Posted on 11/23/2003 6:40:47 AM PST by GaryL
CNN reporter Kelly Wallace stands in Dallas' Dealey Plaza and points to the Texas School Book Depository window where, she says, Lee Harvey Oswald is "thought'' to have shot President John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963 -- 40 years ago Saturday. Then she and the anchor chat about the various conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination and conclude that the truth will probably never be known.
That's nonsense. And worse, it's popular nonsense. The truth is known. Oswald, acting alone, murdered JFK. We know this with as much certainty as we know anything in history. And just as we don't speak of the "alleged Civil War'' or the "supposed sinking of the Titanic,'' so to give credence to the lingering and numerous wild theories about the assassination of JFK is an unwise pandering to folklore and uncritical thinking.
Rather than continue to ask if there is any validity to these imaginings, we should wonder why they are so popular in the first place.
Several answers come to mind. People equate skepticism with independence. If the government says the sky is blue, a certain slice of the population would begin to doubt it. People also seek meaning in their lives. The idea of random tragedy, of a lone lunatic being able to destroy a man such as John F. Kennedy, is difficult to accept. They would rather cling to enticing accidents of history -- did you know that Richard M. Nixon was in Dallas the day before the assassination? -- than face a world where bad things happen for no reason at all.
Credulous media coverage by shallow reporters makes the situation worse. Balancing unequal arguments seems like fairness to them. Thus the Warren Report is weighed against Oliver Stone's fevered fantasies, just as science is pitted against UFO fanatics or, occasionally, the historical record of World War II is forced to justify itself to Holocaust deniers.
There is a human need to see order in chaos. We see it in every corner of human experience. It's what causes us to see animal figures in the stars. But the beauty of Western Civilization is that we have a commitment to empirical reality, and dry fact tells us that, despite the desires of our hearts, Elvis is not alive. The Jews don't run the world. And Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone.
The Italians have a word, "dietrologia,'' which translates as the tendency to find shadowy motives behind the obvious. That is what is going on here. Oswald was a skilled marksman. He shot Kennedy at what amounted, for him, at close range. The endless skepticism and analysis are a waste of time, and, worse, they distract attention that might otherwise be devoted to the actual trials and triumphs of Kennedy's short-lived, long-ago administration. Forty years is long enough for wild speculation to be indulged. It's time to stop humoring the conspiracy buffs.
Here is where your theory falls apart. The inital movement of President Kennedys head from the momentum of the slug entering the skull was forward as it should have been when struck from behind.
Had he been struck from the grassy knoll, the inital movement would have been to the rear and left with massive damage to the left hemisphere. Thats how physics works, you really can't argue that.
It's all in the Zapruder film for anybody to see that wants to see. Now I suppose one could argue that the Zapruder film was edited by some conspiracists but if you accept the Zapruder film at face value, then Oswald murdered our President plain and simple.
NOTE: The floors of the TSBD building are made of wood.AFFIDAVIT State of Texas
County of Dallas
City of DallasI Harold Norman, wish to make the following statement to Special Agents William Carter and Arthur W. Blake, United States Secret Service.
I am 25 years of age, and I live at 4858 Beulah Street, Dallas, Texas. I do not have a telephone at my residence. I have been employed as an order filler at the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas for about three years.
I was acquainted with Lee Oswald during the time that he was employed at this company, but I never did get to know him well. I have spoken to him briefly to say "Hello" or in connection with my work, but I never carried on any conversations with him. He did not mix with the employees and did not appear to want to make friends with me or any of the others. I never saw him at any time other than in the building at work.
On the 22nd of November, 1963, to the best of my memory, the last time I saw him was about 10:00 A.M. when we were both working on the first floor of the building. I did not speak to him at that time.
About 12:15 P.M. on this same date, after I had eaten my lunch, I went to the fifth floor of the building to watch the parade of the President pass the building. Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman, who also worked at this building went with me. We took a position in the south-east corner of the building on the fifth floor and I was looking out the window which is closest to the east end of the buuilding overlooking Elm Street.
Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I also could [also] hear the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me. I saw all of the people down on the street rut towards the west side of the building, so I went to that side with Williams and Jarman, and looked out the west side window. We discussed the shots, and where they had come from and decided we better go down stairs. We walked down the stairs to the first floor and did not see anyone else on the stairway as we went down. From the time of the shots until we started down-stairs was about five minutes.
I have read over the above statement and it is the truth to the best of my knowledge.
Harold Norman
I do think the police were overwhelmed, and allowed too much press access and so on- and the description of the line-ups in which Oswald appeared were pretty lame.
They'd have to rename their buildings! lol
What WOULD happen if it could be proven beyond doubt that LBJ was up to his bushy eyebrows in this thing?
I honestly don't know- I suspect that there would be no possible level of proof that would convince diehard Democrats, and it would break down along Party lines, like everything else in this country.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031124/usnews/24jfk_2.htm
TOM DILLARD, chief photographer, Dallas Morning News: My car . . . was at the county jail entrance when the first shot was fired. I said, "They've thrown a torpedo." At the second shot, "No, it's heavy rifle fire," and at the third shot I said, "They've killed him." Bob Jackson, a photographer in my car, said, "There's the rifle in that open window." In the three or four seconds it took me to locate that particular open window and make a picture, the rifle had been withdrawn.A number of these people saw/heard/witnessed the shots that moring, part of the 200 some witnesses whose experience was the same BUT whose relating of the events may differ; approximately 85% of these 200 people point to the TSBD building as the source of the gusnhots by the way ...
I also heard a theory (from a doctor) on TV who stated that Kennedy's muscles throughout his body were stimulated for a fraction of a second by the nerve impulses being fired when his brain was destroyed, and that accounted for his movements. I think that's bull, though.
And, if the head shot was from the back, why did his head not move at least somewhat to the front before moving back and left?
A 1988 NOVA show on PBS compared frames 313 and 314 back and forth rapidly. There is an almost imperceptible movement of Kennedy's head slightly forward (i.e., about an inch) before it snaps backward. I'm not sure where you can get a copy of the Zapruder film (maybe it can be downloaded from some site), but if you get your hands on it and are able to compare 313 and 314 back and forth quickly, you might be able to see his head moving very slightly forward -- but I admit it's quite hard to see.
Nothwithstanding the conspiracy theories that say the Zapruder film was doctored, that's one of the reasons I'm convinced the third (fatal) shot hit Kennedy from the rear.
My only little sliver of doubt is that he may not have acted alone, in that he may have been part of some sort of plot- whether he realized it or not.
I accept the probability that he was a lone nutjob- God knows we have lots of them in this country- it would take more time than I have this afternoon just to make a LIST of the whacked-out losers who have shot and killed people for no particular reason just in the past five years.
But I do not consider the "case closed". I don't think it will ever be closed to everyone's satisfaction.
- IF THIS indeed was suposed to be a professional hit, WHY wasn't an automatic weapon or at least a semi-automatic weapon used instead of a cheap bolt-action rifle?
AS it was, one of three shots missed - and that number very well could have been 3 of 3 if the car had started to swerve/weave side-to-side as an avoidance manuever that day. A semi-auto could have allowed several more shots to have been squeezed off in short order - leading me to believe this was a half-*ssed 'hit job' if it was really intended to end Kennedy's life ...
Unacceptable answers as to why a semi-auto wasn't used are in the vein of "he wanted to minimize collateral damage to other persons in the car by uisng a more accurate rifle" since Connally was almost killed too in this effort that killed Kennedy ...
It was the FBI that was "tracking" Oswald, not the Dallas police. Isn't that a little strange. The policeman that arrested Oswald was directed to the theater by the FBI!
WHAT do you want to bet the man who watched Tippet get shot IDENTIFIED Oswald in a lineup?
They lined Oswald up with Mexicans. Of course they're going to pick him.
Robert Oswald does. And he's Lee Harvey's blood brother (they have a half brother).
WHAT this tells me is you haven't fully researched Lee Harvey Oswald's background, life, history or psychological make-up.
I'm not a "conspiracy nutjob"- but then, if I were a nutjob, would I know it?
Hmmmmm...
Please do not post to me with anymore of your hair-brained and unresearched ideas or 'theories'. All I have to do to get your perspective is loose about 100 IQ points ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.