• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did Oswald kill Kennedy

Did Oswald kill Kennedy

  • Yes and he acted alone, warren report was right

    Votes: 30 48.4%
  • Yes but he was part of a larger plot

    Votes: 20 32.3%
  • No, somebody else did the shooting

    Votes: 12 19.4%

  • Total voters
    62
Ain't
Ready
.................To Be
Marines
Yet. :mrgreen:

Yeah, he asked me how to knock out a Marine and I told him, "throw sand against the wall and tell'em to hit the beach" and he knew I was too smart for the Corps.
 
Most, if not all of "these people" are dead by now.
If some men were involved in a conspitacy, why has NO-ONE come forward - 10-20 years ago ??

Because it doesn't need to be a large group, and they didn't want to undermine or put at risk whatever they worked under (CIA, secret service). I mean if secret service was involved at all and one of them came forward, no one will ever trust them again.
 
really? we set up a moving target at a olympic training camp and used a similar rifle. most of us had no problem making the same shot.

I think the doubts largely stem from how his head recoiled back and to the left. From the knoll, that would make more sense. Anyway, i'm more of the opinion he could have acted alone but with the guidance and complicity of others.

Other lingering questions like why did he recant his confession, and why was he killed right after?
 
Considering how society has become far more transparent ( not that it's to the powers that be likeing, of course) if it had been some kind of plot, it would've undoubtedly came out by now. Pure conspiracy to think otherwise.

Paul
 
I think the doubts largely stem from how his head recoiled back and to the left. From the knoll, that would make more sense. Anyway, i'm more of the opinion he could have acted alone but with the guidance and complicity of others.

Other lingering questions like why did he recant his confession, and why was he killed right after?

some things will never be answered sufficiently to put the conspiracy theories to rest
 
Because it doesn't need to be a large group, and they didn't want to undermine or put at risk whatever they worked under (CIA, secret service). I mean if secret service was involved at all and one of them came forward, no one will ever trust them again.

Certain facts. You know Oswald had to work for US Intelligence. He defected to spill radar secrets and wasn't prosecuted when he came back. All the Cuban groups he was associated with were CIA sponsored. Clay Shaw was acknowledged as CIA by Richard Helms. Carlos Marcello told a jailhouse cellmate informer that he had to kill Kennedy. Kennedy was trying to shut down the CIA, and the Cuban fiascos, and Vietnam, and minimize the military and he could have suffered blowback. That is a lot easier than Oswald's magic bullet turning around and hitting Kennedy in the front. That encapsulates my major points. No trace of nitrates on Oswald. No prints on gun during the week the FBI checked, and then , wowser, palm print. Why say conspiracy theory when you have a real conspiracy. Follow the money.
 
Certain facts. You know Oswald had to work for US Intelligence. He defected to spill radar secrets and wasn't prosecuted when he came back. All the Cuban groups he was associated with were CIA sponsored. Clay Shaw was acknowledged as CIA by Richard Helms. Carlos Marcello told a jailhouse cellmate informer that he had to kill Kennedy. Kennedy was trying to shut down the CIA, and the Cuban fiascos, and Vietnam, and minimize the military and he could have suffered blowback. That is a lot easier than Oswald's magic bullet turning around and hitting Kennedy in the front. That encapsulates my major points. No trace of nitrates on Oswald. No prints on gun during the week the FBI checked, and then , wowser, palm print. Why say conspiracy theory when you have a real conspiracy. Follow the money.

You read Mark Lane's book.
 
This is what I believe. There is no way Oswald could have assassinated President Kennedy all by himself.

Why not? It's these kinds of stupid statements that drive me crazy. He worked in the building that overlooked the motorcade - a route he knew because they had published it in the newspaper. He bought the rifle and took it into the building. It was an easy shot for even a mediocre marksman, which he was not. Why couldn't he have assassinated the President by himself?

I know many people graduate from fairly tales to conspiracy theories as they get older, but perhaps you could tell us why he couldn't have acted alone.
 
Because it doesn't need to be a large group, and they didn't want to undermine or put at risk whatever they worked under (CIA, secret service). I mean if secret service was involved at all and one of them came forward, no one will ever trust them again.

Proof? Evidence? Or just more wild speculation?
 
You read Mark Lane's book.

It figures. A cheap book by a hack author. On the bright side, he did make a load of money from publishing this swill.
 
Certain facts. You know Oswald had to work for US Intelligence. He defected to spill radar secrets and wasn't prosecuted when he came back. All the Cuban groups he was associated with were CIA sponsored. Clay Shaw was acknowledged as CIA by Richard Helms. Carlos Marcello told a jailhouse cellmate informer that he had to kill Kennedy. Kennedy was trying to shut down the CIA, and the Cuban fiascos, and Vietnam, and minimize the military and he could have suffered blowback. That is a lot easier than Oswald's magic bullet turning around and hitting Kennedy in the front. That encapsulates my major points. No trace of nitrates on Oswald. No prints on gun during the week the FBI checked, and then , wowser, palm print. Why say conspiracy theory when you have a real conspiracy. Follow the money.

Is that the Clay Shaw that it took a jury less time to acquit than it did to watch the filth that was Oliver Stone's ludicrous bit of fiction.

and there was nothing 'magic' about the bullet at all. Recent scientific experiments have proven fairly conclusively that the same bullet hit Kennedy and Connally. Of course its always possible that the people who produced that research and did those re-enactments and experiments were all part of the same conspiracy.:lamo

Here's one of the conspirators:

The JFK Assassination Single Bullet Theory
 
Is that the Clay Shaw that it took a jury less time to acquit than it did to watch the filth that was Oliver Stone's ludicrous bit of fiction.

and there was nothing 'magic' about the bullet at all. Recent scientific experiments have proven fairly conclusively that the same bullet hit Kennedy and Connally. Of course its always possible that the people who produced that research and did those re-enactments and experiments were all part of the same conspiracy.:lamo

Here's one of the conspirators:

The JFK Assassination Single Bullet Theory

Clay Shaw of the CIA.
 
Again, do you have proof? Evidence? Surely in 50 years with a conspiracy this massive, somebody must have spilled the beans. At least one deathbed confession? No?
 
No, its conspiracy theory bull****.



Your beliefs sound like religious conviction. Go with the flow. Ignore reality. No point in risking your sanity by allowing logic and reason to interfere, eh?
 
I believe Oswald shot him at least once. I have a big problem with him making the second shot with a mauser type rifle and get back on target and actually aim. Possible but not too likely.
 
Although one bullet was badly distorted and unusable for ballistics comparison, no other bullet has ever been found that came from a different rifle / gun than Oswald's. So I believe there was only one shooter.
 
Oh yeah? I can't wait to see a link for that.

mil record

Richard Helms: The Most Dangerous CIA Director | Veterans Today
"Helms’s responsibility for Oswald’s mission was demonstrated soon after he entered the USSR. He had Priscilla Johnson McMillan interview Oswald in Moscow, and file her story from there to rekindle his chances of being taken up by the Soviets for a mission in which he could take out a Soviet leader, particularly Khrushchev, if he got the chance. When this effort was apparently failing, Helms was responsible for the effort in the summer of 1960 to contact Oswald through people in the Domestic Contacts Division in the hope, it seems, of recruiting him as an agent, or at least giving the Agency subsequently an alibi about his not being one of theirs. A year later, Mrs. Marie Hyde, an apparent American agent, hitched a ride with Rita Naman and Monica Kramer, British subjects, to Minsk, where the KGB had an espionage training school, from Moscow where they had run into the ex-Marine, and Oswald was then photographed showing the tourists the City Square, especially its towering statue of Lenin."
 
Why not? It's these kinds of stupid statements that drive me crazy. He worked in the building that overlooked the motorcade - a route he knew because they had published it in the newspaper. He bought the rifle and took it into the building. It was an easy shot for even a mediocre marksman, which he was not. Why couldn't he have assassinated the President by himself?

I know many people graduate from fairly tales to conspiracy theories as they get older, but perhaps you could tell us why he couldn't have acted alone.

Because I believe the 2nd and 3rd shots came right on top of each other. Oswald wouldn't have had time to readjust (is that the word?) his rifle. Also, there is evidence that bullets were coming from more than one direction. I'm sorry, but the lone gunman story just doesn't hold up.
 
Because I believe the 2nd and 3rd shots came right on top of each other. Oswald wouldn't have had time to readjust (is that the word?) his rifle. Also, there is evidence that bullets were coming from more than one direction. I'm sorry, but the lone gunman story just doesn't hold up.

Well, you are incorrect about the shots. There were three and any competent marksman could have done it, which has been proven time and time again. There was no second gunman. Nobody has reported seeing one. What does exist is a lot of gullible people willing to believe any crazy theory out there.
 
Your beliefs sound like religious conviction. Go with the flow. Ignore reality. No point in risking your sanity by allowing logic and reason to interfere, eh?

Conspiracy theories freaks talking about logic and reason is hilarious. Conspiracy theorists generally consist of three basic groups: the gullible, who also believed in fairly tales long after the rest of us stopped believing; the right wing nuts who are convinced it was a communist inspired act, funded by Moscow/Cuba/Both; and the left wing nuts who subscribe to the U.S. Government/CIA/LBJ/MOB theory. All equally crazy.

The great thing about this is that, no matter what your level of delusion/paranoia/hatred is, there's a conspiracy theory out there for you.
 
I believe Oswald shot him at least once. I have a big problem with him making the second shot with a mauser type rifle and get back on target and actually aim. Possible but not too likely.

But competent marksman have done it numerous times, using the same type rifle Oswald used.
 
He was barely competent when in the Marine Corps, I have read he fired sharpshooter. Must have had a lot of practice in Moscow.
Well, you are incorrect about the shots. There were three and any competent marksman could have done it, which has been proven time and time again. There was no second gunman. Nobody has reported seeing one. What does exist is a lot of gullible people willing to believe any crazy theory out there.
 
Back
Top Bottom