Who do you guys think murdered the President in 1963?

Princess Diana.

quote:

Originally posted by Bretwalda:
Princess Diana.

Excuse me?

Conspiracy theory. Had enough of them. Move on.

It's a question about history in the history section. I'm sure that's allowed. And I never said I was a conspiracy therist.

Of course it's a legitimate question; it just seems to be encouraging conspiracies. Who do I think murdered him. Lee Harvey Oswald of course. As to why, I think the jury is still well out on that one.

Is there no-one else reading this thread?

a lone gunman,shooting from a book depository....I should imagine

By the way I am one of the 'nuts', as some people would put it (I don't mean any of you by the way) who believe in a conspiracy. I have done years of research and concluded that there was a conspiracy.

Where is the proof that someone else as well as or instead of Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy?

Buried at Roswell.

quote:

Originally posted by B@sil:
Where is the proof that someone else as well as or instead of Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy?

I know it was probably a sarcastic comment but everywhere! Check the Zapruder film. Watch Oliver Stone's 'JFK' and check out the transcripts of Jim Garrison's trial.

Thats like saying watch Signs for proof of alien lifeforms .

quote:

Originally posted by Don't Stop Movin':

quote:

Originally posted by B@sil:
Where is the proof that someone else as well as or instead of Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy?

I know it was probably a sarcastic comment but everywhere! Check the Zapruder film. Watch Oliver Stone's 'JFK' and check out the transcripts of Jim Garrison's trial.

The Zapruder film showed Kennedy's head being half blown away. Where is the conclusive proof in that piece of film, which shows beyond reasonable doubt that Lee harvey Oswald was not the sole assassin?

Well do research and you'll find that the Zapruder film has been altered. And the classic 'back and to the left' movement of the President's head before the fatal headshot.

Oh and Owain Glyndwr, Oliver Stone's film is based on Jim Garrisons book. And so if you know about the assassination you'll know he was the only person to bring a trial against anyone in the shooting of the President.

If you think that Stone's film is the latest and last word in academic research on this issue then you have a lot of catching up to do. Kevin Costner saying "back, and to the left" over and over again does not a conspiracy theory make.

There is no evidence for any other theory and the most recent work on this (including a superb documentary a year or two ago using the latest technology) leaves Oswald beyond reasonable doubt.

I know that "Stone's film is the latest and last word in academic research on this issue then you have a lot of catching up to do" actually.

"There is no evidence for any other theory and the most recent work on this (including a superb documentary a year or two ago using the latest technology) leaves Oswald beyond reasonable doubt."

I think know you are HUGELY mistaken! The gun they 'found' with Lee's prints on is a different one than in the pictures the Warren Commission used. And the bullet casings left three IN A ROW. Bullets do not fall like that when they are fired out of a gun. Would you like me to continue...

Would I like you to continue? Not really. There are enough websites out there that claim to support your viewpoint and if you want to believe in a conspiracy then go ahead.

As it is, neither of your statements is evidence of anything. There is no hard proof that the gun is different, nor is how bullet casings do or don't fall sufficient basis for a conspiracy. Neither of these contested factoids proves a thing. But again, you'll look for the evidence that fits your theory.

As for JFK, Stone's film has been widely discredited, which is no surprise as Stone is a film maker not a historian.

The only way you could know that I'm "HUGELY" mistaken is if you were involved in the conspiracy yourself. As it is, it's your opinion against mine, and sadly we're both happy with the evidence we've got.

If not Oswald, who was it? The Cubans? The anti-communist right? The CIA? LBJ? The KGB? Actually, no forget it - just because he was an average (if young and attractive) President doesn't mean there has to be any wider meaning behind his death.

quote:

Originally posted by Fala:
As it is, it's your opinion against mine, and sadly we're both happy with the evidence we've got.

I appreciate your point of view and you're right we have our own views and are happy with them. I'm just trying to state my case. And I appreciate that Stone isn't a histoian and I know that there are falsehoods in the film.

And there is photographic proof the gun is different.

I started this thread because I wanted to debate and hear other peoples points of view. Which is what we are doing. The truth of the matter is try as I may I can't change your mind and you can't change mine. Which I suppose is how it should be.

I haven't finally decided yet, there is a lot of convincing evidence that it was Oswald acting alone in a mad moment and that people only want to believe otherwise because it seems such a sad and pointless thing to happen.
For a long time I believed it was done with J. Edgar Hoover's knowledge and blessing because of the kind of man he was and because of the "magic bullet" scene in Stone's film.

I'm not convinced that the recent documentary that is mentioned leaves Oswald "beyond a reasonable doubt" However it fairly convincingly shows that the "magic bullet" argument cannot hold water. The computer graphics and the actual timing evidence of the Zapruder film shows that three shots by Oswald were possible and that three shots from the book depositary would have caused the injuries because Kennedy's seat was offset and higher, not like the chairs in Stone's film.
On the other hand it doesn't prove that Oswald did fire all three shots. Apart from disproving the motorcycle cop radio story, it also says absolutely nothing about reports of activity at the grassy knoll or the information given to Jim Garrison by his "deep throat" friend and others. I also saw a theory that a gunman was in under a drain ahead of the car. So are the makers of the documentary just ignoring all that evidence and if so has there been pressure on them to debunk it that way? It depends what you believe of Oliver Stone's film and whether you believe that Kennedy's head would move back when shot from the back.

Ask the audience or go 50-50. I am sitting on the picket fence for the time being, just wishing that Kennedy would have finished his natural term on earth. If we had been through the Cuban misile crisis in GW Bush's presidency we would still be underground waiting for the radioactive dust to settle.

quote:

Originally posted by Don't Stop Movin':
I started this thread because I wanted to debate and hear other peoples points of view. Which is what we are doing. The truth of the matter is try as I may I can't change your mind and you can't change mine. Which I suppose is how it should be.

Actually I would consider that unfortunate. Surely the ideal result of discussing something and each providing evidence is that one person will be finally convinced that the other is right after all. A wise person is one who is willing to change their beliefs if the evidence supports such a change. A very wise person and a true scientist is the one who actually looks for evidence to disprove their own beliefs. A fool is the person who has fixed beliefs and only accepts evidence that upholds that belief.
I'm not saying you should believe that something that happened once is a natural law of physics, but rejecting evidence as "not significant" just because you would have to change your opinion to believe it, is not good research and probably not good science.