One for the conspiracy theorists...

[pacman]

Including, as I said, my Mom and myself and just about everyone I know.  If I asked the question "who killed JFK" at a family party or amongst my friends, I would invariably get a strange look, as in "what the hell are you talking about?"  same as when someone mentions the moon landing being a fake. Plain and simply; they would think I was nuts for even bringing it up.

 

Interesting. If I asked the same question to my friends, I would have total agreement that LHO wasn't acting alone. I vaguely remember a number like 95% of Australians believed that vested interests wanted JFK out of the way. There was some poll years ago about conspiracies, etc. And thanks for mentioning the moon landing, there's nothing like introducing a completely balmy CT in order to discredit the first one.

 

I suppose whoever was his ''handler'' also told him to take a shot at General Edwin Walker in Dallas 9 months before he shot JFK? You mentioned some "story" about the Russians asking him to do this, but of course there is no proof of that [there rarely is].

 

They give the proof in the documentary. Please forgive me for being vague on details, it's years since I watched it, both times on late night TV, it's a two part doco & I remember one time I fell asleep watching it. When I first mentioned the doco I went to Wikipedia where the entire thing was laid out with links, names, dates, etc. I was able to get everything I needed to fill in the gaps. Later I revisited the page - IT HAD BEEN COMPLETELY REMOVED! THERE WAS NOTHING THERE!

 

I appreciate debating with you guys and don't even mind being the only one on this thread who is backing the lone shooter angle.

 

What's the joke about the soldier out of step? He blames everyone else for being wrong. Something like that.

 

I do enjoy these debates JD, you are argue hard & fair. 

 

Again, I think the main difference is I  have an actual name, I have actual proof on my side;  all I am seeing here is more speculation with no proof, and nothing new as I asked for.

 

Actual proof! That's a huge call. We all know LHO & he may well have been the only shooter. That's not the argument here. Where we differ is your contention that he was some loner looking to shoot the President for his own reasons. Whether it was because he was a depressed loser, he wanted revenge on the US, he was mad & looked for his 5 minutes of fame. I dunno. They are all plausible reasons but none of them fit in with what happened afterwards.

 

I believe you can't look at Oswald without taking into account he moved to Moscow, he married a Russian, he approached them about betraying his country, that Russia were either obliged or wanted to help Castro, that he was the only contact they had in place with the desire & the ability to do the job & he was called upon to do it.

 

Contrast that with your picture of him as a loser who one day decided "you know what, I'm gonna knock off the President". Of course it's possible, I will not deny it but based on what we know, it is less plausible than the sequence above. As most reasonable people would attest.

 

You would think in 50 years we would know the truth if something else was in play here; fact is, there isn't - and we knew the truth way back in 1963.  Anything since then is pure conjecture.  I'd highly suggest reading up more in Oswald and not just the various conspiracy angles;  when you realize this guy was a complete loser whom no one would dare even think about working with, you will have your final answer.

 

LHO was allegedly a genius. No one can learn to speak Russian in 6 months if they are not. And he was a very dangerous man who was also naive in thinking the Russians would embrace him the day he turned up in Moscow declaring he was ready to do anything in their struggle against the US. But they did recognise he might be useful one day.

 

As for the truth, there has been so much expenditure of money & resources in blocking the facts that the entire episode stinks to high heaven of a cover-up. Speaking of truth, are you aware that the head of Cuba's intelligence service flew out of Dallas one hour after the assassination? Or how do you account for the missing piece removed from the Zapruder film? And if Jackie Kennedy, LBJ, Bobby Kennedy & J Edgar Hoover all believed there was a conspiracy, how is your knowledge greater than theirs?

 

A shame they didn't ring you for your version of events seeing as you are so sure of the "facts"...        

[pacman]

So, he was a crack shot, but he could not hit a guy sitting (not moving) in a chair.

 

Based on that, the Russians decide he can hit a human head moving at 30 mph from eighty yards??

 

 

When someone shows me how more that one person can keep a secret, far less the dozens (if not hundreds) that must have been involved in one of the crimes of the century.......then I will try to stop laughing at these CT's

 

Hi Jerry, great post.  

 

You do realise you have completely contradicted yourself. You don't believe there was a conspiracy, that's fine by me, but you indicate that because LHO couldn't hit the General that he was completely unsuitable to be conscripted for the job by the KGB. Or whoever.

 

I take it you are suggesting that if Oswald wasn't able to hit a guy in a chair, the Russians wouldn't consider him able to carry out the hit. 

 

So who did shoot him then? After all, the entire hypothesis that surrounds the non-conspiracy theory relies on LHO acting alone.

 

Perhaps it was those three fellas on the grassy knoll?          

[pacman]

 Of course, but no one who believes the theories wants to actually address that.....despite the fact none of us have ever met anyone who can REALLY keep a secret, forget something of this magnitude.

 

   Anyway, you and Wangsuda have just joined with the ranks of all obtuse fools out there who refuse to believe in outlandish stories which have never, ever, been proven. Welcome aboard.

 

The more you keep reinforcing your argument, the more shocking it will be for you should more information come to light.

 

Here's what has been re-installed on Wikipedia about the documentary:

 

Rendezvous with Death (German: Rendezvous mit dem Tod: Warum John F. Kennedy sterben musste) is a 2006 German documentary film that claims that G2, a secret service organization of the Cuban government, organized the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. The film first aired on January 6, 2006 on German television station Westdeutscher Rundfunk. It was directed by Wilfried Huismann.

Rendezvous with Death features interviews with four Cuban former secret service agents and an American FBI agent, and also cites documents from KGB and Mexican government archives.

A possible Cuban connection was investigated by the US immediately after Kennedy's death.

But an FBI officer sent to follow the Oswald's trail during a visit to Mexico was recalled after only three days and the investigation called off.

Laurence Keenan, now 81, said it was "perhaps the worst investigation the FBI was ever involved in".

"I realised that I was used. I felt ashamed. We missed a moment in history," Mr Keenan said.

Veteran US official Alexander Haig told the filmmaker that Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B Johnson, believed Cuba was to blame and feared a pronounced swing to the right if the truth were known that would keep the Democrats out of power for a long time.

Mr Haig - a US military adviser at the time and later a secretary of state - told the filmmakers Johnson said: "We must simply not allow the American people to believe Fidel Castro could have killed our president."

"He [Johnson] was convinced Castro killed Kennedy and he took it to his grave."

 

That's a fraction of what was there previously & what is uncovered in the documentary. The interviews at the KGB archives are amazing. They name names, they reveal who ordered what, it's one of those rare moments where you stop breathing because you don't want to miss a word. Again I suggest you watch it.

[wangsuda]

[jerrysingapore]

Hi Jerry, great post.  

 

You do realise you have completely contradicted yourself. You don't believe there was a conspiracy, that's fine by me, but you indicate that because LHO couldn't hit the General that he was completely unsuitable to be conscripted for the job by the KGB. Or whoever.

 

I take it you are suggesting that if Oswald wasn't able to hit a guy in a chair, the Russians wouldn't consider him able to carry out the hit. 

 

So who did shoot him then? After all, the entire hypothesis that surrounds the non-conspiracy theory relies on LHO acting alone.

 

Perhaps it was those three fellas on the grassy knoll?          

 

Errrrrr, how did I contradict myself? 

 

I pulled out 2 contradictory points (at least to me) from your earlier post to show that the Russian thing did not seem very likely ie he missed a stationary target, so the Russians thought he was a good enough shot to hit a US President moving in a limousine. That does not seem very logical to me.

 

As for whether I believe there was a conspiracy......see my previous point. How many people in the Government/Mob/KGB/CIA/BBC/ACDC/Simpsons would have had to be in on the planning and execution of the project??

 

At least dozens...at least! ....and every single one of them has kept the faith for 50 years? Come on.........   

[JaiDee]

As for whether I believe there was a conspiracy......see my previous point. How many people in the Government/Mob/KGB/CIA/BBC/ACDC/Simpsons would have had to be in on the planning and execution of the project??

 

At least dozens...at least! ....and every single one of them has kept the faith for 50 years? Come on.........

 

   Yes, I mentioned this early on as well. Something about 70 people being killed in extraordinary ways soon after the execution of Kennedy was the response. But then of course you would need at least 70 - but more likely 140 - more people to kill off THOSE people to keep them quiet and then another 300 to kill off THOSE people, etc.....it would never end.

 

  Say at a minimum there was some high-up CIA chief planning it all, and if you believe some conspiracies [and again, there are sooooo many] maybe some people in the White House supporting Johnson?  The coup d' etat that Oliver Stone eluded to in his comically fictional movie? Or high-up Cubans, or Mafia, whichever particular theory you buy into. Then the people who pulled it off, the actual shooters; the secret service guys who conspired to have his schedule and route changed at the last minute and tipped off their conspiracy buddies; local police; the doctors at Parkland who botched the early treatment; someone who placed the pristine bullet on the hospital gurney [again, JFK-style fiction].....you are talking dozens of people, minimum, who never talked about it after 1963.  Not to their wives or family members, not to the press, not with million dollar book deals hanging over their heads. Nothing, nada, zilch. Not bloody likely!

 

 

           Again, I actually find it amazing people still even talk about this.  To me it's so clear who did it, and the fact that he was not a person any organized group would ever work with is quite evident. But I'll bite; I am downloading that documentary and will give it a shot.  Meanwhile, if you are still a conspiracy theorist on this one, please visit a website or read a book which supports the lone gunman theory and read up on Oswald a bit more; it may sway your mind ever so slightly.

OR, if you have 45 minutes free, watch THIS Nat Geo documentary;

http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/arts/television/jfk-the-lost-bullet-on-national-geographic-review.html?_r=0

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJJqonvtK8Q

[pacman]

Errrrrr, how did I contradict myself? 

 

I pulled out 2 contradictory points (at least to me) from your earlier post to show that the Russian thing did not seem very likely ie he missed a stationary target, so the Russians thought he was a good enough shot to hit a US President moving in a limousine. That does not seem very logical to me.

 

I retract the contradiction allegation as a thank you for contributing to the thread. Poor old JaiDee has been doing the lifting for your side almost unaided.

 

The point I was trying to make, if the Russians agreed with your analysis & gave up on LHO as bad shot, how was Oswald good enough then to make the hit? It was a convoluted argument but I think you get what I mean. And it's a bit ridiculous to judge someone's shooting accuracy based on them missing a target at night through a window. We don't know how far away he was, how clear he could see the guy or even if the guy moved his head as he fired.

 

All that mattered was that he turned up & tried as he was asked to. If you believe there was a second gunman as many do, then it didn't matter how good a shot Oswald was, he was needed as the frontman who could take the blame.

 

As for whether I believe there was a conspiracy......see my previous point. How many people in the Government/Mob/KGB/CIA/BBC/ACDC/Simpsons would have had to be in on the planning and execution of the project??

 

At least dozens...at least! ....and every single one of them has kept the faith for 50 years? Come on.........     

 

This is an important point & as you & JaiDee state, if there was a conspiracy, where are all the whistleblowers? It's something I have thought about too, I am not so wedded to any side of the story that I haven't considered this to be the major flaw in the argument for a plot to shoot the President.

 

This is why I am convinced there was no CIA involvement. Or Mafia. Or any other group in America that has had the finger pointed at them. As for that list of 70 people mentioned, I have no explanation about that at all. Was it all part of the misinformation that was spread to muddy the waters? Maybe. I didn't even know if its existence (the list that is) until I found it in the previous debate but I am sure the theorists jumped on it as "proof". 

 

The one guy who had to be silenced before he let the proverbial cat out of the bag was Oswald. And he was. Jack Ruby, a small time crook who was offered a chance to clear the slate, somehow knew exactly where & when inside the Dallas police station he should be to come face to face with LHO. His declaration that he was avenging the American people seems odd for a guy who hadn't shown much regard for the law before. He may well have been a patriot but when you read his own account of how he just walked in & there was Oswald right in front of him, it just doesn't add up. Accounts I have read about the chances of finding the right door to enter into the exact place in the basement at just the moment when LHO was being transferred make the probability far beyond coincidence. My conclusion? He was invited to be there to do a favour. Pure & simple.

[pacman]

   Yes, I mentioned this early on as well. Something about 70 people being killed in extraordinary ways soon after the execution of Kennedy was the response. But then of course you would need at least 70 - but more likely 140 - more people to kill off THOSE people to keep them quiet and then another 300 to kill off THOSE people, etc.....it would never end.

 

Valid point which I have addressed in my last post.

 

 

Say at a minimum there was some high-up CIA chief planning it all, and if you believe some conspiracies [and again, there are sooooo many] maybe some people in the White House supporting Johnson?  The coup d' etat that Oliver Stone eluded to in his comically fictional movie? Or high-up Cubans, or Mafia, whichever particular theory you buy into. Then the people who pulled it off, the actual shooters; the secret service guys who conspired to have his schedule and route changed at the last minute and tipped off their conspiracy buddies; local police; the doctors at Parkland who botched the early treatment; someone who placed the pristine bullet on the hospital gurney [again, JFK-style fiction].....you are talking dozens of people, minimum, who never talked about it after 1963.  Not to their wives or family members, not to the press, not with million dollar book deals hanging over their heads. Nothing, nada, zilch. Not bloody likely!

 

Agreed. Your depiction of what would have happened is the very reason why it didn't play out like so many believe. That's the only logical explanation. And god knows what that stuff regarding the "dead 70" is all about. I can't help feeling that's a red herring. It's tricky when there are so many dead ends getting to the bottom of this. 

 

As for Stone's 'JFK', he took another conspiracy story that has some known truths mixed in with a bit of creative imagination. The whole thing just didn't ring true to me. It was only when I connected the dots between the Bay of Pigs & the attempts to kill Castro that I could see a real motivation. And the one guy who was connected to the whole thing actually finished up centre stage. Everything fits. 

 

           

Again, I actually find it amazing people still even talk about this.  To me it's so clear who did it, and the fact that he was not a person any organized group would ever work with is quite evident. But I'll bite; I am downloading that documentary and will give it a shot.  Meanwhile, if you are still a conspiracy theorist on this one, please visit a website or read a book which supports the lone gunman theory and read up on Oswald a bit more; it may sway your mind ever so slightly.

OR, if you have 45 minutes free, watch THIS Nat Geo documentary;

 

You watch mine & I'll watch yours. It's only fair. And I am not expecting the doco to completely change your mind (but it might) but I think you will enjoy it & I predict it will alter your POV about the whole thing. And it will give you a reason to doubt what you've been told.

[JaiDee]

Couldn't find that German documentary on torrents but I found a full-length version on Youtube, I will play it over the weekend and let you know what I think.

[azza33]

Couldn't find that German documentary on torrents but I found a full-length version on Youtube, I will play it over the weekend and let you know what I think.

 

Can you post the link please JD

 

Always enjoy a good show...

[JaiDee]

Jack Ruby, a small time crook who was offered a chance to clear the slate, somehow knew exactly where & when inside the Dallas police station he should be to come face to face with LHO.

 

 Ruby was a strip club owner and a lot of his clientele were policeman. He had been to the station before, and knew how to get around from inside the basement parking lot. The morning he killed Oswald he was out doing errands with his dog - who brings their dog when they know they are about to get killed or go to prison for life - and he had a pistol with him as he often did. Supposedly he was an American patriot who adored JFK and was crushed by his shooting and he  went to the police department to see Oswald for himself, maybe thinking he could even get close enough to shoot him. He was also pictured in the background of the press conference from a day earlier, adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists; he could apparently gain access to all parts of the P.D. any time he wanted with his connections to the local police. When he saw Oswald coming out he acted on what he saw was his only chance; he just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and if he wasn't Oswald would have lived many more years and would have spilled the beans for sure; and all this conjecture never would have even started.

 

  Coincidence? Sure, but life is full of coincidences as we all know, and the above story sounds as plausible as anything I have heard coming from the conspiracy stories.

[JaiDee]

Can you post the link please JD

 

  Always enjoy a good show

 

Yups, found it here.....so we can include you with the minority who don't believe in the conspiracies, Azza?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChJZQwEClKQ

[deepthroat]

Yups, found it here.....so we can include you with the minority who don't believe in the conspiracies, Azza?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChJZQwEClKQ

 

Sign me up Jai Dee. I've never bought any of the conspiracy hoo-ha, although it is usually fun to watch as entertainment.

 

I've mentioned this before, but I'll try again: there's a relatively straightforward psychological reason for this. 

 

When something momentous occurs which shakes our world and our beliefs, it's difficult for the mind to grasp that something so monumental could be the result of a single individual, a single accident, or a single corps of fanatics. The idea that our lives and our world could be so easily turned on their head is something we would rather not accept - the fear and uncertainty could be overwhelming. So instead some turn to (often outlandish) conspiracy theory as they will believe almost anything else in order to avoid having to live with the awful reality of the randomness of the universe.

 

The idea that something so devastating could ONLY have been perpetrated by a vast network of conspiracy and intrigue is comforting to them. Far more comforting than the realization that a lone marksman with a rifle (or an isolated set of fanatics with pilot's training and adequate funding) could wreak such devastation from a simple action.

[deepthroat]

You watch mine & I'll watch yours. It's only fair. And I am not expecting the doco to completely change your mind (but it might) but I think you will enjoy it & I predict it will alter your POV about the whole thing. And it will give you a reason to doubt what you've been told.

 

Anyone that lives in America has been given ample opportunity to doubt the facts. But they continue to remain facts, whereas the conjectures of the Conspiracy Industry remain only that. 

 

If this stuff didn't sell books and videos and lectures, it wouldn't exist. 

[JaiDee]

I watched that movie, it appeared to be pretty well-done but some pretty dubious characters shown in silhouette or in darkness are hardly convincing.  I was shocked at the 54 minute mark to learn Oswald was a Cuban Secret Service agent, that was the first time I had heard that. Kinda goes against the other theory above about the Russians handling him and giving a test run at General  Walker, and also the one Strocube mentioned about the Mob being behind it. 3 theories,  and if you look down at the long list of Youtube videos next to  Rendezvous with Death they are all surely just similar variations of those 3 themes. Which one is correct? All 3 can't be....

 

  If you haven't tired of all this yet, this is a really good Documentary from the side of the single shooter theory. No shady people in silhouette but you do get the brothers of both Ruby and Oswald, as well as 2 or 3 guys from the Warren Commission. Saw this a few years back and it just confirmed what I already knew as truth.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txk52JPqUdQ

[azza33]

Yups, found it here.....so we can include you with the minority who don't believe in the conspiracies, Azza?

 

You may indeed include me in the ranks.

 

And to touch on Deepthroats point.... A random act by a lone person is so easy to perpitrate and the consquences can be so far reaching. Unfortantely if a person has a will and a way they can indeed do almost anything.

 

Back to Paccers documentary - Not a bad show on a JFK conspiracy, i'll admit. But i've seen others just as convincing.

 

But these are just conspiracies - nothing more -  a motive is established and a case built around the motive to justify the conspiracy.

 

Route67 put up a good video of the Iraq WMD intelligence ... shall we call them blunders

 

Why i mention this is that information assets take months or even years to determine whether they are "fabricators" or in fact providing real 'intellgence'.

 

These 1 hour shows are not in a position nor have the resources to establish the veractiy of the information they are using.

 

Therefore the only reasonable conclusion i can arrive at is that they are a good show, and should be treated as nothing more than entertainment.

 

Sorry Paccers

[azza33]

An intruiging continuation to the Mexico city connection...

 

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/04th_Issue/lho.mc.html

[Tomcat]

Unpredictable events like JFK or a Princess getting killed in a car accident seem as if they need a bigger explanation as it doesn't seem right that a lone gunman could kill the most powerful man in the world..its just to simple. ( this was a basic explanation given by a Dr P Leman who studied this and was also accused by his subjects as being part of a Conspiracy ...    )

 

Psychologists would probably claim that humans look for explanations that match the magnitude of the event.

 

Which puts me in the -conspiracies are " mostly" rubbish- camp

[wangsuda]

All this conspiracy stuff and involved parties and invisible hands (Thai residents should get that one) and ancient aliens. People, use Occam's Razor

Unpredictable events like JFK or a Princess getting killed in a car accident seem as if they need a bigger explanation as it doesn't seem right that a lone gunman could kill the most powerful man in the world..its just to simple. ( this was a basic explanation given by a Dr Leman who studied this subject and was also accused by his subjects as being part of a Conspiracy ... 

 

Psychologists would probably claim that humans look for explanations that match the magnitude of the event.

 

Which puts me in the -conspiracies are " mostly" rubbish- camp

Me as well.

[pacman]

It's a good result. Thanks for watching the documentary. I am fine with the fact that minds haven't been changed, I am just glad you've been made aware of another side of the story.

 

I admit to not yet watching any of the other videos posted but I will. I have had a lot to do today plus our two local football teams had their first meeting of the year. Great game.

 

I guess I will always be perplexed about what LBJ knew & why he went to the grave convinced that Castro was behind it. As President he must have been privy to a lot of stuff we will never know.

 

And JFK's wife & brother also claimed there was a conspiracy. I'm struggling to accept they knew nothing either.

 

And given that we can agree LHO was the gunman, with or without help, why did the story have to be made so complicated? Was it just LBJ who stopped investigations & spread all the false leads?

 

If he had just left it alone there wouldn't have been all these theories & we wouldn't be having this debate. Was the fact that Oswald had gone to Russia & had returned with a Russian wife the reason he had to be knocked off? Was LBJ worried that everyone would put two & two together & think LHO was working for them? Well they did that anyway, what was the new President so keen to hide? That JFK was murdered because of the Bay of Pigs affair or that Castro was fed up with all the assassination attempts on his life? These are powerful motivations for someone to call on Oswald to help. More powerful than the "lone wolf" theory. IMO.

 

I understand the reaction against those who take CT's to heart & spread them for all they are worth. It is very unsettling for those who like an orderly world. And for those who have a need to believe their government wouldn't lie to them. I have only stuck to my guns on this one because there are just too many things wrong with what we have been told. But my life doesn't revolve around this, I haven't invested my sanity in trying to convince the world I'm right & they are wrong. I  have kept up my side because I thoroughly enjoy the debate as I did last time. And so far no one has invoked Godwin's Rule, the one that states the longer an internet debate goes on for, the more likely someone is going to be compared to a Nazi. Or Hitler.

 

Herr JaiDee (oops...       ) is adamant he knows what really happened. I am not. I only know that the story we are asked to believe has not one or two but a plethora of holes in it. And as Judge Judy states, if a story doesn't make sense, it's not true.

 

Shall we reconvene the debate this time next year? 

[wangsuda]

Occam's Razor: "the simplest hypothesis proposed as an explanation of phenomena is more likely to be the true one than is any other available hypothesis, that its predictions are more likely to be true than those of any other available hypothesis, and that it is an ultimate a priori epistemic principle that simplicity is evidence for truth"

[pacman]

re: Occam's Razor, which I agree with by the way. Many years ago I read a book about a guy travelling through Africa in the 50's. He tells about a train ride he took through Egypt sitting next to a Muslim scholar. They chatted for hours & the African gentleman talked about his religion. The writer wasn't very religious but was interested in what the guy thought about Christianity.

 

I don't remember a lot of the conversation but they talked about Jesus Christ. The Muslim gent said he was a great prophet & was just as revered in Islam as he was in Christianity. The main difference was they didn't buy the story of his reincarnation. Nowhere in their literature did that get mentioned except when they refer to what Christians believe. The scholar told the writer that part had been made up & that Christians were victims of an elaborate conspiracy.

 

The author reported the story as it was told to him because as he wrote, faced with the evidence, he could only offer blind faith to support his side of the story. They didn't argue about it, they agreed that it was a case of each to their own but i was profoundly moved by his simple telling of a chance meeting on a train. I am also not sufficiently religious enough to stake my life on one side or the other but the simplest hypothesis would suggest the Muslim gent had a point.

 

It would seem there are CTs we jump on & there are others which are sacrosanct. Just saying...       

[wangsuda]

The Muslim gent has one heck of a point, considering almost everything about Jesus was written decades after his death. And blind faith is what keeps most christians blind to reality. But that is a discussion for another thread. LOL

[williethepimp]

Occam's Razor: "the simplest hypothesis proposed as an explanation of phenomena is more likely to be the true one than is any other available hypothesis, that its predictions are more likely to be true than those of any other available hypothesis, and that it is an ultimate a priori epistemic principle that simplicity is evidence for truth"

It seems to me the simplest  hypothesis is the conspiracy one.......Look at the Zapruder film of the kill shot,...its from the front......care to explain that away?....or care to explain why LHO let the motorcade drive underneath him without firing,and didnt fire until the motorcade was receding.?It seems a greater stretch of the imagination to swallow the official Warren Comission Report.Incidentally,Gerald Ford(remember him?) was a member of the WC,not exactly the Brains Trust was it?

[wangsuda]

^And the complications arise (and this has been stated before) by assuming the scores of people who have kept the secret. Now it becomes complicated beyond belief.