at face value.
when most people question the single bullet theory, they are thinking of the case that was laid out in garrison's book & oliver stone's movie- that the bullet zigzagged wildly, didn't follow a straight path.
that's what i mean when i say the bullet didn't do anything remarkable.
it went on a straight line through soft tissue in kennedy until it hit connelly's rib.
it follows the trajectory if you line up connelly's rib to kennedy's throat/shoulder to the 6th floor of the book depository.
the bullet matches the gun that oswald owned.
i can't speak to how bullets behave...i'm certainly no expert on that.
It did not zigzag, but it did change trajectory. How much, I don't know. I'm sure those who support the theory try to downplay it.
There must be a reason not all of the members of the Warren commission thought it was very probable.
The magic bullet theory works fine as Governor Connolly was not sitting directly in front of JFK.
https://www.google.com/search?q=jfk+assassination+diagram+of+where+jfk+and+connally+were+sitting&rlz=1C1GCEA_enCA810CA810&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY3bbu8LLjAhUSXM0KHVVJC7AQ_AUIECgB&biw=1242&bih=568#imgrc=8eVS5ckTZTMOIM:
How would that make it "fine"?
Also, if Oliver Stone can change the trajectory, so can anybody else.
The thing is, the original investigation was flawed which allowed all these conspiracy theories.
Because the bullet trajectory lines up. It wouldn't if Connolly was directly in front of JFK. The Warren Commission was flawed because it was covering up the actions of the Kennedy Admin and the CIA activities around the world. It got the murder of JFK right because it was a simple act. They weren't going to look at the bigger picture of the Kennedy's trying to kill Castro or wiretapping MLK. Those revelations had to wait till the 1970s.
shareAs if the trajectory line is the only problem. And the trajectory did change. How much? Why? There's also a weird slight bend going downwards. What does that mean? The supporters of the Warren commision are way too defensive and dismissive of any criticism.
"The Warren Commission was flawed because it was covering up the actions of the Kennedy Admin and the CIA activities around the world.:
Well, that certainly affects their credibility.