If you commit a crime against your government, you are charged with conspiracy. Why would you rule out any conspiracy committed by a govt? That is naive. Just because it's cool to ridicule people who think for themselves, and conspiracy is a vehicle used not to think? Where have the ‘Perry Mason’ type thinkers gone?
Judging by my research, the JFK assassination is somewhat unique in that you cannot rely on any information from the mainstream media or govt. You must go directly to the evidence and judge for yourself, and if your willing to do that I assure you that you will find conspiracy. Your own House of Representatives determined that there was most likely a conspiracy, read up on that.
The UPI article I cited was fascinating, and was a complete account from people on the scene. I would hardly discount the comments of the SS there, it was they who reported shots from the knoll to the media. I applaud them for getting a report like that out!
Get a hold of the live NBC breaking broadcast that day, and listen to the interview with a witness that was 10ft away from JFK and facing the knoll. She reported shots from there also. If that isn't contributing evidence that would be considered I don't know what would, especially more so after seeing the direction of the shot from the right front on the Zapruder film.
***And your point is?
Conspiracy theorists love to point to initial reports with “details” not found later, as if they contain some kernels of truth that were later covered up. Anyone who's worked a breaking news story (or for that matter followed a breaking news thread on FR) knows what a load of codswallop that is.***
When did I? My point was that what you provided as evidence of a conspiracy is of weak, if any, evidentiary value. Initial news reports and eyewitness statements in the heat of the moment are notoriously inaccurate.
I've looked at the evidence, and the weight of it supports one shooter, one rifle, three shots. The evidence for any of the scads of proposed conspiracy theories is paper-thin; the lynchpin of Kennedy conspiracy theories is proving that Oswald could not have acted alone.
One by one, the claimed factors that made the shootings y Oswald impossible have been picked off. The timing of the shots, the accuracy of the shots, the "magic bullet," and so on.
Also arguing against a conspiracy is the fact that it would have necessarily involved hundreds, if not thousands, of people. A conspiracy on that scale simply does not hold up that long. That's not conclusive, but it places the burden of proof on the conspiracy theorists -- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Judging by my research, the JFK assassination is somewhat unique in that you cannot rely on any information from the mainstream media or govt. You must go directly to the evidence and judge for yourself, and if your willing to do that I assure you that you will find conspiracy. Your own House of Representatives determined that there was most likely a conspiracy, read up on that.
A bit selective there, aren't we? The mainstream media is an unreliable source of information except for a UPI wire report immediately after the fact. The government is unreliable, except for the HSCA.
The UPI article I cited was fascinating,
Isaac Asimov short stories are fascinating. I don't accept them as factual.
and was a complete account from people on the scene. I would hardly discount the comments of the SS there, it was they who reported shots from the knoll to the media.
I don't discount the comments, but I find them outweighed by the other available evidence. I will note once again that the initial reports on a breaking news event are rarely the most accurate, and eyewitness statements in the moments after an unexpected and traumatic event are rarely reliable.