Slashdot Mirror


Experts Now Say JFK Bullet Analysis Was Wrong

Spy Handler writes "Researchers analyzing bullet fragments from the 1963 Kennedy assassination using new techniques say that the government's 1976 conclusion that the bullets came from only one gun (Oswald's) is wrong. 'Using new guidelines set forth by the National Academy of Sciences for proper bullet analysis, Tobin and his colleagues at Texas A&M re-analyzed the bullet evidence used by the 1976 House Select Committee on Assassinations, which concluded that only one shooter, Oswald, fired the shots that killed Kennedy in Dallas. The committee's finding was based in part on the research of now-deceased University of California at Irvine chemist Vincent P. Guinn. He used bullet lead analysis to conclude that the five bullet fragments recovered from the Kennedy assassination scene came from just two bullets, which were traced to the same batch of bullets Oswald owned.'"

550 comments

  1. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's about damn time. Maybe in another 44 years we'll also learn the truth about 9/11?

    1. Re:Finally by untaken_name · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

      You'd be really blue after 44 years even if we did find out the truth then.

    2. Re:Finally by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It wasn't done by the US, as much as people like you seem to believe/wish it were.

      And yes, we've all seen the alleged "proof" (which is laughable at best).

      A decent compendium debunking most of the more common little tidbits is here:

      http://www.loosechangeguide.com/

      (Yes, it's related to Loose Change, but since Loose Change is a collection of some of the more popular conspiracy theories/doubts/etc. about 9/11, it's a good place to start.)

      There might be a lot of corrupt politicians, ulterior motives, and evil deeds in the world, but the US executing 9/11 on itself, and all that is implicit in that from technical, personnel, logistics, military, and numerous other perspectives, simply doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

      You can say the US invited the attacks because of mideast policy. You can even say that some people might have not shed a tear in terms of the ability to then use 9/11 as a "Pearl Harbor"-type incident. But unfortunately, it was 19 mostly Saudi radical Islamic extremists - even if one believes they are monsters of the United States' own creation - that attacked the US on 9/11.

      Not the US government or military itself. Not the shadow government. Not the Illuminati.

      It's actually quite incredible what some conspiracy loons believe about 9/11. It simply does not stand up to any logic at all, or even common sense. Buildings weren't wired with explosives. It wasn't a drone or missile that hit the Pentagon. It wasn't remote control military aircraft that hit the towers. Voice changing technology wasn't used to make fake cell phone calls from Flight 93. Cell phones *do* work on planes (in various circumstances). The FCC/FAA cell phone "ban" isn't a trick so that people will "find out" that cell phones "don't work" under Flight 93-like conditions. Saying that something falls at "free fall speeds" (e.g., in reference to WTC 7) is meaningless and has no bearing on the discussion. Bringing up things like some NORAD exercise or Operation Northwoods or all kinds of tenuous, ridiculous, and (co)incidental information about some pilot who worked some particular place 25 years ago is irrelevant and meaningless. All/some of the planes weren't secretly landed safely at a military installation and then the occupants murdered. Hundreds/thousands of people haven't been "bought off" or "disappeared" to "cover up" the "truth" about 9/11.

      I could go on and on and on and on. But ultimately, the people who want to believe 9/11 was an inside job will keep believing it, and any amount of proof otherwise won't sway them, and can indeed just be explained away as part of the conspiracy. Kind of like rabid Creationists, almost, frankly...

      If you want to hate policy and a political view, go for it. But just realize that lunacy takes away any legitimacy from your debate, and getting other people to believe this tripe will eventually be the entire movement's undoing, or the end of *actual* truth (as opposed to your "truth") in any debate on this topic. And frankly, I think that may be what some people want.

    3. Re:Finally by RockoTDF · · Score: 2, Funny

      In addition, the US Military would not kill their own like that, or attack their own headquarters. To me that is what ultimately debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    4. Re:Finally by MightyMait · · Score: 1

      In addition, the US Military would not kill their own like that, or attack their own headquarters. To me that is what ultimately debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories.

      Right, they wouldn't kill their own like *that*. Rather, they would kill their own via nuclear testing in the '50s, Agent Orange in the 70's, and depleted uranium, unsafe vaccines, etc. today.

      Debunk that! Oh...I forgot something else: not providing soldiers with the best available body and vehicle armor until shamed into doing so (or at least saying they would do so) by their own troops.
      --
      Nothing interesting to say...MUST...NOT...REPLY...ohtheheckwithit.
    5. Re:Finally by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah. Because we do already know the "truth" about 9/11, and nearly all of the mechanics and particulars of the attack, holes and omissions and mistakes aside, is quite nicely, thoroughly, and comprehensively covered in the 9/11 Commission Report, which conspiracy theorists think is the biggest whitewash in US history to throw people off the "truth" of what "really happened" on 9/11.

      And for people who point out holes and mistakes in the Commission's report, they apparently don't understand how commissions like this - and their reports - work. They're not living documents or someone's blog. They're painstakingly compiled with all of the information available at the time, and then written, edited, and frozen. And when they are frozen, they stay that way. Errors and all. Except that doesn't make the other 95% of the factual information in the report any less true.

      Not to mention that all of the convoluted theories people have, a mere fraction of a fraction of some of the most common I rattled off in my reply, just utterly defy any kind of logic or common sense and usually both.

    6. Re:Finally by Brad+Eleven · · Score: 5, Funny

      I could go on and on and on and on.
      Ehhhh, you kind of did.
      --
      "Press to test."
      (click)
      "Release to detonate."
    7. Re:Finally by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1, Informative

      Popular Mechanics, of all mags, came out with a dang good debunking as well.

    8. Re:Finally by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      People don't think that is anywhere near comprehensive enough, and believe that the author (Benjamin Chertoff) is a cousin of DHS secretary Michael Chertoff (as if that, even if true, somehow invalidates the debunking).

      Here, have a sampling of the wackos.

    9. Re:Finally by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

      The difference between what you suggested and 9/11 is that 9/11 would be intentional murder of their comrades as opposed to ignorance of the dangers of radiation, agent orange, etc. The higher ups in the militar that would have had to order/authorize 9/11 would be signing the death warrants on their friends, family members, and so on.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    10. Re:Finally by Var1abl3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The truth about 9/11???? WTF are you talking about??? As I stood and looked up at the buildings just before the plane hit I can tell you the truth: "A plane, moving very fast, hit each building causing major damage resulting in an eventual collapse of both buildings. As for Building 7 a fire broke out, caused by damage from the falling debris, (this was the emergency management building with something like 10K gallons of fuel in it for the backup generators) that was all but ignored by the first responders who were left alive partly because with the cloud of dust and smoke it was all but impossible to even see it let alone get new fire trucks there to put the fire out, that eventually weakened the structure causing its collapse."
      I know all you tin foil hat folks have a hard time with fire melting steel but look at what happened in California a few weeks ago when a tanker truck loaded with fuel crashed and caught fire causing the collapse of the overpass. Sorry to break the news to you but heat does soften steel long before it actually liquefies. If you do not like this country so much, or do not trust it then move to IRAN or somewhere that you will be more comfortable...... until you can show me proof that it was an "inside" job just shut the fuck up...
      BTW with the way all the "leaks" have been coming out of the CIA, FBI, NSA etc. do you really think our government could keep an "inside" job of this scale quite for so long? And if Bush is as dumb as you leftest keep telling me he is how could he have planed such a huge attack without blundering it in the few months he was in office prior to the attacks? Like I said STFU or leave you dumb bastard or should I say Anonymous Coward.... If you want to rant at least have the balls to give us your name!

      Troll this all you want!

    11. Re:Finally by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Steven Jones is a godsend to you guys, I know.

      I'm sorry, but you have to ask yourself:

      Was 9/11 a conspiracy perfectly executed by the US government, that required hundreds, at a minimum, of people at all levels of government and private industry to be completely complicit (and silent after the fact, when we can't even keep our most classified programs secret), which murdered over 3000 US citizens, then made it look like it was mostly Saudis that did it and masterminded by a Saudi (when Saudi Arabia is an official ally), who had previously been partially aided by the CIA against the Russians, but then supposedly "concealed" that it was Saudis that did it, as an excuse to warmonger in completely and utterly unrelated nations in the mideast?

      Look, this doesn't have ANYTHING to do with "mainstream media". If you believe the kinds of things you think these things are telling you, you MUST also believe what I said in the prior paragraph, and that makes no sense. If you DO, on the other hand, believe essentially that, then I feel very, very sorry for you, and there won't be any further productive discussion between us on this topic.

      And yes, as someone who also happens to have formal education in physics, I can read a cold fusion physicist's paper and absolutely not "question" the "official story", which is that two of the largest buildings on earth collapsed in an unprecedented fashion in an unprecedented event. There is nothing in the mechanics of the collapse that contradicts any laws of physics in the "official" (i.e., true) story.

    12. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to attempt to read all the way to the end of that paper, but when I came to the phrase "...the evidence is very strong that real planes hit
      the towers" I have to say that my opinion of the author dropped to somewhere around the level of douchetard.

    13. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I do not believe that the USA government planned/helped 9/11, they have tried to gain on it a lot.

      Look at Iraq, any one with common sense can tell that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. so why did we need to invade them?

    14. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would say that wouldnt you. Youre one of them.

    15. Re:Finally by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

      The thing that keeps pissing me off is the nuts who claim that the towers were destroyed in a controlled demolition when 1) a building that's being imploded starts with detonations at ground level and 2), preparing a building for implosion is a major construction project. It takes weeks to strip the drywall from around the structural members, place the shaped charges, wire the detonators back to a control panel, etc, etc. Thousands of people worked in those buildings; we're supposed to swallow the notion that nobody would notice all that activity?

      Rosie O'Donnell gives stupid, loud-mouthed fat chicks a bad name.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    16. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, they prefer killing their own off with friendly fire or incompitence.

    17. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've proven yourself to be a presumptuous and exceedingly smug too. Ever hear of compartmentalization?

      Yes it has EVERYTHING to do with knowledge. No I feel sorry for you. If the Saudis were solely responsible, then why are we not at war with Saudi Arabia right now, or Pakisistan (do a read up on Randy Glass and operation diamondback)? You dont accept we were deliberately mislead to go into Iraq?
      Yes the collapse does contradict physics. I have a formal education in Physics too.
      Forget the physics, look at all the other evidence, pre, during and post-9/11.
      I would suggest you stop acting like a swarmy slashdork and try to be a true critical skeptic.

    18. Re:Finally by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I hate the Bush Administration, I learned from an early experience in IT to never attribute to malice what you can to incompetence. These guys simply were incompetent and then tried to hide it; which is where all the unnecessary secrecy stems from. I've seen a too many of the 9/11 conspiracies debunked already to give credence to an evil plot.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    19. Re:Finally by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      Any yahoo can make a claim about the JFK assassination being a conspiracy and get their 15 minutes. The fact of the matter is that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. He fired three times hitting Governor Connelly once and President Kennedy twice. There is not one shred of evidence of so much as a second shooter, just wishful thinking and tinfoil hat nonsense. Read "A Simple Act Of Murder" by Mark Fuhrman. It lays a lot of the conspiracy nonsense to rest.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    20. Re:Finally by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      More to the point, if you were wanting to knock those buildings down for the scare of it all, you'd just go for the structural supports in the sub-basement and let the sucker topple like a tree. Implosions are only done in a painstaking fashion when you're trying to minimize death and destruction.

      "Oh, but the conspirators wanted to minimize collateral damage to the rest of NYC because this is all part of their plan."

      Well shit, why not just run nerve gas through the tower AC systems? You get your thousands-plus death toll AND the buildings are still standing.

      If you're already planning on knocking the buildings down with explosives, why add airplanes and complicate the matter? No, it's real simple. You plant your explosives, wait for the buildings to fill up with the day's workers, phone in the bomb threat fifteen minutes before the timers are set to blow, and then kick back to watch the fireworks on the TV. There would still be mass death and horror for everyone to gawk at and none of the extra complications of rigging the whole thing for a controlled demolition or airplanes and the like. And wouldn't watching a thousand foot tall building topple like a tree be even scarier than pancaking?

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    21. Re:Finally by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

      It's actually quite incredible what some conspiracy loons believe about 9/11

      You should check the investigations about the 11M bombing in Madrid, it's basically the same conspiracy loons but applied to our country. There's a buch of people who thinks that the (current) socialist government prepared the bombings with colaboration from ETA (a basque terrorist/separatist group, kinda like the IRA) to take the PP (conservatives) off from the government. IOW, the current government would have killed 192 people to make the whole country look like this bombing was a punishment because of the support to the Irak war (Spain supported the Iraq war despite of opossition of +90% of population, including government voters). Then, it make everybody, including police, believe that this was an islamist attack. They say that the current government is "hiding the truth".

      The difference from your conspiracy loons to ours is that because our country is a joke, the conspiracy loons get more media coverage. The conspiracy theories were started in "El Mundo", the second most read national newspaper, which supports conservative ideology. The second most listened radio of the country, "Cadena Cope", also conservative (in fact is owned by the "spanish episcopal conference") also supports the conspiracy theories, etc. Even the previous gobernment party partially supports them and sometimes talk about in the congress. Sight :(

    22. Re:Finally by ndansmith · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sorry to break the news to you but heat does soften steel long before it actually liquefies. That is true. However, liquid steel was found in the basement of the World Trade Center weeks after 9/11. This requires explanation because most people agree that the fires in the WTC towers were not hot enough to melt steel. Food for thought it all.
    23. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail to grasp the context, his remarks of 'real planes' is toward people like Dr. Fetzer & Morgan Reynolds who hold onto the absurd notion that the planes were holograms.

    24. Re:Finally by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That is true. However, liquid steel was found in the basement of the World Trade Center weeks after 9/11. Some metal that had been liquified was found in the wreckage; there is no reason to believe it was steel (as opposed to some of the many other metals with lower melting points in the building) -- it was certainly not identified as steel by anyone except those who want to believe in a grand conspiracy.
    25. Re:Finally by j35ter · · Score: 1

      And if Bush is as dumb as you leftest keep telling me he is how could he have planed such a huge attack without blundering it in the few months he was in office prior to the attacks?

      Well, he screwed up his choreography at the school, when he was told about the attacks!
      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    26. Re:Finally by msslc3 · · Score: 1
      Here is the truth about the JFK assassination. I don't know what happened. I was in New York City at the time. I didn't hear about the shooting until afterwards. So I will always firmly believe that I don't know the full truth.

      Bullets? Grassy Knoll? Who cares? JFK died and a piece of my innocence and idealism died with him.

    27. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      quite nicely, thoroughly, and comprehensively covered in the 9/11 Commission Report


      Kinda like the single-bullet theory was covered in the Warren Commission report?
    28. Re:Finally by billcopc · · Score: 1

      I think what the OP means is that we only have two choices: believe what the government tells us about 9/11, or don't. Either way, it doesn't change much as it's already happened and there isn't anything to be done about it anymore. I'm not sure what to believe, but I'm a cynical anti-american bastard who loves to argue so really, I'm biased. I apply the same logic to the JFK assassination, because at the end of the day, I really don't give a flying fuck who shot who in the what, I only care that neither of those people is Moi, and that no matter how far people dig, few are able to tell truth from lies. Your experience with military intelligence might make it easier for you, but for the layman it's just a big game of he-said-she-said. I'm quite proud to say that I can find far more interesting things to waste my time on than petty bickering.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    29. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      When you start with "737", there's no point in even going further. Please kill yourself.

    30. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your crazy

    31. Re:Finally by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't you get the feeling that arguing with the "9/11 Inside Job" folks is like arguing with your dog?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    32. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok 757......typo.... look for yourself. Don't listen to me. I don't personally believe that gov't did the towers. But I would like some of the items explained.

    33. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rosie o'donnell was talking about wtc7, not mentioned at length in the report.

    34. Re:Finally by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      If you do not like this country so much, or do not trust it then move to IRAN or somewhere that you will be more comfortable.

      You'd think people would get tired of using this old chestnut . . .

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    35. Re:Finally by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's amazing how this offtopic, ranting, flambaiting, straw-man beating, troll of a post got modded up to 5. That's okay --- I'll take the negative mod-bombs from your little fan club.

    36. Re:Finally by q-the-impaler · · Score: 1

      Sure, the Bush Administration might have been incompetent, but it wasn't ONLY the incompetence of the Bush Administration that left the system so open to attack. The Bush administration took office on January 20, 2001, and that was hardly enough time to single handedly ruin the security of our country. It has been compounded by the increasing complacency of the Nation as a whole since the cold war (back when people were looking over their shoulders all the time in fear of nuclear war).

      --
      Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
    37. Re:Finally by ndansmith · · Score: 1

      That is true. However, liquid steel was found in the basement of the World Trade Center weeks after 9/11. Some metal that had been liquified was found in the wreckage; there is no reason to believe it was steel (as opposed to some of the many other metals with lower melting points in the building) -- it was certainly not identified as steel by anyone except those who want to believe in a grand conspiracy. Hey, knock it off with these rational explanations! You are ruining my conspiracy theory fun. ;-)
    38. Re:Finally by eat+here_get+gas · · Score: 1

      Mark Furhman?

      the same fuckwad from OJ Simpson fame? lol.

      --
      the significance of a signature is insignificant
    39. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about damn time. Maybe in another 44 years we'll also learn the truth about 9/11?


      The great thing about the modern age is, if in 44 years the truth does come out we'll be able to look back on archives of this thread and learn a few lessons about the nature of user moderation and mob mentality.
    40. Re:Finally by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

      Conspiracy theorists might, in general, be a little nutty, but they tend to dig up a lot of good questions. And disproving the conspiracy theorists forces people to take a much closer look than they normally would. Just calling them nutjobs and moving on doesn't change the fact that they often pose perfectly valid questions.

      Check out This website is a great source of paranoid documentary, among other things, including a great 9/11 conspiracy movie.

      Now, the JFK assassination must've been one of the most fascinating conspiracies in the past century, but after reading about it, I would have to go with the 'mainstream' belief that Oswald and Ruby were both acting independently. Still, we know Ruby had mob ties and that Oswald had left a note with the FBI days before the assassination, the contents of which were never disclosed. Furthermore Kennedy had a lot of enemies in a time when the mob was fairly effective-- the new Cuban regime, the mafia itself and it's been said that J. Edgar Hoover didn't like Kennedy (not sure why).

      The fact remains that Oswald was insane enough, and trained enough (by the Soviets), to carry out the assassination on his own. Ruby was also an eccentric guy who's claim rings true-- that Oswald would never had gotten the death penalty he deserved, and so Ruby took it upon himself to do it.

      And if there were two gunmen, then it wouldn't change much of what is known. Because we'll never ever know who the second gunman was.

    41. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paranoid much?

    42. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at Iraq, any one with common sense can tell that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. so why did we need to invade them?
      That question is sooooo 2003.
    43. Re:Finally by tehshen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe it was liquid tinfoil.

      --
      Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
    44. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Perhaps I've lost the thread in all of this conspiracy-or-not back-and forth, but I presume we're just talking about the Pentagon collision here? Wasn't the wing involved mostly unoccupied, due to recent (or in-progress) remodeling? I'm unmoved by the "the military wouldn't do that to themselves" counter-conspiracy argument for this particular detail. Personally, I'm still sitting on the fence: some aspects of the conspiracy theories seem a bit too far fetched to me, but most of the "debunkings" of the more reasoned objections to details of the "official" line seem little better than hand-waving. Frankly, I don't care too much if it was Islamic fundamentalists or some sinister hidden internal faction: either way it was an act of terrorism that has succeeded at continuing to damage freedoms in this country.

    45. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truth about 9/11???? WTF are you talking about??? As I stood and looked up at the buildings just before the plane hit I can tell you the truth: "A plane, moving very fast, hit each building causing major damage resulting in an eventual collapse of both buildings.

      Well then I can tell you the complete truth about JFK: a bullet, moving very fast, impacted his body, causing major damage resulting in his eventual death.

      I know all you tin foil hat folks have a hard time with bullets causing death but look at what happened in Virginia a few weeks ago when a student with two loaded semiautomatic handguns started shooting other students. Sorry to break the news to you but bullets do kill people. If you do not like this country so much, or do not trust it then move to IRAN or somewhere that you will be more comfortable......

    46. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could be missing the point that maybe we knew about the 9/11 event was going to happen and let it. And then there is the physical evidence of tower 7 falling PERFECT. 3 out of 3 building falling perfect! What are the odds of that? And by perfect I mean all the supporting members failing in sequence and in correct order to cause them to fall the way they did. You have to wonder. I do. That just doesn't happen in random events.

    47. Re:Finally by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Because we do already know the "truth" about 9/11, and nearly all of the mechanics and particulars of the attack, holes and omissions and mistakes aside, is quite nicely, thoroughly, and comprehensively covered in the 9/11 Commission Report

      Some details are omitted, of course, and will remain unknown for some time. Because Sandy Burglar stole some of the evidence out of the National Archives and destroyed it.

      One has to wonder, but knowing that bunch, it was some petty secret they wanted to cover up, not a grand conspiracy.

    48. Re:Finally by technomom · · Score: 1

      You forgot that it was all spearheaded by a guy who can't pronounce the word "nuclear".

    49. Re:Finally by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't argue with my dog. I roll up a newspaper and tell him to shut the hell up.

      I wish it were that easy with the kind of nuts who deal in this kind of conspiracy. Then again, I actually married a woman who believes the Moon Landing was a hoax.

    50. Re:Finally by crumley · · Score: 1

      That is true. However, liquid steel was found in the basement of the World Trade Center weeks after 9/11. This requires explanation because most people agree that the fires in the WTC towers were not hot enough to melt steel. Food for thought it all. There are several possibles explanations. One comes from some really basic physics - conservation of energy. When objects fall, gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. When the objects hit the ground some of the kinetic energy is converted into thermal energy, causing the object to heat up. The same thing happens if you repeated bounce a rubber ball. If an entire skyscraper collapses, it would be more surprising if there was no melted metal found.

      Also, fires burned in the WTC debris for a long time after the collapse. It would be quite possible for pockets of fire to get hot enough to metal metal. And as others have said, there has been no reliable evidence that the metal found was steel.

      --
      Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
    51. Re:Finally by Plutonite · · Score: 3, Informative

      The best debunking I ever saw was Maddox's usual black satire:
      http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=91 1_morons

    52. Re:Finally by Hagbard_Celine_fnord · · Score: 1

      Not the Illuminati. I'd have to disagree.
    53. Re:Finally by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      A friend was witness to a garage fire that ended up melting a bicycle into a bit of a puddle.

      So, just open-air burning wood can get hot enough to melt at least one metal. Now how much more hot would you guess that a fuel fire would get?

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    54. Re:Finally by ukemike · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I know all you tin foil hat folks have a hard time with fire melting steel but look at what happened in California a few weeks ago when a tanker truck loaded with fuel crashed and caught fire causing the collapse of the overpass. Sorry to break the news to you but heat does soften steel long before it actually liquefies. If you do not like this country so much, or do not trust it then move to IRAN or somewhere that you will be more comfortable...... until you can show me proof that it was an "inside" job just shut the fuck up...
      swearing doesn't make your weird anger any more convincing...

      There are significant differences between the freeway collapse and the WTC collapse. The fire in California was fueled by gasoline. The fires in WTC7 were fueled by diesel. Gas burns MUCH faster than diesel releasing energy at a higher rate. The fire in California was in the open air and was able to burn without restriction. The fire in WTC7 was burning in an enclosed space with limited oxygen. In California only one steel support needed to completely fail for collapse to begin and the debris fell asymmetrically with one corner still attached, as would be expected. WTC7 collapsed entirely within it's own footprint and at nearly free fall acceleration, to do so would have required simultaneous failure of most of the steel columns and on multiple floors.

      The biggest difference is that the freeway collapsed exactly as physics would expect it to under the known circumstances. WTC collapsed in an exceedingly unlikely fashion for the known circumstances.

      Does that mean that George W. Bush, in concert with Elvis and Israeli Space Aliens, destroyed the WTC towers? Of course not. It does mean that the official explanation is at odds with the basic physics. Which means that the story isn't true, and further investigation is warranted. Nothing more nothing less.
      BR oh... if you want to live in a place that doesn't tolerate open discussion, then there are lots of places available, such as Iran. Please don't try to make my good old USA a place where dissenting views are bullied out of the discussion.
      --
      -- QED
    55. Re:Finally by Mix+Master+Nixon · · Score: 1

      "If you do not like this country so much, or do not trust it then move to IRAN or somewhere that you will be more comfortable...... until you can show me proof that it was an "inside" job just shut the fuck up..."

      Ah, that golden oldie "America: Love It Or Leave It!" It always comes back to the classics for people who aren't comfortable with people who question their government. In Revolutionary times you'd have made a fine British loyalist, but I doubt the people who were the real American patriots would have much to do with you. Certainly they'd have been disgusted with your notion of the government somehow being worthy of our blind trust.

      Did it ever occur to you that the reason that people are so upset by the notion that 9/11 was perpetrated by our own government is BECAUSE they love America, and they don't particularly want to move somewhere else?

      If you really loved your country, how would you feel about a group within the government who'd either allow or actually assist in the execution of thousands of your fellow Americans, to grease the wheels for an ideological agenda of highly questionable origins? I'm not saying that's what happened, but that is a common thread in alternative explanations of the events of 9/11, and if that actually happened, I'd hope that it would piss you off. The people of America > the Government. The only people who think that "love your country" and "love your government" are the same thing are either fascists, or the sheep that blindly follow them. Either way, they're no real friends of America.

      Call them crazy, call them delusional, but when you make blanket statements calling into question the patriotism of 9/11 skeptics, you show that you have no idea about why this is such a fucking incredible country. Maybe it's the people who'd silence anyone who questions the government who'd be better off in a totalitarian state, and not the people who love America enough to ask the hard questions, the ones with answers that we may not like.

      --
      Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
      --Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
    56. Re:Finally by lysdexia · · Score: 1

      Actually he was waiting for one of his Secret Service guys to run over to the Wal-Mart to get some of them nice Shea Butter baby wipes.

      If one explosively releases the entire contents of one's bowels, only the cool, soothing power of pure Shea Butter impregnated in a tough, disposable medium will do.

      Soothing one's self image after being caught on camera, vacuously continuing your photo op while waiting for your flappers to decide which bellows to haul on - well, that will take something a bit stronger.

      Why am I reminded of the "Yawning Lieutenant" in Band of Brothers every time I see that clip of Dubya reading My Pet Goat to the kids?

    57. Re:Finally by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      This was my favorite part of that post:

      Forget the physics, look at all the other evidence, pre, during and post-9/11.

      Pretty much sums up the whole truther movement in one, concise statement.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    58. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > > Not the Illuminati.
      >
      >I'd have to disagree.

      You keep out of this, Hagbard. This thread is confusing enough without you dragging me into it!
      - John Dillinger

    59. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0203/pentagon.cr ash.gallery/7.pentagon.burning.jpg
      look like a "10 foot wide hole"?
      Or are you perhaps refering to this:
      http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/exit 2.jpg
      , which is a 'punch out' hole from either the nose of the plane, or created by the rescue workers onsite (depends on who you ask). Either way, it is NOT the main crash area.

      no left over debris

      http://www.pentagonresearch.com/debris.html

      video and pictures of the Pentagon still completely intact

      This:
      http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/074-large.j pg
      is "intact"?

      See http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/dama ge_comp.jpg also

    60. Re:Finally by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      Huh? We are talking about government conspiracies in relation to an event directly linked to one of the most hotly debated political conspiracy theories in American History. This is not offtopic. Dave did use strong language in his criticism of the loonies who suggest the US government intentionally murdered 3000 of it's own citizens then filmed the event to justify a war, but he has a point. Really, what kind of an idiot would believe that kind of claim, with "evidence" that comprises mainly of bad engineering knowledge and spooky sounding videos made by teenagers on youtube? From the link I posted above:

      Character 1: Sir, operation 9-11 commencing!
      Character 2: Excellent! So everything is going to plan?
      Character 1: There is just one thing..how will we get thousands of FBI agents, firefighters, demolition experts, scientists, CIA, rescue workers, police, airline pilots, NSA, House of Representatives, air-traffic control, military contractors and the entire the Bush administration to keep it secret?

      [disturbed silence]

      Character 1: Lunch?
      Character 2: I'll drive.

    61. Re:Finally by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You've proven yourself to be a presumptuous and exceedingly smug too. Ever hear of compartmentalization? Yes. I dealt directly with compartmentalization when I was an intelligence analyst in the Army. Compartmentalization is for hiding details, not the big picture. For example, you compartmentalize the information revealed to factory workers building M-1A1 Abrams tanks, or B-2 Spirits. That way, none of them know enough to single-handedly compromise the entire project--- but all of them, every single one, know they're building a tank or a bomber. Seriously, I'd love to hear your explaination how "compartmentalization" could sufficiently obscure something as big as planting explosives in the WTC or "vanishing" one or more 757s.

      Yes it has EVERYTHING to do with knowledge. No I feel sorry for you. If the Saudis were solely responsible, then why are we not at war with Saudi Arabia right now, or Pakisistan (do a read up on Randy Glass and operation diamondback)? For the same reason we haven't burned down Buffalo, New York to retaliate for McVeigh blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City. The Saudi and Pakistani governments didn't send those 19 on their mission.

      You dont accept we were deliberately mislead to go into Iraq? Irrelevant. Good ol' uncle George was itchin' to go into Iraq since day 1 of his presidency, looking to finish what his pa started. 9-11 gave him a convenient excuse. Honestly, you people call GWB an idiot, then you claim he pulled off all these grand conspiracies.

      Yes the collapse does contradict physics. I have a formal education in Physics too. A) no it didn't, and B) a little education doesn't make you right. Popular Mechanics assembled the analysis of a number of experts, and I doubt your education and experience is anywhere near as extensive as theirs.

      Forget the physics, look at all the other evidence, pre, during and post-9/11.
      I would suggest you stop acting like a swarmy slashdork and try to be a true critical skeptic.

      Sorry. None of the [skeptic/conspiracy nut] stuff is even a little credible. You need to offer credible counter-evidence, rather than smugly braying "open your eyes, you fools!"
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    62. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. When told about the first plane hitting the first tower, he should immediately have thought "terrorists" instead of "accident". And, thinking that, he should have jumped up, shouted "America's under attack" (thereby frightening the kids in the room), and run out.

      Grow up.

    63. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the interview on PBS with Larry Silverstein was just some fake interview that all the tin foil hat conspiracy theory nut jobs dreamed up. You know the one where he said they decided to pull the building.... I guess pull the building means to let it catch on fire and fall down. hmmmmmmm

    64. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying that something falls at "free fall speeds" (e.g., in reference to WTC 7) is meaningless and has no bearing on the discussion.

      You don't think so? I thought that an almost perfectly semetrical collapse of WTC 7 was damn fishy. It was as if all of the load-bearing members of the building failed instantaneously and completely. Contrast this building with the buildings in Dresden after the city had the crap bombed out of it or the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building (or WTC4 and WTC5).

      And why has the Pentagon not released video footage of the plane crashing into it? Are we to believe that the Pentagon hasn't high-resolution, high-framerate (or at least above-webcam) video being taken of its perimeter at all times?

      Also, what about Bush in that classroom? And the BBC report of WTC7? And the thermal hot-spots and the stock trading and the classification of the schematics of the world trade center and this, etc, etc.

      Yes, there is a LOT of questionable and down-right insane conspiracy stuff out there regarding 911 (I think I came across lizards from outer space at one point). But there are also a pile of things that I just can't swallow or explain.

    65. Re:Finally by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Mark Furhman?

      the same fuckwad from OJ Simpson fame? lol. The same. All cops are fuckwads though. But fuckwad or not, he's a sharp guy, as cops go.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    66. Re:Finally by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the analysis in the Warren report was shown to be insufficient. Can you, then, show that the analysis in the 9/11 Commission report was insufficient?

      --
      ResidntGeek
    67. Re:Finally by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Bringing up things like some NORAD exercise or Operation Northwoods or all kinds of tenuous, ridiculous, and (co)incidental information about some pilot who worked some particular place 25 years ago is irrelevant and meaningless.

      What about the Lone Gunmen episode about the Military Industrial Complex crashing a remote controlled airplane into the WTC to increase defense spending?

      Why didn't we have access to the Octium IV chips that could have been used to prevent the disaster?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    68. Re:Finally by Raffaello · · Score: 1

      How and why the towers collapsed is well understood and has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

    69. Re:Finally by lilfields · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points so I could mod you up; That is by far the greatest debunk in history, despite its age. The secret message on the $100 bill was the icing on the cake of comedy genius.

    70. Re:Finally by gobbo · · Score: 1

      More to the point, if you were wanting to knock those buildings down for the scare of it all, you'd just go for the structural supports in the sub-basement and let the sucker topple like a tree. Implosions are only done in a painstaking fashion when you're trying to minimize death and destruction.

      "Oh, but the conspirators wanted to minimize collateral damage to the rest of NYC because this is all part of their plan."

      Well shit, why not just run nerve gas through the tower AC systems? You get your thousands-plus death toll AND the buildings are still standing.

      OK, full disclaimer: I'm a skeptic of both sides of the conspiracy theorists (gov and loons)--paranoia, confusion, and disinformation being the order of the day. But, you haven't been reading the 'gubm't did it' theories, so here's their view. There are claims based on seismographs and eyewitness accounts that there were huge explosions in the sub-basement, and explosions going off at various times throughout the buildings before they came down (just the towers, haven't seen the same written about WTC7, which is the freaky one). Supposedly Larry Silverman made off with 6 billion dollars profit off of those buildings coming down in a tidy pile, and didn't have to deal with the asbestos problem. The 'loose change' point of view holds that much of the operation was run from WTC7, so it destroyed much of the evidence, as well as a bunch of inconvenient Enron and SEC documents. Anyway, if you want to know what those theories are about, there are plenty of questionable but entertaining versions running around. Just don't trust your own government too much, either, their track record for honesty isn't very good.

    71. Re:Finally by FreakyLefty · · Score: 1

      My response to 9/11 conspiracy theories, and that of several people I know, is that if the US government was capable of planning, executing and covering up something like that, do you not think that they'd have also managed to find some WMDs in Iraq?

      --
      Strength through redundancy and over-design
    72. Re:Finally by dave1791 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey!

      I'm a member of the Illuminati and I have to fess up that we did not do that one. It was the Freemasons.

    73. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Character 1: There is just one thing..how will we get thousands of FBI agents, firefighters, demolition experts, scientists, CIA, rescue workers, police, airline pilots, NSA, House of Representatives, air-traffic control, military contractors and the entire the Bush administration to keep it secret?

      Just to play a devil's advocate:

      Char 2: Well, why not outsource the bombing to the Pakistani Intelligence network? But what if they talk?
      Char 1: What, the same network that trained the "freedom fighters" to take care of the Soviets in Afganistan? As to leaks, the dead don't talk.
      Char 2: Yes, the very same that the CIA and Bush senior have helped set up under Reagan. But how do we pay for it?
      Char 1: Oh, I know, how about we get the Saudi Royalty and the bin Ladens to pay for it? They owe us.
      Char 2: But how do we take care of the traffic controllers, air force jets, firefighters, and all?
      Char 1: Why the fuck would they need to know what's going on? The jets we can take on a training exercise, and any evidence/tapes showing anything funny we can shred to protect the dignity of the deceased?

    74. Re:Finally by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Backing you up on this, one of the conspiracys I had seen mentioned the impossibility of steel in the twin towers melting from the kind of heat generated by the planes crashing into them.

      Just last week or so, a tanker truck caught fire and burned on a california highway system, and the heat generated from that, melted the steel support structure and the roadways collapsed.

      So yes, fire can melt steel and cause large buildings to collapse, so it's one more conspiracy de-bunked

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    75. Re:Finally by dgr73 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't help if the US government keeps giving ammunition to the nut crowd. You said it yourself. 19 Saudi extremists hit US on 9/11. I thought Saudis lived in Saudi Arabia, a country viewed as "ally" by the US, not in Iraq. But hey, that's just my lunatic fringe talking.

    76. Re:Finally by jimmyfergus · · Score: 1

      we only have two choices: believe what the government tells us about 9/11, or don't. Either way, it doesn't change much as it's already happened and there isn't anything to be done about it anymore

      I don't know what to believe either, but I think it matters a lot. The things that have been done under the pretext of 9/11 are huge - illegal and disastrous wars, tearing up the constitution, casual drift towards a fascist nightmare. They are either reckless opportunism by a govt that's as criminally incompetent and shortsighted as it appears to be power hungry, or else much more sinister and we're in for trouble which makes today's woes look like a utopia.

      That's the reason I care. Frankly, I'm fed up with worrying about it, but I'm not completely convinced either way, so I can't completely stop caring.

    77. Re:Finally by blake3737 · · Score: 1

      I'll take the negative mod-bombs from your little fan club.

      Now we know You're some kind of terrorist... you and your mod bombs... Tell the NSA guy at your door the guy that called says hi.. :)

    78. Re:Finally by blake3737 · · Score: 1

      Look, I know you're either upset enough, or ignorant enough to lump all of us "Lefties" into one group, but not everyone that could be labeled "Liberal" thinks the same. Fire can cut through and melt steel.... I don't see how people can't get that. How else is steel shaped and made?

      Thanks for putting me in that category though. I appreciate that. I don't know who modded this wanna be political pundit interesting, but I think your mod points could have been better used marking the third and fourth "ZOMG FRIST POST" comments redundant. =P

    79. Re:Finally by sgilti · · Score: 1

      Do you think there's really going to be anything new coming out of JFK investigations? Seriously? If being 100% certain about the people and plots involved in the assassination of a US president was not a huge priority, then it leads me to think that some aspects of our govenrment were involved in it, and we will never find out the whole truth. Not a conspiracy theorist, it just seems logical that given the gravity of it all, either we already know everything there is to know, or we never will.

    80. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Backing you up on this, one of the conspiracys I had seen mentioned the impossibility of steel in the twin towers melting from the kind of heat generated by the planes crashing into them.

      Yes, fire can melt steel. But you don't even need a fire that hot.

      What are skyscrapers made of? Most people guess concrete, which is wrong. They are made of steel & steel-reinforced concrete. Why? Concrete is not strong enough.

      So, after a certain amount of time in a fire, steel will soften. So the steel-reinforced concrete now has the strength of concrete. Which isn't strong enough to hold up the weight of the building.

    81. Re:Finally by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1

      ****APPLAUSE****

      Wahoo! I just had to say that this is the best response I've seen to these nutjobs. They are running RAMPANT all over SoCal, and people are actually buying their bullshit. Yeah, I know... far stretch when you consider the vacuum of intelligence in that region! :D

      --
      Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
    82. Re:Finally by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Sorry. None of the [skeptic/conspiracy nut] stuff is even a little credible. You need to offer credible counter-evidence, rather than smugly braying "open your eyes, you fools!" Yeah, who would ever believe White House officials hiring a bunch of "former" agents to break into the headquarters of the opposition's National Committee to plant bugs there.

      That's almost as ridiculous as White Hous officials selling arms to an enemy state to use the money to finance "freedom fighters" in a different country.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    83. Re:Finally by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant. Good ol' uncle George was itchin' to go into Iraq since day 1 of his presidency, looking to finish what his pa started. 9-11 gave him a convenient excuse. Honestly, you people call GWB an idiot, then you claim he pulled off all these grand conspiracies.

      Agreed. I personally figure that 9-11 delayed our attack on Iraq. I'm still mad about the continued operation of the Saudi extremist religious schools. Saudi Arabia is a country with very little middle class. You have a few super-rich families, the vast majority of the rest are poverty stricken and dependant upon welfare to live. Not a good combination with the religious schools - you get desperate men with nothing to lose combined with religious beliefs. Due to polygamy, they can't even look forward to getting married in many cases.

      That's part of the reason why so many terrorists come from Saudi. Our friendly relations with them also made it easier to smuggle Saudis into the country.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    84. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      forgetting any/all other factors.

      3 buildings built to sustain plancecrash + 2 planecrashes = fires = 3 downed buildings.
      where is the common sense in that?
      bombs designed to suit that purpose do not produce near those results.

      extremists known for strapping on bombs and blowing up diners pulling off the most co-ordinated and devestating terrorist attack in history.
      where is the common sense in that?
      governments have failed at far simplier operations.

    85. Re:Finally by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      here are significant differences between the freeway collapse and the WTC collapse. The fire in California was fueled by gasoline. The fires in WTC7 were fueled by diesel. Gas burns MUCH faster than diesel releasing energy at a higher rate.

      Diesel is harder to light, but it also contains more energy. Contained structure? From what I've read, there are indications that the building might of acted like a furnace - The hallways and such creating a draft. This would increase oxygen flow, increasing burn rate and heat.

      As others have said, you don't have to melt steel, simply weaken it sufficiently. They didn't place support structures willy-nilly, and while there was a substantial safety factor, it's not 100%. Combine a fire weakening structures with damage taking some others out and putting more load on it, well, the building is probably coming down.

      As for falling straight down - for buildings of the size of the WTC, that's about the only way they can come down. They're so huge you can't get enough angular momentum for them to fall sideways, even if you take out the supports on one side only. They'll break and fall (straight) down first.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    86. Re:Finally by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      If you do not like this country so much, or do not trust it then move to IRAN
      It's a shame how a decent, informative rant can be completely destroyed by one idiotic sentence.
    87. Re:Finally by sgholt · · Score: 1

      You can go on and on and provide proof...but there still will be believers. I guess it is easier to believe in these theories, than to actually think.
      These theories do have one useful purpose, it is a easy way to identify an idiot and/or liberal.

    88. Re:Finally by thebackslasher · · Score: 1

      preparing a building for implosion is a major construction project. A standard Boeing 737 holds 6,707 gallons of fuel at full capacity @ about $2/gallon. 6700 x $2 = about $13400 If you are to believe the "official explanations", instead of spending weeks and 100s of thousands of $$ to pay demolition experts, you get a couple of guys (anybody realy) have them haul up 6K gallons of jet fuel in pretty much any where in the building, light up the fuel and wait 1 or 2 hours before the building gracefully comes down on its own foot print... I bet it could be done in a day. Cost of this NEW technic? around $15K! Savings = 100s of thounsand of $$$ (maybe millions?).
    89. Re:Finally by Bugs42 · · Score: 1

      I'm a Freemason, you insensitive clod! Oh crap...

      --
      Programmer: an ingenious device that converts caffeine into code.
    90. Re:Finally by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Just one oberservation: Anything about 9/11 that relies mostly on eyewitness testimony of a small handful of people is utterly wrong. Eyewitnesses seeing "explosions in the basement" but yet still managing to stay alive are dubious at best. Did anybody ever ask them how they knew it was an explosion and how they knew where it was coming from? Was the answer "there was a loud noise", and "it seemed to come from underground"?

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    91. Re:Finally by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      What idealistic parts of JFK life inspire you?

      Would it be starting the Vietnam war? Would it be the failed Bay of Pigs invasion? Would it be when he was sleeping with a Nazi spy during WWII? Would it be when he ordered the FBI to put Martin Luther King under 24 hour surveillance? When he was political allies with senator McCarthy supporting State Department witch hunts (and got his brother Robert a job with McCarthy, and hooked up his sister with McCarthy romanticly)? Would it be his cheating on his wife?

    92. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, if you've seen how the conspiracy theorists often go on-and-on about this, he isn't even scratching the surface.

      I once told one of these guys that it really is a conspiracy and that everyone was in on it, except the conspiracy theorists. As far as I can see, the only three possibilities are: the official story, a conspiracy and 99% of the population is hopelessly dumb including a lot of scientists and engineers (and me), or a conspiracy and everyone is in on it.

      Rather than admit to being dumb, I thought I'd choose evil in this case and be part of the conspiracy. He was not amused.

    93. Re:Finally by gobbo · · Score: 1

      Just one oberservation: Anything about 9/11 that relies mostly on eyewitness testimony of a small handful of people is utterly wrong. Eyewitnesses seeing "explosions in the basement" but yet still managing to stay alive are dubious at best. Did anybody ever ask them how they knew it was an explosion and how they knew where it was coming from? Was the answer "there was a loud noise", and "it seemed to come from underground"?

      Oh, dubious, I agree, my point is that I am in no position to trust anything in regards to that event, neither the firefighters who said they heard a series of detonations nor those seeking to explain away the unprecedented and unlikely. Stating in an online forum that an eyewitness is "utterly wrong" seems like another form of disinformation.

    94. Re:Finally by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      You are conveniently ignoring the "let it happen" in favour of the "make it happen" conspiracy.

      Karl: Guess what, we got another "Bin Laden intends to strike in the USA" warning.
      Paul: Gee, I can't wait until he blows up a couple of planes, so we can start the war against Iraq already.
      Dick: And we don't even have to make thousands of FBI agents, firefighters, demolition experts, scientists, CIA, rescue workers, police, airline pilots, NSA, House of Representatives, air-traffic control, military contractors and the entire the Bush administration keep it secret.
      Donny: No, we'll just claim that some of them were incompetent - and Dubya is our best example.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    95. Re:Finally by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've seen some of those other loose change theories. All of them still fail the occam's razor test, they just seem too horrifically complex to pull off successfully. Now in real life we've seen examples of people trying to pull off crazy plans. We read about dumb criminals getting stuck in exhaust vents, Susan Smith drowing her children and blaming the convenient imaginary negro, and we've seen businessmen burn their businesses to defraud insurance companies. We've seen cases like the Homolkas(sp?) where the wife tries doping her own sister so her husband can rape her unconscious body but the girl dies from the medicine.

      Logic tells us that people would avoid plans that were obviously too complex or stupid. Experience tells us not all people are logical. But we also tend to expect people in higher levels of society to make smarter decisions. Now you have your examples of sheer stupidity like OJ killing his wife and her boyfriend, that radio Spector guy blowing the girl's head off. We also have classic blunders that were made with the best of intentions like Sony releasing the PS3, Microsoft with Vista, etc. Those were huge fuckups but not of a criminal nature. We've seen businesses coverup negligent homicides as damage control, i.e. Ford and Firestone. But there's a whole new level you're talking about when contemplating the staging of a terror attack just to make some bucks.

      I just tend to discount the moustache-twirling conspiracies and find the ass-covering ones more plausible.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    96. Re:Finally by enjerth · · Score: 1

      illegal and disastrous wars I've heard this a thousand times, but nobody ever tells me, what makes a war illegal?

      In case you didn't know, Congress (legislators of law) voted heavily in favor (Senate 77:23, House of Representatives 296:133 ) of giving Bush the authority to use the armed forces against Iraq.

      Should I look up the vote on the use of force in Afghanistan, too?
    97. Re:Finally by jimmyfergus · · Score: 1

      what makes a war illegal?

      Overthrowing a sovereign nation. Isn't that the phrase? Google gets me, for example: Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

      Then there's the question of the deliberate misleading of Congress into authorizing the war.

    98. Re:Finally by Copid · · Score: 1

      Silly you. That's all just part of the conspiracy. The link in my .sig makes it all clear.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    99. Re:Finally by nuzak · · Score: 1

      Actually it was more like this (other side omitted, since their voice never really mattered):

      "Bin Laden intends to blah blah blah where's Iraq in this? I want to go into Iraq, show them folks I'm better than my daddy. Osafa bin falafa-who? Is he an Iraqi? No? Why are ya wasting my time then? Tell me how I sell an Iraq invasion, okay?"

      "They hit what? Did Iraq do it? I'm not hearing a yes. ... I'm still not hearing yes. Lah-dee-dee-dee-dee-dah-dah- is the answer `Iraq did it?' yet? No? LAH-LAH-LAH-LAH-I-CAN'T-HEAR-Y-- oh, Iraq you say? Okay Iraq did it then! Time to invade, YEEEHAH."

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    100. Re:Finally by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, still too many federal agents involved to keep it secret. If you want a nice possibility for a "let it happen" scenario however, research the Israeli espionage agents caught very soon after 9-11, posing as arts students in various states. They converged on the states that the terrorists lived in a few months before the attacks. Google it, this is reuters and AFP news. Also, the rumor about Israeli personnel not showing up on 9-11 for work? It's exaggerated but true. 9-11 was also the day of the largest Israeli incursion into Gaza destroying thousands of homes and acres of trees..etc. Nobody heard about it, everybody was watching the WTC. That is possible, but our own government killing its own people intentionally is not. It would not pass.

    101. Re:Finally by enjerth · · Score: 1

      So I can google anything, and it's law?

      How about citing the exact law? Can anyone make a solid case?

      This kind of rhetoric strikes me as being politically motivated bull shit. Not just the normal shit, but really rotten shit. I mean, yeah Bush fucked up (quite a few times), but most of the nonsense I hear is born out of spite and is not justified.

      I think if there were sufficient evidence that Bush deliberately mislead Congress into authorizing the war, he would have already been hanged by Democrats.

    102. Re:Finally by Copid · · Score: 1

      The only downside to that would be completely unpredictable results and burning fuel all over the place. They're not paying for the collapse. That's the easy part. They're paying for a high degree of certainty that the collapse won't be a total disaster.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    103. Re:Finally by serbanp · · Score: 1

      Gosh, this has been modded "informative"! Granted, the WTC debris were quickly dispensed with (that's bizarre), but you could read some more about why and how did the overpass collapse instead of talking off your arse.

      And, b.t.w., "steel" is a generic word, covering materials with very different physical properties. Are you sure that the one used in WTC's structure is the same type as the one the overpass bolts were made from?

      It's obvious that there's no such thing as "common sense", because for each believer in the official story there's one who thinks that the steel girder structure should have remained in place, instead of completely collapsing, conveniently cut in small sections. Oh, how about building 6?

    104. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You can say the US invited the attacks because of mideast policy. You can even say that some people might have not shed a tear in terms of the ability to then use 9/11 as a "Pearl Harbor"-type incident. But unfortunately, it was 19 mostly Saudi radical Islamic extremists - even if one believes they are monsters of the United States' own creation - that attacked the US on 9/11."

      And you KNOW this to be true? Why because CNN told you? Because just maybe that's what came out in part of the 9-11 Commission Report?
      What about things that have come to light since then?

      The Guardian ran a story about 6 or 7 of the supposed hijackers actually being alive. Make that one jive with the "official" story. Point is we don't know who or if anyone was on those planes with intent.

      "It's actually quite incredible what some conspiracy loons believe about 9/11."

      The Governments official explanation is also a plotted out CONSPIRACY and in a court of law it would be ruled as such.

      Before calling people out and typing up some hit-job do some basic research.

    105. Re:Finally by gobbo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've seen some of those other loose change theories. All of them still fail the occam's razor test, they just seem too horrifically complex to pull off successfully. [...] I just tend to discount the moustache-twirling conspiracies and find the ass-covering ones more plausible.

      I agree wholeheartedly! Always assume incompetence before malice, for it is the human way.

      In the same vein, talk to a commercial pilot about the flying ability of those who hit the three buildings, especially the Pentagon, then apply Occam's Razor. And, as the Northwoods document indicates (see my sig), the Joint Chiefs proposed a false flag operation to JFK in order to invade Cuba, that involved staging terrorist attacks on Americans, including deaths if necessary. So, we at least have an established willingness to commit heinous crimes for the sake of aggressive foreign and domestic policy, over 40 years ago. This highly illegal plot would have required the secrecy of hundreds, and considerable complexity. It makes one wonder what documents or plans haven't yet surfaced, and if any such plans were ever actually attempted.

      Given the ramp-up of official secrecy in the last twenty years, and the CIA's admission that all major media outlets had been compromised as of 1993, it is difficult to believe anything official, OR the paranoid rants of the other conspiracy theorists. (I say "other," because the biggest conspiracy theorists are actually the spies, who think some outraged anti-globalization activists or tea-drinking Raging Grannies are somehow threateningly seditious and worthy of infiltrating and monitoring.)

    106. Re:Finally by jcr · · Score: 1

      You're leaving out the effect of the aircraft impact knocking out the windows and blowing the insulation off the steel.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    107. Re:Finally by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      > Do you really think our government could keep an "inside" job of this scale [quiet] for so long?

      What do you mean? It worked fine for tricking the world into believing you actually sent a man to the moo :P

    108. Re:Finally by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      No, after being told by his aide "America's under attack", he should have stopped what he was doing, looked the children in the eye, and said "I'm sorry, but I've been told something that means I have to go now and do something very important. But I promise you, I'll be back and we'll continue where we left off in a few months. Thank you for spending your time with me."

      He then should have stood up, asked the reporters to leave with him, made a short statement outside the classroom, and walked out and done his job as President.

      Because he didn't, for several days a (normally) third rate mayor ended up being America's leader. Bush acted not as a leader, but as an out-of-his-depth coward. The tragedy of the 2000 election couldn't have been clearer on that day. For all intents and purposes, we had no President, and it took the full efforts of a "patriotic" press to hide that fact.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    109. Re:Finally by HouseArrest420 · · Score: 1

      You'd sooner find out that the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandel was just a big cover up for a lot of head bobbing orgies was going on at the white house.

      --
      This is Slashdot! Give me the latest gadget, bug, or OS project! This ain't english class so don't confuse the two!
    110. Re:Finally by ukemike · · Score: 1

      As for falling straight down - for buildings of the size of the WTC, that's about the only way they can come down. They're so huge you can't get enough angular momentum for them to fall sideways, even if you take out the supports on one side only. They'll break and fall (straight) down first.


      This is simply not true. The degree to which they fall sideways may be minimized by the fact that they are not solid structures, but physics is physics and it applies to big things and small things. If you remove the support under one side of a big thing then it will tip over. Interesting that you mention momentum though. The fact that WTC7 collapsed to the ground at very near free fall acceleration defies the law of conservation of momentum. One would expect that from a limited failure of select structural members weakened by fire that the building would not collapse at free fall acceleration because all of the intact structure of the building would slow the collapse. In fact WTC7 collapsed completely in about 6.6 seconds. You can measure the collapse time yourself because video is widely available on the web.

      The most important thing here is that various hypotheses could be TESTED by experiment or computer simulation. I am not alone in my suggestion that further investigation is needed. The FEMA report itself admits that it's hypothesis is unlikely and suggests further investigation.

      This comes from section 5.7 Observations and Findings, in the report issued by FEMA and titled "World Trade Center Building Performance Study"

      "The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse event was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
      I added emphasis.
      --
      -- QED
    111. Re:Finally by billcopc · · Score: 1

      The attacks on civil rights should not be judged based on the events of 9/11. What the government has done, and is continuing to do, should not be tolerated under any circumstances. You shouldn't define your morals based on what the government tells you, that's completely backwards. The government should define their activities based on what their constituents tell the government.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  2. Get your tinfoil shelters out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Time travllers came back and fired invisible bullets from the grassy knoll.

    1. Re:Get your tinfoil shelters out. by throup · · Score: 2, Funny

      So you've been watching Red Dwarf recently too, have you?

    2. Re:Get your tinfoil shelters out. by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 1

      Actually, I watched it yesterday...

    3. Re:Get your tinfoil shelters out. by Non-CleverNickName · · Score: 1

      So THAT'S why John Titor came back!

      That bastard!!

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    4. Re:Get your tinfoil shelters out. by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, that's not right...Chuck Norris' beard actually deflected the bullets in a *failed* assasination attempt. Kennedy's head exploded out of shear amazement.

    5. Re:Get your tinfoil shelters out. by Zekasu · · Score: 1

      Kennedy shot himself, as he came back with the time travelers. [See: Red Dwarf]

    6. Re:Get your tinfoil shelters out. by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Those had to be some shears if they amazed him that much!

    7. Re:Get your tinfoil shelters out. by Don+Sample · · Score: 1

      If time travel was possible, there wouldn't be room on the grassy knoll for a second gunman. It would be full of time travelling conspiracy theorists looking for a second gunman.

    8. Re:Get your tinfoil shelters out. by MoogMan · · Score: 1

      That's right, Jeff K killed himself!

    9. Re:Get your tinfoil shelters out. by farker+haiku · · Score: 1

      time travel is so last year.

      --
      Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
  3. JFK, blown away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What else do I have to say?

    1. Re:JFK, blown away. by DrDitto · · Score: 4, Funny

      Moderating this as "Funny" is sick.

    2. Re:JFK, blown away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What, too soon?

    3. Re:JFK, blown away. by edflyerssn007 · · Score: 1

      It's from we didn't start the fire by Billy Joel.

      That's why its funny. Listen to the song.

      -Ed

      --
      So you see what had happened was....
    4. Re:JFK, blown away. by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 0

      Yes , then this one will be worse. We can now clone Kennedy ! This one with a head.

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    5. Re:JFK, blown away. by Jon.Laslow · · Score: 1

      You kids today and your JFKFC...

    6. Re:JFK, blown away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poseur. Like you really fucking care.

    7. Re:JFK, blown away. by Indomitus · · Score: 1

      What's the problem? He didn't start the fire.

  4. seriously by Ace905 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, was there ever any doubt? Did _anybody_ believe the government over all of the eye witnesses, the drawn out court-case, the ridiculous implausible explanation required, or the pristine perfect bullet found OUTSIDE his body?

    It's good somebody finally _proved_ they were lying, but we still don't know why they lied - and really, what moron ever thought the case was closed.

    ---
    this moron

    --

    Ace
    1. Re:seriously by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 4, Funny

      In my defense, I rejected the official story on the grounds that the Freemasons had to be involved. So I'm immune from criticism.

    2. Re:seriously by MankyD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's good somebody finally _proved_ they were lying, but we still don't know why they lied...

      It's worth noting that they did not prove that they were lying. Rather, they simply proved that they were wrong in their original analysis.

      This reminds me of a particular xkcd comic.

      --
      -dave
      http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
    3. Re:seriously by Obyron · · Score: 4, Informative

      I saw a very fascinating Discovery documentary entitled "Beyond the Magic Bullet" wherein they replicated as closely as possible conditions of the day, and a shooter was able to fire a shot nearly perfectly recreating the wounds from the magic bullet, and resulting in a round that had equal deformity (which was very little) to that of the "Magic" bullet. It was very very startling to me, as a doubter of the probability of the theory, and forced me to reevaluate things. I'm still not sure if I believe that it's what happened, but those decrying the single shooter "magic bullet" theory as scientifically impossible are wrong.

      --
      --Obyron
    4. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stop jumping to conclusions. They didn't "prove" anything. Conspiracy nuts always latch on to evidence as proof. Stop it!

      Why is it so hard to believe Oswald did it. Numerous recreations have done a wonderful job of demonstrating the feasibility. That doesn't mean it's settled, but you sure sound like an irrational person.

    5. Re:seriously by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unless, of course, the Discovery documentary you watched was a propaganda piece carefully orchestrated by the FBI (or whomever) specifically designed to make you think that the magic bullet people are wrong so that you will dismiss their arguments and accept the official story!

      You'll have to pardon me for that, the X Files movie is available On Demand on my cable system and I keep watching bits and pieces of it.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    6. Re:seriously by megamerican · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Have you ever read or watched anything about the JFK assassination other than the movie JFK?



      If you have watched or read any recent documentary you will know that the "magic bullet theory" isn't magical at all. You would also know that JFK being shot from anywhere besides the book depository is basically an impossibility.



      This revelation is interesting only because there is a possibility of a second gunmen. Most of the places where people claim a second gunmen to be have been heavily debunked in recent documentaries. I would speculate that the bullets are from the same gun (and are actually two bullets). Just because the methodology of the test isn't correct doesn't mean that the results of the test were completely false.



      There is no need for a second gunmen to prove that there was a conspiracy or that Lee acted alone, it is just the easiest way to do so. Lee had such a weird life and there are plenty of holes in his life, especially after he joined the Marines.



      I really don't see any other tests coming up with anything other than the fragments are from two bullets that came from Lee's gun. It would be much more correct to say that "Experts Now Say JFK Bullet Analysis MIGHT Be Wrong." And it is still a very big MIGHT.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    7. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watched that special also, and it examined up many other specials or movies that I have watched. It clearly shows that some of the conspiracy theorists manipulated or omitted key data. I think that after watching that special, most people will feel that there was very little chance of a conspiracy. If, after watching that special, one does feel that there was still a major conspiracy, then most likely there won't be anything that will ever change their mind.

    8. Re:seriously by aminorex · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I can tell you one thing that is impossible: That Oswald was the shooter. There's a nice photograph of the front of the TSRB as Kennedy rides by, published in Look magazine immediately after the assassination, which shows Oswald on the sidewalk, street-level, wearing the same shirt he was wearing when Jack Ruby killed him.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    9. Re:seriously by fezwang · · Score: 1

      Well that settles it. I mean if you saw it on TV it MUST be true!

    10. Re:seriously by hcmtnbiker · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Seriously, was there ever any doubt? Did _anybody_ believe the government over all of the eye witnesses, the drawn out court-case, the ridiculous implausible explanation required, or the pristine perfect bullet found OUTSIDE his body?

      • Witnesses couldn't have seen anything the TIME tape didn't catch about the shootings. Sure talk about the grassy knoll all you want, but with all the people there(the "witnesses" you where talking about) I would expect at least a fair physical description of a suspect from there or something more then a "it looked like smoke came from there" response.
      • Oswald happened to get shot in the middle of it all, that might have messed up the court system maybe?
      • What explanation would you have considered plausible given the strange occurance of the entry vs exit wounds? Tell me why there was no bullet found that would have come from the opposite direction(the main conspiracy theory relies on a wound in JFKs back to be an exit wound, but that would mean there's a bullet lying around somewhere).
      • Last, what pristine bullet are you talking about? I know of one that ended up in 5 pieces inside JFK, and another that ended up in the car after passing through the original's entry/exit wounds and passing through his I believe right leg before embedding itself in the car(and not in prestine condition either).
      --
      If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
    11. Re:seriously by Jaeph · · Score: 1

      They went from "these fragments come from one bullet" to "these fragments come from one or more bullets" based on *statistics* derived from firing similar bullets.

      But please, by all means, let's state "case closed" and put forth all sorts of fun conspiracy theories. The evidence is certainly overwhelming now...

      -Jeff

      --
      Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
    12. Re:seriously by Himring · · Score: 3, Funny

      I saw that too. I've seen lots of documentaries. You need to watch more. They failed to mention, at all, the umbrella man or the hail-fist man who signal just prior to the first shot. They failed to mention, entirely, the photographic work done on the grassy gnoll wherein images of a shooter and an american soldier are discovered verifying the soldier's original testimony (he was even interviewed recently and is a highly credible witness). It failed to mention the dozens and dozens of witnesses who claimed "secret service" agents confiscated their cameras and video cameras 'as part of the investigation.' It failed to mention at all the train station operators who testified to seeing strange construction workers opening toolboxes and pulling things out and then walking onto the grassy gnoll. That show you mention even had a guy pull out Oswald's shooters score book from the marines showing what an incredible shot he was, yet you can find evidence with google proving Oliver Stone's assertion that other marines said he had "maggies drawers" and/or was a poor shooter overall. They had simply pulled out a few instances of good shooting he had for your show. They failed to mention Johnson's comments on the event with a "well, if it's a war they're wanting I'll give it." They failed to mention how the secret service did many, many odd things that day that allowed the shooting to happen.

      For every documentatary and book stating it was Oswald only there are opposite documentaries and books stating otherwise. Don't believe everything you see, read and hear on one source alone. Come on now, you are the post 9/11 crowd. Use your head.

      John F., Bobby, MLK, all of those shootings were too convenient, too easy and too mysterious to be so cut and dry.

      Stone made a movie, and he made one hell of a one. It still stirs up controversy. That documentary you saw was meant totally to discredit the movie, JFK, and Stone. It appears to have one at least one convert....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    13. Re:seriously by CherniyVolk · · Score: 1


      I saw on TV, where Bruce Willis helped put a nuclear warhead in a huge asteroid heading towards earth.

      The point? The camera has allowed for the most amazing tricks, and there's good reason why the Magic Bullet theory is flawed. Without going into detail, simply fire a weapon a few times at some targets. I highly doubt ANY shooter has reproduced the results leading up to the Magic Bullet THeory.

      First off, a bullet has so much forward momentum and weight, that if tumbling through the air, regardless of change in path (curving), it will always travel in a generalized forward path. The magic bullet theory suggest a bullet turns around in thin air, without carom, all within the about a foot, and maintains enough momentum to continue being deadly and penetrate flesh? That is impossible.

    14. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's good somebody finally _proved_ they were lying, but we still don't know why they lied - and really, what moron ever thought the case was closed.
      Because they didn't have enough evidence to reach a firm conclusion, just a lot of suspicions that would have tipped us into World War III with the Soviet Union?

    15. Re:seriously by arivanov · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have no opinion on the authenticity of this photogrpah, but it is clearly very very interesting: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/ JFK/postphotos.html

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    16. Re:seriously by DrFalkyn · · Score: 1

      Even if that photograph is authentic it doesn't necessarily mean its Oswald. There is a simlliarity but the photograph is of such poor quality that it could be just about anyone.

    17. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More correctly, the analysis MAY be wrong. The research suggests that the original conclusions were based on incorrect assumptions, not that the conclusions themselves were incorrect. It remains a possibility that examination done using updated techniques will reach the same conclusion.

    18. Re:seriously by Josuah · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong episode/movie. You want the one where they go into cancer man's background, since he's the one that killed JFK. None of the JFK stuff is mentioned in the movie. :p

    19. Re:seriously by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You guys are total nut jobs.

      The united states government can't cover up a blow job from a 21 year old intern in the privacy of the oval office. What makes you think they can cover up an assassination on a crowded street at noon?

    20. Re:seriously by Himring · · Score: 1

      The intern talked....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    21. Re:seriously by jimmyfergus · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of a particular xkcd comic.

      That's sad, other xkcd comics I've seen have been quite good. Talk about strawman arguments - "I'll mention some patently false theories in the same breath as doubt of another theory; that proves it...". Eh? I miss logic there.

      Interesting to note that the people who believe the official 9-11 story are conspiracy theorists too. Does anyone believe it happened without a conspiracy? An Act of God perhaps?

      The confirmation bias of faulty logic and blindness to evidence is not limited to those who believe unpopular conspiracy theories. It's enormously popular with those supporting the government authorized ones too.

      Faith in the official theory is unshaken by apparently incompatible evidence such as the pools of molten steel, even at the bottom of building 7, still much hotter than the fires could ever have been or have ever been claimed to be weeks after the building collapses. The closest thing I've seen to a plausible explanation for that is to suggest that piles of scrap iron with limited ventilation can spontaneously form a molten pool through oxidation. It seems like it would be a chronic problem for junkyards to me. Someone needs to explain it, and why the NIST report didn't explain it, and why the evidence was hurriedly (and without precedent) destroyed, before I can put much faith in the tale we're told. I'd welcome links to plausible explanations.

    22. Re:seriously by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Even if that photograph is authentic it doesn't necessarily mean its Oswald. There is a simlliarity but the photograph is of such poor quality that it could be just about anyone."

      I'd like to see the result of applying contemporary face-recognition tech to it. I'd also like to know who, if that's not Oswald, the FBI says it is. That person may not be Oswald, but he is an eyewitness. Who is he and what story did he tell?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    23. Re:seriously by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      I don't know what "TSRB" is. Google did not show me a nice photograph. Here is the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was shot. http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/AAAAAAChange06/Chang e05/OswaldRuby.jpg Looks like a normal shirt (plus a sweater).

      So, can anyone point us to that nice picture?

    24. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's funny about the strip is that the cartoonist unwittingly connects those people who believe in official Government propoganda with people who believe in the magical fairy being. ie. some people will believe anything an authority figures tell them.

      Hillarious

    25. Re:seriously by jeremyp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The BBC also did a documentary for the 40th anniversary in which they simulated the scene using a computer model based on camera footage from the assassination and they came to the same conclusion. The magic bullet wasn't magic at all.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    26. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Schoolbook Repository Building

    27. Re:seriously by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      There could be many explanations, but holistically, the standard theories of the "truthers", namely controlled demolitions and directed energy beams, to say nothing of the wackier theories such as the holographic plane theory, or "It was magick!" simply are not based in fact, and have numerous holes. The fact is that the "official explanation" as it's called and the NIST report is the best explanation given all the known facts.

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    28. Re:seriously by kalirion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can understand watching bits and pieces of a movie that's being broadcast over and over, but how do you explain watching bits and pieces of it when it's ON DEMAND? Do you request the movie and then fast forward to a random segment? Do you constantly fall asleep while watching it?

    29. Re:seriously by MonkWB · · Score: 1

      I'd say that in the first picture the shirt looks flannel. In the second picture it looks solid.

    30. Re:seriously by BoyIHateMicrosoft! · · Score: 1

      I think I have to disagree with you. I know I'll get labeled a conspiracy theorist for this but maybe they didn't want to cover up the whole Monica incident. Also there was some pretty damn convincing evidence that ol' Bill and Monica were fooling around. There isn't as much evidence to convince me one way or another about the JFK assassination. I don't know if I think there was another shooter or not, but I think the government may have "coerced" Oswald into shooting JFK. Anyways I'm not going to get into that. Was just putting my stupid two cents in. Flame away if you like.

    31. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they use Buster or ballistics gel?

    32. Re:seriously by hajus · · Score: 3, Funny

      So that's how it got on her dress...

    33. Re:seriously by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      Someone knew the President was gay, and so they had to leak something to the contrary to cover that up.

      Cause in America, being unfaithful is better than being gay.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    34. Re:seriously by RiddleofSteel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The government couldn't cover up the blow job because Monica talked and half the government wanted it blown up(pun intended) all over the media. It's when the whole government wants to cover something up that we should be scared.

    35. Re:seriously by Mursk · · Score: 1

      It says right under the picture:

      "The Warren Commission "identified" the individual as Billy Lovelady, a fellow Book Depository employee. (...) Billy Lovelady died of a heart attack Jan 1979."

      --
      "This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
    36. Re:seriously by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I really doubt anyone was lying on the commission. Their analysis might have been flawed ( remember we are talking 40 year old technology here ) but lying? Thats a bit of a stretch.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    37. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah the incompetence defence. They certainly don't try to cultivate that one do they? *looks at current president*

    38. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw that same documentary and I must admit that it changed my views on the magic bullet theory... it was very well done. /Much love for Discovery Channel

    39. Re:seriously by phlinn · · Score: 1

      That link claims some things that aren't in fact clear in the pictures. For instance "The man in the doorway's shirt in[sic] not striped...", but the picture they provide is far too blurry for that claim. When I looked for noticeable differences before reading the caption provided, i thought the blurry version was either striped or shadowed by wrinkles, but I couldn't tell. They then go on to say that color photos, which they don't provide or say where to get, prove that they are the same shirt.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    40. Re:seriously by azenpunk · · Score: 1

      there is no ridiculous explanation required, in fact (actual fact, not movie fact) Lee Harvey being the only gunman is the best explanation. there was no magic bullet, if you consider the way the seats were specially arranged in that limo all wounds are accounted for by a straight trajectory and Oswald would have had no trouble firing that many shots in the time allowed. it's possible there was some sort of vast conspiracy but the evidence simply does not point that way.

    41. Re:seriously by mashedbananasoup · · Score: 1

      "You guys are total nut jobs" nut jobs and blow jobs comparing getting head to getting shot in the head.. c'mon now...

    42. Re:seriously by daBass · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That part of the photograph is not only out of focus and grainy, it is also well overexposed. Unless this red was the darkest of dark reds, it is entirely plauslible that they just faded into one white blob on this black and white image.

      The misunderstanding of photography and the effects of contrast on film is what makes people come up with rediculous claims that the moon landings were a hoax because "there were no stars in the photographs" and "the crosshairs in the camera seem to dissapear behind the white space suits".

      I don't think Mr. Lovelady identified himself by the colour pattern of his shirt; probably probably said it was him because he know where he was at the time of the shooting. That seems much more likely than the FBI telling him to say it was him.

      This documentary proved to me there was only one shooter - most likely Oswald.

    43. Re:seriously by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Not just On! TV!

      He Saw it in a Documentary! on the Discover! channel.

    44. Re:seriously by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah. Heard it already. But that doesn't explain the fact that Monica is a guy, dressed in drag.

    45. Re:seriously by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Watching the Oliver Stone film renders a person _less_ qualified to have a valid opinion on the topic. Why this is never stressed in this kind of discussion is unclear.

    46. Re:seriously by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but the government consists of people, and there is only 1 type of person who can keep a secret, especially indefinately, especially when it's something of monumental importance. Hell, Deep Throat couldn't even manage to take his own secret to the grave. Now, that's not to say people can't keep *some* secrets, especially when nobody's asking, such as a password, or when something's personally embarassing, but conspiracies are completely different, as they involve a significant number of people, some of which will have little to no incentive or to keep the secret, and much incentive to disclose it. Especially old people who no longer fear any possible repercussions. Hell, China and Russia manage(d) to regularly find people to sell them information. If you want to find out if there's really a conspiracy, put up a $1M bounty for credible evidence. Someone will talk. Sure, you probably don't personally have that kind of money, but I'm sure you could convince someone with money to do it.

      That crap you see in movies about CIA agents whose families don't even know they work for the CIA is just that -- crap. For every 1 person who doesn't say anything, there's 20 who tell their wives everything. Of course, most people have enough discretion that they won't go blabbing to the neighbors and the press, but every once in a while you get a Valerie Plame situation.

      Secret conspiracies are certainly possible, but pulling off a successful one is highly, highly improbable, and the odds of success are directly inverse to the magnitude of the conspiracy.

    47. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no there is not a nice photograph that shows him. there is a very fuzzy photograph that shows a fuzzy image of someone that resembles a man. He also resembles several other people in the photos on that page. get me the origional and not the image out of a newspaper. and I'll bet its still too fuzzy for anything to be identified.

    48. Re:seriously by jimmyfergus · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link, it's a better page than most I've seen (shame they can't structure the information more). I'll have to digest that and compare it to the claims. I definitely had the impression the molten pools were better witnessed than they imply.

      Again, I don't think it's reasonable to present seriously wacky theories as evidence that the official story is the truth - it certainly won't change any minds. The poor quality of some alternative theories is not support for the truth of the official line, just as the nuttiness of Astrology isn't evidence for a Christian god.

      If there was no funny business, then it's really bizarre the way evidence was destroyed so rapidly and so totally against precedent. A plane crashes in the ocean and they trawl the seabed to piece it together. Plane crashes into the WTC and they whisk off the rubble to be destroyed, having declared who did it and how a day or two after the event. It shows a striking lack of curiosity. As I understand it (not having read it), there's plenty missing from the NIST report, including an explanation for building 7. It seems there's enough disbelief that a comprehensive, independent, international inquiry is a reasonable desire.

    49. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the head of that "pristine bullet": http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif

      Don't look so pristine to me, dude.

    50. Re:seriously by Obyron · · Score: 1

      The conspiracy theorists and Oliver Stone are the ones saying the bullet had to curve and hang in mid air. I'm not saying their magic bullet theory is true, I'm saying I saw a documentary wherein a bullet flying on a straight flight path was able to cause all of the wounds that the Warren Commission found the second shot caused. I happen to believe what I saw in that documentary, which was backed up by scientific evidence. I wasn't there when they fired the test shot, but you weren't there when the grey people or whomever fired from the Grassy Knoll or whatever you believe. All I'm saying is that I saw an incredibly well backed up position for how it might have happened that one bullet could cause those wounds, that is supported by the evidence from that day. You're allowed to doubt it, but I highly recommend the documentary.

      --
      --Obyron
    51. Re:seriously by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you're getting the claims that the steel was destroyed. I understand it differently.

      And really man, it's a comic. It's purpose isn't to present a well argued thesis on the socio-political aspects of third world micro-lending. It was supposed to be funny. It went with the assumption that is held by a majority of people, and 99% of the experts that 9/11 being an inside job is a conspiracy. You're looking to build stawman to easily take down to more easily confirm your own doubts and prejudices with. It's just a comic man, if you want the other side of the argument, seek it out. I'm not gonna tell you the NIST report is perfect and 100% right, it was made by humans, with non limited time and non limited resources, there's sure to be errors and omissions, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is the most plausible explanation by leaps and bounds over anything anyone's presented.

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    52. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For truth, take a really good look look into the Bush family history.
      It ain't the nice guys who are running USA, ever since they killed JFK.
      Or course, these people would have us ignore why JFK was killed.

    53. Re:seriously by syousef · · Score: 1

      I don't know who killed JFK and 40 years later it's too late for it to make a difference if there was some kind of weird cover up with most people who might have been involved retired or dead.

      However you have to understand that anything that involves sex is infinitely harder to cover up than anything involving murder. In the case of sex you have a bunch of oversexed people wanting to boast about their antics, and in the second you have someone dead who can't speak for themselves and all witnesses in fear of their lives as they might be next. Sex mysteries or sex secrets are far rarer than murder mysteries.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    54. Re:seriously by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      You're confusing politicians with bureaucracy.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    55. Re:seriously by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that info. I never knew about Lovelady before today!

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    56. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys are total nut jobs.

      The united states government can't cover up a blow job from a 21 year old intern in the privacy of the oval office. What makes you think they can cover up an assassination on a crowded street at noon? Operation Gladio, the CIA work in Iran, the NSA, etc, etc. There is no way gov./groups of people can keep secrets if they really want to.

      Something tells me that if there were "conspiracies" involved in either the JFK assassination and/or 9/11 they needn't have had more people involved than in the Manhattan Project. I mean,the project was up to 130,000 people working at 30 different sites with most of it done at three _secret_scientific_research_cities_.

      Yeah, there is no way anybody could pull off an assassination or a few plane wrecks.
    57. Re:seriously by Threni · · Score: 1

      > The magic bullet theory suggest a bullet turns around in thin air, without carom, all within the about a foot, and maintains enough
      > momentum to continue being deadly and penetrate flesh?That is impossible.

      It depends where the people are sitting. People who go on about the Magic Bullet theory are wrong about where people were positioned in the car.

    58. Re:seriously by asninn · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. They couldn't cover up that blow job because they didn't want to - it was all just a carefully staged farce conducted by the Democratic-Republican Party to convince you that they're still incompetent and that you have nothing to fear, and at the same time, it was also an attempt to pull the wool over your eyes and convince you that there really still are two parties fighting each other and that the secret meetings that were held where the parties effectively (de facto, if not de jure) merged didn't happen.

      (Seriously, I'm just joking. Or am I? :))

      --
      butter the donkey
    59. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a much better picture.
      On the right you can clearly see Lovelady's shirt as was seen on the day of JFK's assassination, on the left is a much clearer picture of "the man in the doorway" and you can clearly make out the plaid print of his shirt sleeve.

    60. Re:seriously by McGurk · · Score: 1

      Wow. Its pretty obvious that the guy who is supposedly Oswald had on a plaid shirt and has a much sharper face with pronounced cheekbones, whereas Oswald had a softer, more oval face. Amazing how you are so easily convinced by a grainy photograph of some guy who doesn't look like Oswald. I think you need to put the bong down, dude.

      --
      You're doing it wrong--http://youredoingitwrong.mee.nu
    61. Re:seriously by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Because the "blow job" never happened. That whole story was just a lie to divert the country's attention from much more sinister stuff that was happening around the same time. (:-)

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    62. Re:seriously by raddan · · Score: 1

      Power plays. I'm not drawing any conclusions about the JFK shooting itself, because it was well before my time, and it would be pure speculation on my part. But I don't think there is any dispute that what really happens in the Oval Office, corporate boardrooms, and so on, is not well known. On a smaller level, I see this all the time at my company: people walk out of a meeting and say something in many ways completely contradictory to what happened in the meeting. Not necessarily lies, but frequently distortions of events. Why? Because they're able to keep their grasp on leading us by misleading us.

      JFK was assasinated. There must have been a purpose to this. We don't know the purpose. These facts alone should be enough to keep doubt in our minds about any 'official story'.

    63. Re:seriously by edawstwin · · Score: 1

      Even right after it happened people doubted Oswald acted alone. In one of his early stand-up routines in the mid-60s, Woody Allen jokes, "I'm working on a non-fiction version of the Warren Report." Huge laugh from the audience.

      --
      I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
    64. Re:seriously by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      I saw a very fascinating Discovery documentary entitled "Beyond the Magic Bullet" wherein they replicated as closely as possible conditions of the day, and a shooter was able to fire a shot nearly perfectly recreating the wounds from the magic bullet, and resulting in a round that had equal deformity (which was very little) to that of the "Magic" bullet. It was very very startling to me, as a doubter of the probability of the theory, and forced me to reevaluate things. I'm still not sure if I believe that it's what happened, but those decrying the single shooter "magic bullet" theory as scientifically impossible are wrong. If the "non-magic" bullet was hardly deformed, why were there five bullet fragments?
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    65. Re:seriously by holomorph · · Score: 1

      This revelation is interesting only because there is a possibility of a second gunmen. Most of the places where people claim a second gunmen to be have been heavily debunked in recent documentaries.

      Not being all that familiar with the details, this made me think: if there was a second gunman, does that necessarily mean there was a second location? Could there have been two guys standing next to each other in the same place, just to increase the odds that one of them makes that shot, or is there some (and I suspect there is) indication that Oswald was by himself when he was shooting?
    66. Re:seriously by Obyron · · Score: 1

      Hardly != 0. Two shots were fired. The magic bullet is not the bullet that killed Kennedy.

      --
      --Obyron
  5. wow by Dretep · · Score: 0

    This is something the non-experts have known all along. Can't wait until the truth comes out either! That and the truth about the fake moon landing.

  6. Case Closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gerald Posner's book nailed it anyways. Why is slashdot delving into conspiracy theories now? I hope they don't start getting Moon hoaxes or 9/11 conspiracy stories.

    1. Re:Case Closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cmdrdildo has to drum up hits from somewhere. legit tech and science articles aren't doing it anymore since the site has done a fine job of driving off people who wanted to come here to read "news for nerds, stuff that matters"

      slashdot is well on it's way down the slippery slope we hear so much about.

    2. Re:Case Closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Why is slashdot delving into conspiracy theories now? I hope they don't start getting Moon hoaxes or 9/11 conspiracy stories.


      Heck, why not? Slashduh have now been featuring "humans did global warming lol" and "oswald didn't do jfk lol".
      "Jews did wtc lol" and "nasa didn't fly to the moon lol" are the natural next steps to take.

      Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot: Bush = Hitler!!!!1
      (I understand I'm supposed to do that, as I'm from Europe. Give me 5+, Informative, please.)
  7. At last! by Gizmit · · Score: 0

    And they called me mad for espousing the Grassy Knoll theory. MAD! Maybe next I'll be vindicated on UFOs, Bigfoot, Watergate, Moon Landings, and the truth behind Mulder's sister's kidnapping.

    1. Re:At last! by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      I prefer the Gassy Gnoll theory, personally. Some guys were playing D&D nearby and "dogboy" had eaten one too many bean burritos.....needless to say, it wasn't a pleasant result.

      Layne

    2. Re:At last! by chunews · · Score: 1

      No, the D&D play nearby would have caused JFK to be killed by "Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt!"

  8. Then who did it? by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1, Funny

    Then who did it? CowboyNeal?

    1. Re:Then who did it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then who did it?

      Butler, of course. Duh.

  9. Zapruder film by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1, Informative

    Uhh..I thought that the Zapruder film, the fact that bullet took an upward, not a downward trajectory, and eyewitness testimony have already trounced on the Warren Commission's findings that Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas that shot Kennedy.

    But I guess this just adds one more piece of evidence for the federal government to completely ignore.

    1. Re:Zapruder film by techpawn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Back... and to the left... Back... and to the left...

      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    2. Re:Zapruder film by airen9 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "...back and to the left, back and to the left. Which, by the way, that action you see Kennedy's head go through in the Zapruder film - caused by a bullet... [points behind him] comin from up there, ha. Yes, I know it looks to the layman or someone who might dabble in physics... This action here would be caused by a bullet coming from... Well... [thinks] Up here, did you see that? Did everyone see that? Yeah, but no. What happened was Oswald's gun went off, causing an echo to echo through the buildings of Dealey Plaza and the echo went by the limo on the left up into the grassy knoll hitting some leaves causing dust to fly out which 56 witnesses testified was a gun shot, cos immediately... Kennedy's head went over. But the reason his head went over is cause the echo went by the motorcade on the left and he went "What was that?" "

    3. Re:Zapruder film by click2005 · · Score: 1

      Wax On Wax Off?

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    4. Re:Zapruder film by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 1

      the zapruder film was wrong. dan rather told all of america on CBS that kennedy's head went "forward, with considerable violence". dan says it was all oswald, and that should be good enough for you too.

      --
      sarcasm:
      -noun
      1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
    5. Re:Zapruder film by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The bullet (and a bit of brains and other material) left the front right side of his head. That would act as a propellent and have a greater mass than that of the bullet alone. Penn & Teller debunked this one:

      Binding a honeydew mellon with an inch of fiberglass tape to represent Kennedy's skull (on the model proposed by Nobel-laureate physicist Luis Walter Alvarez), Teller puts a shot through it. Slow motion photography shows how the spray of goo exiting the mellon propels it back towards the shooter. Put another way, "back and to the left" is another way to say "shot from the Texas School Book Depository Building."
      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    6. Re:Zapruder film by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      I've heard about the watermellon effect before. My dad, a Vietnam-era Marine, always said that the .45 was a brute, put a hole in you the size of a quarter going in but it'll be the side of a closed fist coming out the other side. But I've also seen pictures of dead cowboys from the Wild West where the exit holes were just as small. A case in point, Bob Dalton of the Dalton gang, he was shot in the back of the head with the bullet exiting below his eye near the top of his cheek. The exit hole was neat and tiny. Dalton was killed in 1892, the .45 came out in 1911, so they're not too many years apart, though the .45 was supposed to be a huge increase in lethality over contemporary revolvers.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_gang

      So, I'm not saying yay or nay here, just asking people who might know a bit about what bullets do to bodies. Do they always create larger exit holes? Is it a question of caliber, velocity, material properties, and where the bullet hits?

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    7. Re:Zapruder film by bkr1_2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They don't always leave larger exit holes, but it's a general rule, especially for larger caliber weapons. Velocity, slug material, slug design, trajectory, impacts inside the body etc, all have a factor. Obviously if a bullet hits a bone and carries the bone matter with it, it's going to do more damage than just passing through soft tissue. However, if a bullet passes through soft tissue on entry and only hits bone on exit (say being shot at the base of the skull with exit through forehead) it's a possibility that the exit wound isn't particularly large, especially with high velocity rounds. Lots of factors will affect the final result.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    8. Re:Zapruder film by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      So the only way to know for sure is to replicate the JFK hit with the same weapon and same ammunition, firing into real heads. Finally, a use for spammers! Or would the lack of brain matter throw off the test?

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    9. Re:Zapruder film by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      The zig-zag trajectory thing was theorized from the entry point on Kennedy's coat, compared to the exit point.

      The new Kennedy film, the one that was found and released a few months ago, clearly showed the back of Kennedy's coat riding up on his neck. That added video evidence to the original conclusion that the bullet didn't zig-zag at all - it entered much higher than the coat hole would have otherwise indicated.

      All the angle analysis done by conspiracy theorists failed to take into account how Kennedy and Connelly were angled in their seats. Of course the bullet paths look funny when you assume they were both sitting face forward, shoulders square. The conspiracies also assume that Connelly was directly in front of Kennedy, and at the same height. The car actually positioned the front seat so that Connelly was lower than Kennedy, and sitting to the "right" (more toward the car center).

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    10. Re:Zapruder film by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uhh..I thought that the Zapruder film, the fact that bullet took an upward, not a downward trajectory, and eyewitness testimony have already trounced on the Warren Commission's findings that Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas that shot Kennedy.

      Only to extremely ignorant, non-experts, and conspiracy theorists...

      Anyone who has ever seen a high-powered riffle going through a human head, knows that the forces involved are extreme, and difficult to imagine by those who have only seen people hit by slow, weak handguns. Bodies really do explode, in whatever direction is least dense... (closest to the surface)

      If anything, the Zapruder film makes the "grassy knoll" conspiracy theory laughable, because non-military weapons like handguns and most riffles don't have nearly that kind of destructive force.

      and eyewitness testimony have already trounced on the Warren Commission's findings

      People claim they heard more shots... Big deal. Eyewitnesses are often mistaken, and the echo characteristics of cities make such mistakes quite understandable.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:Zapruder film by auld_wyrm · · Score: 1

      Probably because there was a lot of advances in gunpowder round the end of the 18th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powder

    12. Re:Zapruder film by cryptoluddite · · Score: 1

      Penn & Teller debunked this one So let me get this straight, you're taking the word of people who make their living tricking people with sleight of hand, mirrors, misdirection, and anything else they can come up with?

      Wow. Just... wow.

      You need to try the legs-separated-from-body thing at home now, because 'fooled by a watermellon' isn't sexy enough for a Darwin award.
    13. Re:Zapruder film by swillden · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight, you're taking the word of people who make their living tricking people with sleight of hand, mirrors, misdirection, and anything else they can come up with?

      If you can assume that they're trying to be honest about it, who could be better at deciding whether or not something was faked than some of the best fakers around? Whether or not you trust them is an issue, of course, but they definitely have some insight into how misdirection is done.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  10. Oh good grief by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

    He's dead - get over it. Marilyn Monroe: dead too. Elvis: him too.
    Get over it.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Oh good grief by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He's dead - get over it.

      The only way in which I agree with you is that it is highly unlikely that we will uncover the other shooter. (Assuming there's only one other.) There was an eye witness to an individual on the grassy knoll, but too much time has passed.

      If we could possibly uncover the identity of one or more additional shooters and gain some insight into who was behind the entire operation, that would be beautiful.

      In closing, I will say just one thing about the whole affair - there is no proof that Harvey even shot JFK once, let alone twice. He was killed before we got to hear his testimony. But we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald. Make of that what you will.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Oh good grief by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Even knowing the identity and motives of the "real" assassin would do nothing more than satisfy historical curiosity. It would be no different than finding out that Archduke Ferdinand was really killed by a Frenchman. You can't change history. (but you can re-write it.)

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Oh good grief by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      He's dead - get over it .... Elvis: him too.


      Nah. I saw him Kalamazoo, MI! I swear!
    4. Re:Oh good grief by niceone · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, yeah, JFK and Monroe, sure. But not Elvis.

    5. Re:Oh good grief by Gryffin · · Score: 0

      He's dead - get over it.

      Hell no.

      A sitting US president is assassinated in public, a shoddy cover-up is hastily staged, and then for forty years, despite mounting evidence contrary to the oficial story, all three branches of the Federal government continue the cover-up. I damn sure want to know who, why, and how. And if you consider the United States to be a nation of laws, and morally superior to the sort of banana republics that change regimes at the point of a gun, you should too.

      --
      Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
    6. Re:Oh good grief by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even knowing the identity and motives of the "real" assassin would do nothing more than satisfy historical curiosity. It would be no different than finding out that Archduke Ferdinand was really killed by a Frenchman. You can't change history. (but you can re-write it.)

      Well, I don't give any particular credence to any of the individual theories (I'm not an expert on the subject, or any related subject) but some have speculated that it was a faction within our government that assassinated JFK, that Ruby would have suffered even worse had he not executed Harvey and so on. If it's true, then those people are probably still profiting from the assassination and they should be found and imprisoned, and their ill-gotten goods taken away. (Most would say they should be executed; for the record, I am anti-death penalty for any reason save if it is physically impossible to imprison someone who will otherwise do people harm. And I'm having a hard time imagining such a situation barring the fall of civilization or similar.)

      It's not about changing history, it's about understanding history, and its implications for both the present and future.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Oh good grief by geekoid · · Score: 1

      SO you ahve completly closed your mind, well done.

      Here is a clue go to the repository.

      Any trained marksman could make that shot. It would be follish and risky to have a second shooter on the grassy knoll. More exposed, harder shot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Oh good grief by Gospodin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I want to know is, if they're so good at maintaining the cover story for all these years, how come they're so frickin' incompetent at everything else?

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    9. Re:Oh good grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as Bill Hicks once observed:

      "If you don't want to talk about Kennedy, then don't bring up Jesus to me.

      'You know Bill, Jesus died for your-'

      'Yeah yeah, it was a long time ago. Get over it.'"

    10. Re:Oh good grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Elvis is not dead. He just went home.

      Kay

    11. Re:Oh good grief by PPH · · Score: 1, Troll

      If it's true, then those people are probably still profiting from the assassination and they should be found and imprisoned, and their ill-gotten goods taken away.

      That depends on who those conspirators might be. If they are associated with the Defense Department, it could be big trouble. IMHO, this country is a lot closer to a bannana republic than most people realize.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    12. Re:Oh good grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oswald shot the Archduke!

    13. Re:Oh good grief by RoaldFalcon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, yeah, JFK and Monroe, sure. But not Elvis.

      OK, people. Let's get this straight. Elvis is dead. Period. He's been dead since 1991. Otherwise the US Postal Service would never have made a stamp with him on it. Best as I can figure, the CIA must have told the USPS about his demise as soon as it happened.

    14. Re:Oh good grief by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      So that people like you will be tricked into thinking there's no way they could be competent enough to pull off a conspiracy theory!

      Oooh, they're clever bastards!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    15. Re:Oh good grief by cptgrudge · · Score: 1

      Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    16. Re:Oh good grief by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      SO you ahve completly closed your mind, well done.

      I'm really not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but perhaps you should slow down next time you type one of your knee-jerk responses. It might make for a sentence containing less typos.

      Any trained marksman could make that shot. It would be follish and risky to have a second shooter on the grassy knoll. More exposed, harder shot.

      Yes, and any trained typist could have done a far better job with your comment.

      Regardless, I'm open to the possibility that Harvey was the sole shooter, but obviously it hasn't been proven one way or another.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Oh good grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, yeah, JFK and Monroe, sure. But not Elvis.
      Hell no !
      Uh huh, Uh, huh.
    18. Re:Oh good grief by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      It is worth noting that there is one well documented case where a historically highly significant secret was succesfully kept by thousands of people over a period of decades: "Ultra", the breaking of the Enigma and other codes during the second world war. Thousands of people worked at Bletchley Park, but what they had been doing was only revealed in about 1972.

      (Incidentally, I am very much not a conspiracy theorist. I do sometimes derive amusement from them, however. My favourite is that Christopher Marlowe's death was faked by Francis Walsingham, and he then ghost-wrote Shakespeare's work. Here's a summary of Marlowe conspiracy theories.)

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    19. Re:Oh good grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anagram for Elvis: lives

    20. Re:Oh good grief by Gospodin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Good point, but I wouldn't say this is the same thing, for several reasons. First, it was only highly significant until 1945, and considering the intelligence wasn't usable until after 1940, the highly significant secret was only kept for at most 5 years, not "decades". Second, the secret was being kept during a time of total war. Third, while official disclosure of Ultra didn't come about until the 1970s, some disclosures about it were made public earlier. The fact that this didn't generate a mass of conspiracy theories only supports my point #1: that it was no longer highly significant.

      OTOH, if it were true that the US government (or a foreign government, for that matter - let's thrown in the conspiracy theory that Castro backed Oswald just for fun) assassinated JFK, that would still be highly significant today.

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    21. Re:Oh good grief by deacon · · Score: 1

      And if you watch the youtube video of Marilyn Monroe sing Happy Birthday to JFK you can see why she had to go. The JFK womanizing is
      stuff of legend, but was always kept under wraps. Marilin was a little TOO obvious to keep around.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3IzpazVl-I

    22. Re:Oh good grief by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      I agree - the reasons Ultra remained secret don't generally apply to (e.g.) 9/11 or Moon Landing conspiracies, which would also necessarily have thousands of people in the know.

      "Third, while official disclosure of Ultra didn't come about until the 1970s, some disclosures about it were made public earlier."

      Can you elaborate on this? From the point of view of studying conspiracy theories (as opposed to generating and believing them) the degree to which Ultra leaked is a highly interesting subject.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    23. Re:Oh good grief by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      P.S. The Wikipedia article gives the first 'leaks' as having occured in 1967 (Wadysaw Kozaczuk, "Bitwa o tajemnice" (Secret War) and David Kahn, "The Codebreakers".)

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    24. Re:Oh good grief by Gryle · · Score: 1

      With apologies to the MiB, Elvis ain't dead, he just went home for a while.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    25. Re:Oh good grief by mpe · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't give any particular credence to any of the individual theories (I'm not an expert on the subject, or any related subject) but some have speculated that it was a faction within our government that assassinated JFK, that Ruby would have suffered even worse had he not executed Harvey and so on. If it's true, then those people are probably still profiting from the assassination and they should be found and imprisoned, and their ill-gotten goods taken away.

      If these people were to exist they'd have every reason to ensure that either the truth didn't come out...

    26. Re:Oh good grief by mpe · · Score: 1

      I agree - the reasons Ultra remained secret don't generally apply to (e.g.) 9/11 or Moon Landing conspiracies, which would also necessarily have thousands of people in the know.

      9/11 is not a good example, because the "official explanation" is a conspiracy theory. In fact there arn't many non conspiracy theories which claim to explain the events of the day, let alone a remotly credible one.
      Indeed the whole "war on terror" is justified by conspiracy theories..

    27. Re:Oh good grief by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      He's dead - get over it. Marilyn Monroe: dead too. Elvis: him too. Get over it.

      What? Him too? People have trying to tell me this a thousand times. But now it's on /., I believe it. What a loss!

    28. Re:Oh good grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't be jealous just because JFK was getting some from Maryln. What is the point of becoming president if you can't at least get laid?


      After reading about Lyndon Johnson getting an enema in front of the press I think it is safe to say he wasn't getting any, except from Ladybird maybe.

    29. Re:Oh good grief by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      As Opus said in old Bloom County comic strip...

      Milo(?): "Why does Elvis' ghost still wander the earth?"
      Opus: "He's mad that he died on the potty."

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    30. Re:Oh good grief by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      That is just because the people who worked at Bletchley Park were the kind of people who never got invited to cocktail parties.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  11. Does anyone really care anymore? by s.bots · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why are people still deeply researching this? JFK is dead, so is Princess Diana, so is Elvis; the world is still spinning and everyone else has moved on. I don't understand, why are people concerned with this?

    1. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by Tobenisstinky · · Score: 1

      Blame.

      --
      wha'? where am i?
    2. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by tgd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Money

      People make a lot of money writing books.

    3. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by ChrisMounce · · Score: 1

      Because conspiracy stories appeal to people.

    4. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the people who killed him might be still alive and running the USA government today.

    5. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by jcronen · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was going to make the same point, but then I saw that the next article down on the main page is entitled "Does Zelda Need an Overhaul?" and realized Slashdot is the wrong forum to decide what is useful and what isn't.

    6. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by Himring · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I don't understand, why are people concerned with this?"

      You nailed by italicizing the "why." Mysteries always intrigue the human animal. We read books to find out what happens. Women chase men who are ... mysterious. "Who is he?" She wonders. We want what we can't have. What we do have, we want to get rid of. Why? We want something new, someone new, new experiences. Lewis called this true joy. Joy, true joy, he explained, is never in the having, but always in the desiring. Never is a thing more perfect than when we don't have it. Never is someone more lovely than when we lose them and can no longer have them. Psychologists tell us that people dumped in a relationship tend to only remember the good things about the one who dumped them. Even the dumper, in time, feels this way. Why? It rebuilds mystery. It rebuilds joy. It rebuilds the what, who and why of it all.

      Why do people care about JFK's death? Because he was the president of the United States. He was mysteriously killed. A very important person dying a very mysterious death builds tons of who, what and why. Yes, in a sense, it builds that mechanism in us that craves knowing. How many of us wouldn't pay all our money to have a true, clear answer to a question that's pained us in our lives? We see that answer as something joyful, fulfilling. Some call it closure. Some call it joy....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    7. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by Threni · · Score: 1

      Some people are obviously overcompensating. "See! See! It *wasn't* the Government!". It might be a good story, but it's still a story.

    8. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by neoform · · Score: 1

      I guess we should say the same about 9/11 and the WTC?

      Who cares?

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    9. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

      "Why are people still deeply researching this? JFK is dead, so is Princess Diana, so is Elvis; the world is still spinning and everyone else has moved on. I don't understand, why are people concerned with this?"

      In 1945, Hirohito made a speech that went something like this. "Look, I'm not really a god, I'm just this guy, y'know? We lost,and we have to surrender, and everything we've been telling you all your life was a lie." It was a big deal at the time; a major shift in perception for the Japanese culture.
        In the Warren report, LBJ got caught lying to the American people about how JFK got whacked (probably by his mafia buddies, possibly with involvement from one or more intelligence agencies.) The term "credibility gap" was invented. It was a major shift in perception for the American culture. Previously, presidents and the government were held in high regard, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent.
        There aren't many slashdot readers old enough to remember what that was like.
      These days, we expect the government to lie to us, steal from us, massacre little brown civilians,and generally act like a tumor or parasite.
      Sure, there are still millions in denial about the Clintons or the Bushes, but the general tone is one of healthy cynicism. The JFK cover-up was a turning point, so it remains important.

    10. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by smchris · · Score: 1

      Because George H. W. Bush, and his brood, are still alive? And the most compelling pot of circumstantial evidence I've seen points to some of Bush's Bay of Pigs CIA operatives as the shooters.

      I was in Junior High at the time and I distinctly remember a radio announcer broadcast over our school's speaker system mentioning the Grassy Knowl on site. It wasn't just a conspiracy theory cooked up after the fact, so how can I not be suspicious?

      Similar, I should think, to the BBC broadcast that World Trade Center 7 had collapsed while it was visible over the commentator's shoulder -- until the feed from America was lost a couple minutes before it really collapsed. Hard to keep focused on the official story and not pay attention to your lying eyes and ears.

    11. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by ookabooka · · Score: 1

      If I told you I had hard evidence as to what happened to Amelia Earhart would you care? She's probably dead too. What about Abraham Lincoln, Napolean, Jesus? It's called history, trying to figure out what happened in the past so we have a better understanding of our world and a better idea of where we are headed in the future.

      --
      If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
    12. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >It's called history

      With as many people who would be in on the conspiracy, we should be getting deathbed confessions already.

      I'm interested in the Kennedy Assassination because I was there. Too young to be aware of anything, but there, I'm told, with my mom and the other AT&T operators she worked with, at the AT&T building across Houston Street. They didn't realize what was happening, didn't hear any gunshots, but saw the crowd panicking. As far as they were concerned, the parade ended when the car turned on Elm.

      Also, my dad was at work at the Ford Furniture company across the street from the Texas theatre when they arrested Oswald.

      I myself have lived in a house that Marina lived in later with her daughters. And I've worked at the Texas theatre, routinely parked my car at the North Tower, and had many a lunch break at the Grassy Knoll.

      Should I be worried?

      My "conspiracy theory" is a little different. I'd accept the premise that the opportunity to assassinate Kennedy presented itself as so completely obvious, that several people *independently* executed a plan, without knowing about Oswald. Maybe the guy at the fence and the guy on the railroad bridge knew about each other, but totally freaked when they realized somebody *else* was shooting.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    13. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >With as many people who would be in on the conspiracy, we should be getting deathbed confessions already. One deathbed confession, coming right up. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/300 407deathbedconfession.htm/

    14. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      the BBC broadcast that World Trade Center 7 had collapsed while it was visible over the commentator's shoulder
      Dude, it was burning for over 6 hours. They knew it was going to collapse. At around 4pm, they pulled the firefighters out of there, and waited until it collapsed around 5:30pm. That the BBC jumped the gun slightly doesn't discount the piles of evidence that explain it collapsed from fires and internal damage from the planes and WTC1&2 debris.
      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    15. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by schweini · · Score: 1

      In the (highly recommended) movie "The Prestige", one of the main characters tries to explain how (stage) magic works. His theory is basically that Humans know how mundane, boring, and in it's essence simple life and our existence is, but that we'd love it to not be that simple. Thus, there is a certain bias to look for - and accept - things that are 'magical', if only to make our brief stay in this universe appear a bit more meaningful. I always thought that this was a great explanation for conspiracies and religion, too.

    16. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Lewis called this true joy.

      Which Lewis? Lewis Carroll? C.S. Lewis? Huey Lewis? If you are going to be all literary and brainy, have the decency to precisely identify your source.

    17. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      I think the late great Bill Hicks summed it up pretty nicely...

      "People come up to me: 'Bill, quit talking about Kennedy man... It was a long time ago...' And I'm like alright, then don't bring up Jesus to me. As long as we're talking about shelf life here!"

      I'm not even American and the JFK assasination is a topic that deeply interests me. We're surely never gonna know what happened that day, but i can settle for what didn't happen.

    18. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by boredguru · · Score: 1

      Women chase men who are ... mysterious. "Who is he?" Thanks for the tip. I will try to be mysterious from now on in my dealings with the opposite sex.
    19. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who am I? Am i mysterious enough?

    20. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by zdv · · Score: 1

      I don't understand, why are people concerned with this?

      Well, presuming Oswald was not the killer, it means the killer(s) is still at large and probably responsible for other subsequent crimes. If you accept that the killer was an organization, it means it is especially likely it continues to commit crimes to this day. If one can get away with killing a US president, what sort of crime is out of reach?

    21. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by russellh · · Score: 1

      Why are people still deeply researching this? JFK is dead, so is Princess Diana, so is Elvis; the world is still spinning and everyone else has moved on. I don't understand, why are people concerned with this?
      JFK was the President of the United States, and he was murdered. That, in and of itself is significant. But we don't know why he was killed, and we are not entirely convinced of the best answers we have. We well-adjusted rational beings can't imagine something like this being done by a plain old nutter. There has got to be a rational reason.. right?
      --
      must... stay... awake...
    22. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know which Lewis as well, please.

    23. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by Himring · · Score: 1

      C.S. Lewis

      Book is, "Surprised by Joy."

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    24. Re:Does anyone really care anymore? by WayTooAwesome · · Score: 1

      The fact that it's a "real life mystery/conspiracy" on a massive scale is not by itself enough of a reason for people to care. Instead, it's the implications behind a president who was assassinated by his own government. If the US government or the CIA is willing to kill him for their own agenda, then what else would they be willing to do?

      Knowing how far your government will go to accomplish something is extremely important - its what separates Nazi Germany's determination from the ambitions of the U.N. Saying that people only hold interest in it as just some silly novel for home-makers is an insult to the true importance behind it.

  12. "Experts", huh? by The+Warlock · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So, unnamed, so-called "Experts" are here to stoke conspiracy theory bullshit and maybe sell a book. What else is new?

    --
    I've upped my standards, so up yours.
    1. Re:"Experts", huh? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, this guy seems legit, but considering the nature of this issue, I want several outside groups to confirm it.
      ANd he does seem to have an axe to grind with the FBI.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:"Experts", huh? by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      So, unnamed, so-called "Experts" are here to stoke conspiracy theory bullshit and maybe sell a book. What else is new?

      What else is new. Well the new is that it was alien lizard monsters from outer space that killed JFK.

    3. Re:"Experts", huh? by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      So, unnamed, so-called "Experts" are here to stoke conspiracy theory bullshit and maybe sell a book. What else is new?

      From the article, the main guy is William A. Tobin "the FBI lab's chief metallurgy expert for more than two decades". Sounds like an expert to me. He could be wrong, of course, but I would think his say-so would be enough to warrant another review of the evidence, with the improved techniques that he already got the FBI to adopt.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:"Experts", huh? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      If you bothered to RTFA, you would've noticed that the "Experts" were, in fact, named.

      "Tobin was the FBI lab's chief metallurgy expert for more than two decades. He analyzed metal evidence in major cases that included the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 explosion of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island."

  13. In other news by niceone · · Score: 4, Funny

    The researchers believe that the chunk of "grassy knoll" they found among the fragments might also be significant.

    1. Re:In other news by grassy_knoll · · Score: 2, Funny

      The researchers believe that the chunk of "grassy knoll" they found among the fragments might also be significant.


      I'll have you know I'm not missing any chunks.
  14. Cmon Seriously? by otacon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Obviously there was another shooter that the Gov didn't want you to know. If you look at Oswald's history he was all over the place...defecting to the Soviet Union when he was 19, just 3 days after being discharged from the Marines...that has CIA written all over it.

    --
    In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
    1. Re:Cmon Seriously? by guacamole · · Score: 1

      If you look at Oswald's history he was all over the place...defecting to the Soviet Union when he was 19, just 3 days after being discharged from the Marines...that has CIA written all over it.

      How does that disprove the lone gunman theory? After reading Oswald's biography, I am actually pretty much convinced that Oswald was a real nut and lunatic and very capable of being a lone maniac who shot the president.

    2. Re:Cmon Seriously? by l3mr · · Score: 1

      And lets not forget Kerry Thornley...

      --
      The world always seems brighter when you've just made something that wasn't there before. - Neil Gaiman
  15. I can hear it now by LordKaT · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can hear it now ... somewhere Bill Hicks is giggling to himself.

    1. Re:I can hear it now by dr_dank · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was just down in Dallas, Texas. You know, you can go down there and to Dealey Plaza where Kennedy was assassinated. And you can actually go to the sixth floor of the Schoolbook Depository. It's a museum called ... "The Assassination Museum". I think they named it that after the assassination. I can't be too sure of the chronology here, but ... anyway, they have the window set up to look exactly like it did on that day. And it's really accurate, you know, 'cause Oswald's not in it.

      - Bill Hicks

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  16. Back, and to the right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Back.....And to the right.

  17. just to be clear by mzs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "They reached no conclusion about whether more than one gunman was involved"

    They only have shown that it is not statistically certain that all bullet fragments were of similar make-up of to those of Oswald's.

    1. Re:just to be clear by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They only have shown that it is not statistically certain that all bullet fragments were of similar make-up of to those of Oswald's.

      That is not at all what the article says. What it says is that the previous investigation concluded that all bullet fragments came from only 2 bullets. This new study shows that it is possible that the fragments came from three or more bullets . So assuming that now people think that 3 or more bullets were fired, the question is - How many of those bullets could Oswald have fired? My understanding is that some people think he could have gotten off 3 shots within the time allowed. Others say that it would be almost impossible to fire more than 2. So until we seem to come to a conclusion that Oswald could only have fired 2 bullets and not 3, we haven't seen anyone rule out that Oswald could have fired 3 bullets himself.

    2. Re:just to be clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watched the Discovery Channel special "Beyond the Magic Bullet", and they point to the fact that Oswald was a trained sharpshooter for the Marines, and would have been relatively easy for him to get off 3 shots in the alloted time (8 seconds I believe?). They demonstrate how much time it would have taken, and also even have the original paper targets and training scores that he had when he was a sharpshooter. How authentic they are, I don't know, but I am someone who is not sure whether there was infact a conspiracy coverup or not, so it is something I will not automatically discount.

    3. Re:just to be clear by Syberghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention the fact that they didn't reach the conclusion there were three bullets; they just reached the conclusion that it wasn't PROVEN to be two. It is still possible that there were only two, and it is still possible that it will be proven to be two. It is also possible that there were only two, but that it will never be proven that there only two.

      None of this will have any material bearing on what 99% of the people who have an opinion on this matter think.

  18. I *knew* there was a coverup! by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 1

    We must find those responsible and bring them to justice! I call dibs on the big shovel.

    --

    Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

  19. Chuck Norris Killed JFK by Skeetskeetskeet · · Score: 1, Funny

    Further analysis of the ballistics and stop-motion digitized frames of the famous Zapruder video clearly show that in the frames immediately before the supposed "bullet" that killed JFK Mr. Norris is seen diving into the view of the camera and stopping Oswald's bullet with his beard before it hit the President.

    Subsequent analysis shows that JFK's head exploded in sheer amazement of Norris' ability to stop the bullet.

    --
    Yeah, my karma sucks....but so do the mods.
    1. Re:Chuck Norris Killed JFK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Church Norris jokes are not funny, he is a jesus-freak.

      Can the sane people of this planet please stop mentioning him and let him be just another right-wing columnist?

  20. ~Conspiracy, Still by Omestes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wait, meaning he could have loaded his gun with bullets from different batches of rounds?

    Am I misreading this? It just says that some of the fragments had different chemical profiles, meaning they come from different sources. So, why couldn't he have used different sources for his bullets? How does this make a conspiracy, still?

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    1. Re:~Conspiracy, Still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is highly doubtful. Expert marksmen are extremely picky about their setup. Rounds from different manufacturers will fly differently depending on grain, aero dynamics, etc.

    2. Re:~Conspiracy, Still by Josef+Meixner · · Score: 1

      As far as I understand it, the assumption was, that when the lead in two probes was identical then the parts belonged to the same bullet. They just bought some of the same ammunition (I have to admit I am rather surprised you can still find such old ammunition) and found out, that two or more bullets can share the same material (which honestly isn't very surprising if you think about it, I would assume most of the bullets made from the same lead batch are basically identical for chemical analysis and also will probably end up in the same box).

      At least that is how I read the article. What they say is, that there could have been more bullets involved than the original report gave credit for, because it was based on a flawed assumption. They can not prove or disprove that, as they didn't have the original evidence and only used the same kind to find out, if the basic assumption was right or not.

  21. Re:I really wonder if this is just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whoa, it's a meta-conspiracy.

  22. Slow your horses there, cowboy. by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Based on common analysis at the time, it was reasonable conclusion.

    This analysis is full of maybes
    example:

    "If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald."

    Or he fired another shot.
    The guy who claims this has been afer the FBI for years, and what better way to get in the press then dragging this out. Lets see some other groups confirm his analysis.

    Even though this post is clearly trollish in nature, and quite frankly doesn't belong on /. there is no reason to exsasorbate the issue with post like yours.

    Was there more then one shooter? I don't know.
    What I do know is this:
    Any moment in time, looked at be enough people begin to show things that dno't make sense. Any event has thing that seem unexplainable 20+ years down the road.
    I also watched a man hit a moving target at 1000 yards, repeatably.
    I also no that if there was another shooter, that doesn't mean there is a cover up or conspiracy. Just a wrong conclusion based on faulty analysis.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Slow your horses there, cowboy. by PacketShaper · · Score: 0

      I also no that if there was another shooter, that doesn't mean there is a cover up or conspiracy Definition of "conspiracy" (dictionary.com)

      an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
    2. Re:Slow your horses there, cowboy. by eat+here_get+gas · · Score: 1

      *I also no that if there was another shooter, that doesn't mean there is a cover up or conspiracy.*

      YOU ARE a fucking idiot!The whole premise of the "cover-up" is that there was ONLY ONE shooter!

      --
      the significance of a signature is insignificant
    3. Re:Slow your horses there, cowboy. by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      What does that mean? ...

      No no, what does "exasorbate" mean?

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    4. Re:Slow your horses there, cowboy. by johndiii · · Score: 1

      Context suggests "exacerbate", though I do not think that the usage is quite correct. Either that, or perhaps food additives of extraterrestrial origin. :-)

      --
      Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
  23. Not this again! by ErnoWindt · · Score: 0

    There is absolutely no credible evidence that anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald was involved in the assasination of JFK. None. Zero. Instead of reading pro-conspiracy propaganda, read some factual, historical accounts, like Posner's magesterial "Case Closed." If, after that, you still believe it was a conspiracy, actually read the Warren Commission report. With all due respect to the analysts who did the research cited in Slashdot, their work is in some way flawed or inadvertently misleading.

  24. What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who madded that fucking idiot up? Why are you people so fucking stupid?

  25. This casts doubt how? by Flababo · · Score: 4, Informative

    This story makes it seem as though this new revelation casts doubt on the whole story. Simply because the lead analysis is wrong doesn't invalidate the highly compelling ballistics evidence and reliable eyewitness testimony. While the lead analysis may not preclude a second shooter, the other evidence certainly does. I would suggest reading Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK by Gerald Posner. It does a very convincing job of examining and supporting Oswald as the sole shooter. This new analysis is not a smoking gun and shame on the media for slanting it that way.

    1. Re:This casts doubt how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Analysis of one page of Posner's book:

      http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html

  26. Was it Arlen Specter? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Dont have the time to read all the cofig theories. Let me know when the guy on the grassy knoll is proved to be Arlene Specter.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Was it Arlen Specter? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      Let me know when the guy on the grassy knoll is proved to be Arlene Specter.

      Did he have a sexchange? I thought it was just cancer..

    2. Re:Was it Arlen Specter? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Dont have the time to read all the cofig theories. Let me know when the guy on the grassy knoll is proved to be Arlene Specter.

      Could be. But the theory that he was actually shot by Christopher Marlowe seems ridiculous.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    3. Re:Was it Arlen Specter? by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      Let me know when the guy on the grassy knoll is proved to be Arlene Specter.

      Funny, I was thinking about a different politician; one with proven record of shooting people in the head. ;-)

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  27. Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Misleading summary on Slashdot? Who would have thought? They didn't say it was wrong (meaning that there was more than one gunmen), they said the analysis was not correct. This means it could have been one gun, it could have been several - the analysis that supposedly proved one gunman actually did not. But, it didn't disprove one gunman either. Of course, "analysis not statistically significant" is a far cry from "multiple gunman proven", but which gets more clicks?

  28. You must not have heard.. by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

    You must not have heard the song he's quoting from?

    1. Re:You must not have heard.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JFK blown away isn't funny, referencing the song is funny. Get a life, troll.

  29. Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by Syncerus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I used to believe a bunch of the conspiracy bs until I actually visited the site of the shooting in person. Once you've been to the Book Repository and seen the location in person, it becomes painfully obvious that it was almost trivially easy for Oswald to have done the shooting. Quite frankly, the conditions make it very easy (almost convenient) for Oswald to kill Kennedy.

    In a nutshell, the location is **small**. Everything is very close together, distances are modest and the shooting was very, very easy from the window to the traveling automobile. The angle was just about ideal for Oswald. The "grassy knoll" is a joke, and the angle from the "knoll" was much less favorable for an assassination attempt.

    Seriously folks, go visit the Book Repository yourself. All the conspiracy FUD is just anger and disappointment that something exciting and pretty was destroyed by something ugly and small.

    --
    "Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
    1. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by MontyApollo · · Score: 1

      The first time I was in Dealey Plaza I had the same reaction - it was much smaller and closed in than I expected.

    2. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by geek · · Score: 0

      My understanding is that it has a lot less to do with the angle and more to do with the time between shots. He was using a bolt action rifle and needed to pull the bolt back each time he fired. A lot of people feel that he would have to be superman to have fired as quickly as he did. Granted he was a trained marksman but even a lot of other trained marksmen believe it was just too fast for a single shooter.

    3. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by t0rkm3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Guess they've never fired a rifle whilst being battle-trained eh?

      My dad was a international level shooter and you wouldn't believe how fast he could reload a bolt-action rifle.

      One of those thing's that make me laugh. Like saying that taking an assault rifle away is going to lower the body count when someone walks into a classroom and starts shooting. With a little practice you can fire a clip empty and reload before someone can get out of their seat.

      Just shows how ignorant people become when they have zero experience in a field.

    4. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by MontyApollo · · Score: 1

      I saw a TV show once where they duplicated this. The put a guy in a perch at the right height and angle, and they pulled a similar car at the correct speed. The marksman fired a very similar if not the same model of rifle. If I remember correctly, he got the shots off in time in the majority of test runs and with very good accuracy.

    5. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by Bill+Barth · · Score: 1

      You should look up Marcus Ranom's version of doing this or the guys that do this every year with a moving car. The latter I think even allow basically anyone to come and try their hand at it.

      --
      Yes...I am a rocket scientist.
    6. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no kidding! Put another way, because it's really easy for a highly trained marksman to take out a lot of people with a non-automatic weapon, means we might as well let everyone have full automatics! Yup... that's solid logic, there. Real solid.

    7. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by lysse · · Score: 1

      Other people have gone there and reached the exact opposite conclusion - but I raise my hat to both you and those other people, because in going out there and seeing for yourself, you've demonstrated a willingness to not just sit back and take someone else's word for it - which is really all that matters in life.

    8. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by iamdrscience · · Score: 1

      I've fired a bolt action rifle and going from my experience I can understand why a lot of people would question the ability of Oswald to fire as quickly as he did. However, I have seen video of someone (Oswald's brother, actually) successfully firing the same number of rounds in the same amount of time so I'm pretty convinced that it's entirely possible. I think the inclination I and other people have against the possibility stems from not having tried or been trained to fire as quickly as possible.

    9. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >You should look up Marcus Ranom's version
      That's Marcus Ranum you clueless sucking pile of crap (and I only mean that in the nicest way).

      This is his version.
      http://www.ranum.com/fun/bsu/diy-dealy/index.html

      BTW if you think I am mean, you never read anything from Marcus Ranum.

    10. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      I used to believe a bunch of the conspiracy bs until I actually visited the site of the shooting in person. Once you've been to the Book Repository and seen the location in person, it becomes painfully obvious that it was almost trivially easy for Oswald to have done the shooting. Quite frankly, the conditions make it very easy (almost convenient) for Oswald to kill Kennedy.

      What did it for me was seeing the zapruder film all the way through. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=zapruder+fil m&so=0

      The "back and to the left" crap becomes clear that he was shot from behind when you see the whole thing. The head exploding is always left out on TV and in the JFK movie, but for me, seeing his head blown like that made me get pissed at all of the conspiracy crap, which to some degree I believed for quite some time, or at least I was uncertain of the events there. Seeing the film changed that for me.

    11. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      But most people aren't battle trained and mass murderers usually take their sweet time doing it (gotta satisfy those fantasies).

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    12. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by pant · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the way it is in many states today, provided you have no criminal record, and the money to buy the weapon. Its mostly like any non-automatic weapon. Look up "class III weapons permit requirements". The only extra hoops you have to jump through are pure paperwork, (legally undeniable in most places that allow it, but you might have LE tell you to go to court for challenge purely because they don't like you)and,(I think), inspection on demand by the ATF. Then, go look up how many of those weapons are used in crimes. Is that logic solid enough for you? Witness the horror of nonexistant crime.

    13. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

      In a nutshell, the location is **small**. Everything is very close together, distances are modest and the shooting was very, very easy from the window to the traveling automobile. The angle was just about ideal for Oswald. The "grassy knoll" is a joke, and the angle from the "knoll" was much less favorable for an assassination attempt.

      Not THAT small. If the final shot came from the 6th floor of the school book building, Kennedy would have been about 95 yards away. Getting a 2-inch shot grouping under field conditions on a target moving away and down from your location, using a bolt-action rifle that you are having to work very rapidly is considered a feat of marksmanship. Not impossible, but very, very difficult. The grassy knoll was not a joke, at least from a shooter's viewpoint. A shot from there would have been at closer range at a target moving towards you, rather than away, and the angle would have been better than from the school book building.

    14. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Wait wait... the absence of crimes utilizing automatic weapons is the reason we should make them easy to acquire? That's bizarre reasoning if I've ever heard it.

    15. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I think it was the Discover Channel that did the Oswald experiments that solidified in my mind that he was at LEAST the primary shooter if not the lone shooter. They simply reenacted Oswald's movement during and after the shooting and all of it was very plausible. That's not to say that he didn't have some connections to other organizations making sure he was successful.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    16. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by pant · · Score: 1

      They are already easy to aquire, crimes utilizing them notwithstanding. (sp?) Very straightforward reasoning, unless you missed the first part about not having a criminal record, state law supporting you, the cash to afford such a weapon, and willingness to submit to possible ATF inspection if you possess them.

      Like I said, look up "Class III weapon requirements". This is nothing new under the sun. We are not 'making' anything new happen. It has been this way for decades.

    17. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by Frostalicious · · Score: 1

      I used to believe a bunch of the conspiracy bs until I actually visited the site of the shooting in person.

      And if you can't travel that far, check out JFK Reloaded and you can take your own shot. After running through the sim a few times, I wondered what the big deal was.

    18. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude. 95 yards is nothing to a sniper with a scoped rifle set up on a windowsill. When I was training to use an assault rifle in the military, we used iron sights and never shot at anything closer than 150m (165 yards) on the firing range except for "close quarters" style shooting: standing upright without support under your gun, at distances around 50 yards. 95 yards with a scope would only impress me if he did it hanging upside down from a tree.

    19. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1

      It's not enough to shoot fast, you have to shoot fast and reasonably accuratly at a moving and realtively small target. Certainly possible, but he'd have to be a pretty good shot I think.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    20. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been to Dealey Plaza. I'm not an expert marksman by any means, but I've done my stint in the military. Looking out the window at the School Book Repository, I was unable to understand how a trained marksman could elect to *hold his fire* until the motorcade had made the turn and sped up. Before the turn, the target was moving almost straight towards the window where the shooter supposedly was. After the turn, target moved right at increasing speed---a much more difficult shot.

      I'm not a consipracy theorist, but after visiting the site, I can understand where they are coming from. It just doesn't look right.

    21. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by SirBruce · · Score: 1

      I've played through JFK Reloaded many times. If you fire at the times Oswald supposedly fired, you can pretty reasonably replicate the shots -- I scored a neck shot that went into Connelly and even the head shot. But to get the exact set of injuries is nearly impossible. It's very difficult to get a shot off that doesn't hit one of the SS agents.

      The other thing that gets me is, as others have pointed out, why he didn't just shoot as the car was moving towards him up the plaza. It's a much easier short; after the turn, not only do you have the car moving left and away, but you've also got the tree obscuring the shot. The limo does slow down helpfully, but I don't know why I'd do the assassination that way.

      I believe in a second shooter.

    22. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I've seen shooting competitions where a guy firing a single-action pistol pops six ballons in under two seconds.

      That's six aimed shots at a half second each, from a gun that you have to manually cock the trigger for each shot.

      His reload time is something like a second too. He's literally firing again before the casings have time to hit the ground.

      Oswald was a marine, and what he did was essentially part of the standard training for the time. Wikipedia mentions that he qualified(if barely) for marksman and sharpshooter at different shooting events while in the Marines. Please note that these are *exceptional* categories and not easy to obtain, especially for Marines.

      I don't find the rate of fire extreme, just 'excellent'.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    23. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by Frostalicious · · Score: 1

      The other thing that gets me is, as others have pointed out, why he didn't just shoot as the car was moving towards him up the plaza.

      Probably he just couldn't look him in the eyes as he shot him.

    24. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by SirBruce · · Score: 1

      From the simulation, I found the biggest difficulty in the frontal shot is not hitting the driver of the limo. But then, that's not such a bad thing, so long as it's a kill shot and you can get your next shots off before they can react. The car either slows or stops, so you're in good shape. But if you miss, then the driver could react and speed up. Still, running all the odds, it seems you're betting off shooting before the turn than after.

    25. Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? by allforcarrie · · Score: 1

      I totaly agree. everyone is an expert....

  30. MOD PARENT UP by ArcSecond · · Score: 1

    At least SOMEONE is paying attention to the semantics of this thing.

    Why does everybody on Slashdot feel the need to jump to conclusions before RTFA?

    --

    I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by jfengel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your statement implies that they were ever going to RTFA. I find that a rather bold and unwarranted conclusion.

      We're Slashdot: we already know everything we need to know. We're just waiting for everybody else to find it out.

    2. Re:MOD PARENT UP by ArcSecond · · Score: 1

      Touche! :P

      --

      I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

  31. I second this by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    This special was very illuminating. The main takeaway for me, besides the magic bullet, is that most analysis has Gov. Connolly in the wrong position vis a vis JFK.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  32. This is the reason why by Programmer_In_Traini · · Score: 1

    This is exactly why people do random acts of shooting, it is glorified.

    This is where it starts. Oswald took the role of the bad guy with an opinion. He kills the president and we transform it into a national event!

    Now, we have people spending their entire day breaking their brains trying to understand whether Oswald was alone or not, or if he shot once or twice...or ... whatever.

    So the message we're really sending to all these lunatic and despaired people is that a good way to be heard is to kill people. They will lose their life (which they dont seem to care about) then a ton of people will give them attention by trying to understand them. They will be seen on the internet, the TV, the radio.

    I really wish we'd give less attention to that kind of event, so that in the end, its stops being the "in" thing to do if you are despaired.

    Heck, maybe they'd even start blaming rock n roll again for violence and leave the gamers alone :)

    --
    If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
    1. Re:This is the reason why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. The next time a U.S. president gets shot we should all teach the shooter(s) an important lesson by pretending we didn't notice it happened.

    2. Re:This is the reason why by criscooil · · Score: 1

      But then why did he deny it? If Oswald was after the notoriety wouldnt he have admitted killing Kennedy? He said he didnt shoot anybody, and that he had been set up as a 'patsy'. That contradicts your premise.

      --

      My life is an open book ... up to a point.

    3. Re:This is the reason why by Programmer_In_Traini · · Score: 1

      Maybe Oswald wasnt in for the notoriety, maybe he got paid by a mysterious someone. We dont know. What we do know is that everytime a shooting occurs we make a complete mediatic coverage of it. That's what is appealing to the lunatic, much like in the same way a kid will do things just to get your attention.

      --
      If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
  33. Re:I really wonder if this is just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    news bulletin! the world still turns even if you have a bug up your ass about who's in office.

    just because you happen to dislike the president doesn't mean that everyone else has to stop their lives and take time to focus all of their energy on your target. people get on with their lives and don't spend every waking moment trying to find new ways to interject their political ideals into every conversation.

    if anything i feel bad about the people who can't just get on with their own lives. it must suck to not have anything aside from newspaper headlines and slashdot.

  34. To quote the late, great Bill Hicks by loafula · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I have this feeling that whoever's elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what promises you make on the campaign trail - blah, blah, blah - when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down... and it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll.... And then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, 'Any questions?'"

    --
    FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
  35. The accidental assassin by steveha · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One interesting theory I heard: there were two shooters, but the second shooter might not have intended to shoot.

    There were various Secret Service people around, armed with various weapons. If you are well trained, you carry a weapon with the safety applied, and with your finger off the trigger, and the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. But sometimes people do screw up.

    So, according to this theory, Oswald starts shooting at JFK, and someone screws up and fires off an accidental shot from an AR-15 or something. Then the person who screwed up never admitted it, because if you fatally shot the man you were trying to protect, would you be in a hurry to admit it?

    The accidental shot could have been while taking the safety off in a hurry with a finger on the trigger, for example. (One of Cooper's famous three laws of firearm safety: keep your finger outside the trigger guard until you have the sights lined up on a target you are willing to shoot.)

    http://www.sportshooter.com/safety/safetyrules_ann otated.asp

    I heard this theory from Massad Ayoob years ago during a lecture on safety. He felt that JFK's head wound was consistent with the small, fast bullet fired by an AR-15, while JFK's other wounds were consistent with a big, heavy, slow bullet fired by the Carcano rifle used by Oswald.

    http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id89.htm

    I have not researched this enough to have an opinion on how likely it is, but I do find it interesting.

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:The accidental assassin by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      There were various Secret Service people around, armed with various weapons. If you are well trained, you carry a weapon with the safety applied, and with your finger off the trigger, and the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.
      My understanding is that the rules for Secret Service agents are somewhat different, considering that they're highly trained and their only concern is to protect [VIP].

      Unless of course, the SS agents of Kennedy's time used the same rules you link to @ www.sportshooter.com
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:The accidental assassin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look around you can find some odd sorts of training.

      I read about one police department where the SWAT guys were trained to stay close together; if you were following someone you were supposed to press the muzzle of your submachine gun into the middle of the back of the person you were following. The concept was that the body armor would stop any stray rounds, and the SWAT guys were far too highly trained to ever have a negligent discharge anyway.

      The above is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard, and I don't believe that PD has that policy anymore.

      So yeah, I don't know what the Secret Service guys were trained to do back in the time of JFK.

  36. I'm no conspiracy theorist... by TheBearBear · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But when I came across this wiki article, I said "HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, I wonder"

    From Wiki Article on JFK Assassination

    "The FBI has received added scrutiny by Kennedy assassination researchers due to the actions of FBI agent James Hosty. Hosty appeared in Oswald's address book. The FBI provided to the Warren Commission a typewritten transcription of Oswald's address book, in which Hosty's name and phone number were omitted. Two days before the assassination, Oswald went to the FBI office in Dallas to meet with Hosty, and when he found that Hosty was not in the office at the time, Oswald left an envelope for Hosty with a letter inside. After Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby, Hosty's supervisor ordered Hosty to destroy the letter, and he did so by tearing the letter up and flushing it down the toilet. Months later, when Hosty testified before the Warren Commission, he did not disclose this connection with Oswald. This information became public later and was investigated by the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations.[57]"

    1. Re:I'm no conspiracy theorist... by aztektum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Federal Bureau of Investigation was deficient in its sharing of information with other agencies and departments.

      Shock! Dismay! How so little has changed in nearly 50 years. My grandpa has told me a few times that ever since JFK he never felt he could trust the world he thought he knew. He's no conspiracy nut, but it definitely realigned his opinion of politicians and made him realize "Big Brother's" presence even back then.

      The citizens of the US haven't become disenfranchised because of G.W.. That started decades ago and is simply accelerating rapidly these days.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    2. Re:I'm no conspiracy theorist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh, wikipedia wow! It must be The Truth.

      From the referenced article [57]http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-co mmittee-report/part-1c.html#destruction5

      "Approximately 2 or 3 weeks before the assassination of President Kennedy, Oswald allegedly delivered a note addressed to Hosty at the FBI office in Dallas. (80) The varying accounts of the note's contents suggest that it was threatening or complaining in tone, ordering Hosty to stop bothering Oswald's wife.(81) Several hours after Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby, Hosty, according to his own admission, destroyed the note after having been instructed to do so by J. Gordon Shanklin, the special-agent-in-charge of the Dallas FBI office."

      "The committee regarded the incident of the note as a serious impeachment of Shanklin's and Hosty's credibility. It noted, however, that the note, if it contained threats in response to FBI contacts with Oswald's wife, would have been evidence tending to negate an informant relationship."

      Keep working at the whole conspiracy theorist thing though. We need more like you.

    3. Re:I'm no conspiracy theorist... by Optic7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm no conspiracy theorist either, but I think that the JFK assassination conspiracy theory is probably the juiciest of them all. That's because it's plausible, there were plenty of people with motivation to do it, and it's just shooting one man in a convertible car, something that could easily be pulled off with a handful of skilled people in the 1960s. Not to mention that there is just so much about the assassination and the strange or suspicious events around it that make it seem like we haven't heard the entire story yet. Yep, the JFK assassination conspiracy theory wins the grand prize of conspiracy theories. Notice that the 9/11 theories are the opposite - completely far-fetched, easily debunked stuff.

    4. Re:I'm no conspiracy theorist... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Two days before the assassination, Oswald went to the FBI office in Dallas to meet with Hosty, and when he found that Hosty was not in the office at the time, Oswald left an envelope for Hosty with a letter inside. After Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby, Hosty's supervisor ordered Hosty to destroy the letter, and he did so by tearing the letter up and flushing it down the toilet.

      The FBI agent claimed it was just random threats, which they typically disposed of, in connection with Oswald's mother's immigration case, IIRC.

      I received a letter from my bank a week ago, which I shredded... Did it tell me to assassinate the president? Perhaps.

      Conspiracy theorists love little pointless bits and pieces like that, but those of us who are somewhat rational like a bit more than wild speculation.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:I'm no conspiracy theorist... by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >I received a letter from my bank a week ago, which I shredded...

      Right after someone closely connected to you is directly linked, literally to the crime of the century?

      When you routinely shred documents, that is one thing. When you shred documents that are possibly evidence in such a serious crime, that's another.

      I'm still wondering about that FAA manager who took tapes made on 9/11, and deliberately cut them up and deposited them in separate wastebaskets. Does that exercise get done EVERY day, or only after the biggest incident ever?

      Do you not see your bank statement as being at all different from a letter from Lee Harvey Oswald that's in your hand *AFTER* he kills the President?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    6. Re:I'm no conspiracy theorist... by TheBearBear · · Score: 1

      Well, what's suspicious in this case is the timing! The letter was disposed of after Oswald was shot (not necessarily cause and effect). And do they typically dispose of such threats in such a manner? And here's the thing. If someone is a suspect for ASSASSINATING A PRESIDENT, would you KEEP ANYTHING that BELONGED TO, or is CONNECTED with that person? A hair, sock, a THREAT LETTER? ANYTHING? And another thing is, he didn't mention this connection with Oswald until a second investigation found it out.

      When you add those up, the questions keep on comin.

    7. Re:I'm no conspiracy theorist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He's no conspiracy nut, but it definitely realigned his opinion of politicians and made him realize "Big Brother's" presence even back then. "
      The Men Who Killed Kennedy
    8. Re:I'm no conspiracy theorist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any link available for the story about the FAA manager and the missing tapes?

    9. Re:I'm no conspiracy theorist... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/ nyt_destape.html

      Apparently, the traffic controllers' union required an agreement that recordings of their testimony would be destroyed. Something like that.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    10. Re:I'm no conspiracy theorist... by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      Any link available for the story about the FAA manager and the missing tapes?

      Google is your friend. But then, I suppose, so am I.

      --MarkusQ

    11. Re:I'm no conspiracy theorist... by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be so sure about 9/11 in your place.There was coverup of evidence.

    12. Re:I'm no conspiracy theorist... by Altus · · Score: 1


      The citizens of the US haven't become disenfranchised because of G.W.. That started decades ago and is simply accelerating rapidly these days.

      Bush wouldn't be able to do a tiny fraction of the stuff he has gotten away with if average US citizens had not been so disenfranchised for so very long.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    13. Re:I'm no conspiracy theorist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the link. How very peculiar (like so much else surrounding that awful September) - a senior FAA official admitted conspiring to ensure the deliberate, total destruction and disposal of irreplaceable FAA property containing unique contemporaneous evidence relating to a federal investigation of one of the biggest crimes in modern history, yet he was apparently never prosecuted for his devious, illegal action. It would be scarcely more surprising if it turned out that whole piles of other evidence have been destroyed or mysteriously shipped off to some far away place.

  37. This is Great News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coast to coast AM has been pretty boring lately. Can you believe they actually had a climate scientist on talking about global warming recently? WTF!!!

    Really, if they want to talk about real shit, I'll just stick with the newspapers.

    At one in the morning, when I'm falling asleep, I want to hear about ghosts, chupacabras, aliens, ufos, secret cities on the moon, bigfoot, etc...

    This is great news, because there is likely to be a good handfull of 'experts' who will lull me to sleep with stories of 'I told ya so!' on the JFK conspiracies now.

  38. Re:seriously -- get a grip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There a certain facts about JFK's assignation that will always make me conclude that Oswald was a lone gunman. 1. Oswald was nuts. He fits all the personality profiles of people that do this crazy shit. 2. He was an excellent marksman. 3. The book depository window was less than 200 feet from the limo. That is not very far for even a mildly skilled marksman. 4. His rifle was a Italian Carcano. http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/ One of the most accurate military firearms issued. My father had this gun, and he used to shoot muskrats at a 1/4 mile with iron sights -- much less 200 feet thru a scope for Oswald. 5. Carcano bullets can go thru tree stumps and come out undamaged -- I've seen it. 6. Bullets do weird things at high velocity.

    Taken as a whole, it's much simpler and believable to see that one crazy man with skill and mental illness can shoot the president from less than 200 feet with a highly accurate rifle, rather than everyone from LBJ, Castro, the FBI, the CIA, and the KGB helping him.

  39. Re:I really wonder if this is just by zappepcs · · Score: 1

    Uhhh, hello, McFly! tap tap tap

    That person in the Whitehouse currently, along with his pals, are trying harder than anyone in recent history to erode away and steal your personal freedoms. They are deserving of 'our' attention, even if you don't get the joke... meh

  40. Re:I really wonder if this is just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, that was the death of Falwell. He was "sacrificed" to take away from the Comey/Ashcroft scandal that broke the same morning about warrantless wiretapping. The last time Gonzales was on the hotseat, it was the Virginia Tech shooting that took all the coverage. This time it was Falwell.

  41. E Howard Hunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    On his deathbed recently confessed to the conspiracy..
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/300 407deathbedconfession.htm

    The motives were there in spades too.

    Yeah Yeah, knock the messenger (prisonplanet), but read it first.

  42. You think *that's* puzzling? by Bearpaw · · Score: 2, Funny

    There was this guy (I forget his name) executed for some crime a couple of thousand years ago, and there are multiple organizations, big and small, arguing about that. Heck, sometimes they even get to killing each other over it. Go figure.

  43. Huey Long shot by own body guard by Latent+Heat · · Score: 5, Funny
    There is one screwball theory upon which I read a book about (yeah, yeah, there are books and books on this). The theory is that the kill shot was from an accidental discharge of a Secret Service AR-15.

    Yes, Oswald was up in his sniper's nest in the Book Repository building and popped off some shots, and his was the "magic bullet" that wounded the President and Governer Connely. As to the bullet being pristine, there is this thing about full-metal jacket military bullets that are supposed to go through you instead of fragment or mushroom, and it was not pristine but rather deformed, and high-energy 22 cal bullets can take strange paths through body tissue.

    The big mystery is how Oswald could have popped off the "single bullet" and then the kill shot -- was he that good a marksman at a moving target or was he lucky and the rest of the world so unlucky? The theory is no, the kill shot came from somewhere else -- the commotion of the shooting, a Secret Service agent dropped what was at that time an experimental AR-15, the thing discharged (in front and below the President), and the peculiar ammo inflicted the horrific, fatal wound on the President.

    Government coverup? You bet! How could the government admit to the President being killed by his own bodyguards, althought that is what happened to Huey Long -- also an accident. Oswald the lone killer? Also true -- that the fatal shot was an accident in response to someone trying to kill the President doesn't let Oswald off the hood.

    1. Re:Huey Long shot by own body guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was he that good a marksman at a moving target or was he lucky and the rest of the world so unlucky? Oswald qualified as a sharpshooter though later only a marksman, which makes him an order of magnitude better shot than you or me or the majority of the rest of the world.
    2. Re:Huey Long shot by own body guard by iainmcphersn · · Score: 2, Informative

      The book is "Mortal Error" by Bonar Menninger. He also concluded that the shots he attributed to Oswald were unsurvivable though not as graphically destructive as the one he attributed to the Secret Service AR-15, ergo, any accident by the Secret Service did not change the ultimate outcome.

    3. Re:Huey Long shot by own body guard by Himring · · Score: 1

      I wonder just how many /.ers actually shoot guns on a regular basis or even at all in their life. It isn't easy. Hitting even a stationary target is tough. Hitting a moving target, even with a shotgun which sprays a pattern, is tough. Hitting a moving target some distance away with a rifle -- in my thinking -- would be darn near impossible. Factor into all of that the nerves a shooter would have to have as he's thinking, "here's my one and only opportunity to kill the president of the united states."

      Bottom line: gun shots killed the president, and it was done by an incredible marksman. I would say by a marksman whose main hobby and practice was that of a sniper.

      Does this define Oswald?

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    4. Re:Huey Long shot by own body guard by swillden · · Score: 1

      I wonder just how many /.ers actually shoot guns on a regular basis or even at all in their life.

      I do.

      Hitting even a stationary target is tough. Hitting a moving target, even with a shotgun which sprays a pattern, is tough. Hitting a moving target some distance away with a rifle -- in my thinking -- would be darn near impossible.

      Depends on a lot of factors but, no, it's not impossible, or even that hard. I occasionally hunt mule deer and all of the animals I've killed were moving when I shot them, in one case moving pretty fast. I've also hit rabbits on the move with a .22 rifle (using a shotgun is cheating), though their small size makes it much harder. I don't know much about the JFK assassination, but according to Wikipedia, Oswald fired from a distance of 265 feet. That's not a very long shot with a high-powered rifle. I've hit a trotting deer at nearly three times that distance, shooting standing unsupported and I'm only a middling-good shot. Shooting prone supported at a target with a very smooth, predictable motion wouldn't be hard at all. Hitting it twice in quick succession would be hard for me, but not for a better shooter.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Huey Long shot by own body guard by Himring · · Score: 1

      You are a far better shot than me it sounds. I've been shooting since I was like 5 years old, high-powered rifles pretty early. When I wasn't at school or working I was shooting anything that moved on my grandparent's 10 acre, wooded land. I got incredibly good with an apache black 22 with a red field scope and stinger bullets. I've hunted deer, turkey as well. I haven't hunted in years and only recently started shooting again. I don't kill anything anymore and never plan on it. I'm not down on hunters at all.

      Having said all of that, I still think those shots were not impossible (is anything really?), just so incredibly difficult, based on all the factors, that only someone like yourself or a professional sniper could do it. Me or Oswald could not.

      Toss in more than one person, and the shots are much easier....

      using a shotgun is cheating Yea, but using a model 1100 12 guage magnum with magnum loads and no plug when all your buddies have are 22s and single shot 20 gauges is down right fun....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    6. Re:Huey Long shot by own body guard by swillden · · Score: 1

      You are a far better shot than me it sounds.

      Maybe. Compared to lots of others that I know (not snipers!) I'm average at best. When I was in the Air Force I usually, but not always, qualified Expert, but I never made High Expert. I'm sure I wouldn't qualify Sharpshooter in the Marines.

      I find it odd that you'd think it hard. At 90 yards, a man is a large target. A man's head isn't but that's where the additional skill and perhaps a little luck come in.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:Huey Long shot by own body guard by Himring · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I guess I'm being presumptuous. Also, I went shooting just a few weekends ago and had a heck of a time keeping up with another guy who kept outscoring me. Reflecting on the difficulty of shooting and then thinking about jfk just made me think how much trouble that would be, but as you point out, maybe not....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    8. Re:Huey Long shot by own body guard by pmshop · · Score: 1

      Right there with you on that. However, the "magic bullet" has been debunked. The Warren Commission made the theory fit the wounds of Conally and Kennedy with improper seating measurements. Let's recap... 1st shot missed as seen in the film, little girl running then abruptly stopping. The round hit near her. 2nd was a straight line thru Kennedy's neck (who was sitting higher and more to the outside than Conally in the jump seat - to continue thru Connaly's wrist and thigh. Both of those shots were from the Italian rifle. Use physics here (and my millitary training) The Italian rifle had a bullet speed of 2000fps out of the barrel, 1810fps @ 100yds and 1640fps @ 200yds. Say like you fire this weapon at a watermellon. The round would go thru the mellon and fall away from you (back and to the left - grassy knoll theory.) The experimental AR-15 in use by the secret service at that time has a bullet speed of 3100fps. If you fire this at a watermellon, which I have) the mellon will explode falling towards you, the direction of the shooter. So, to simply say, the 3rd shot came from behind. The secret service follow up car behind the VP and LTG car. The well trained secret service agent was reacting to the first 2 shots. Finger on the trigger, he stood up on the seat of their convertable as he was sitting on the top of the seat, his butt on the trunk seam. As he stood, he fell backwards as the seat gave in to his weight. As he fell back, natural reaction has you "grab anything". His fingers clinched and fired the AR-15 blowing Kennedy's head apart with it falling in the direction of the shooter. Remember, the Secret Service follow up car was not around the corner yet in line with the others. The Secret service follow up car was next to the offecer's bike that had the radio button jammed on recording the shot. The round crossed the corner of the block striking Kennedy. One in a million shot! Perfect line of evidence, when Oswald said he was a patsy, he was telling the truth. The man saw Kennedy's head explode...and he didn't pull the trigger on the final shot.

  44. Aggie researchers? In other news, Cold Fusion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gig'em ftw

  45. No really, it was on Discovery. So, it's fer sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that's a definitive source for ya.
              And Popular Science definitively disproved 9/11 was an inside job, right? Mhh Hmm. Americans.
              Anyway, the CIA certainly shot Kennedy just as they did with Martin Luther King a few years later.

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WFP020403.html

  46. This ISN'T the truth - JFK was killed by bears by Valacosa · · Score: 2, Funny

    This still isn't the truth. The truth is JFK was killed by bears from space.

    --
    "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
  47. Does the government put up red flags on purpose? by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The whole JFK assassination thing never sat right with me. For the most part I believe that your typical conspiracy theory, the ones that would be called kooky, rely too much on the omniscience of the shadowy "they." We're talking a level of coordination and control that any overt organization would be hard-pressed to match, PLUS the ability to keep it all secret! Your typical Illuminati conspiracies fall apart under analysis. But then there's your more realistic conspiracies, what I call the Mafia-type. They're possible, plausible, and have happened in the past, the only question is whether event X involved one. The Loose Change theory that the Pentagon was not hit by a passenger jet, that's kook. The idea that the WTC was taken down by controlled demlolition charges, that's kook. The idea that the Bush administration was behind the whole thing with detailed involvment in the planning, made it happen on purpose, that's kook. But what about the stuff that really happened? Coverying up Pat Tillman's death? Fact. Lying about Jessica Lynch? Fact. Outright fabrication of evidence to steer the nation towards war? Fact. Shutting down and firing anyone within the administration, military, and government agencies who questioned the war? Fact. Basing selection criteria for who to recruit for the rebuilding of Iraq based on party loyalty rather than professional qualifications? Fact. The textbook definition of a conspiracy: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. If I plot to kill my wife and my brother is in on it, this is a conspiracy to commit murder. If I plot to steal money from my employer and my coworker is in on it, that is a conspiracy to steal.

    But back to what I was getting at originally, the whole official story for the Kennedy Assassination smells funny. You have passionate people on both sides of the issue arguing about whether this point or that validates or disproves the government's story. If Oswald was not the lone killer, it's a conspiracy. If there were some gigantic lapse in security that let Kennedy be killed and officials moved to coverup that embarassment, it's a conspiracy, but not in the sense that "they" ordered him killed. But who would "they" even be? If there is a "they", why kill him on Dallas? Why the whole fancy shooting from the Schoolbook Depository?

    And this all leads around to another explanation, maskirova. That's a russian word for camouflage, deception, or misdirection. Take Area 51 for example. The Air Force wants to play with some crazy toys out in the desert. Seeing as the Western powers were the Soviet's best source for military research, the last thing anyone wanted was to give the game away to their spies. So, the public has a fascination with flying saucers and little green men, right? Well, the new experimental aircraft look pretty odd, especially at night. Why not play up that angle? Everybody assumes the government is hiding something so why not really give them something to talk about? Act mysterious, give ludicrous explanations for what people might have seen in the sky, call it swamp gas or venus low on the horizon, act like you've got something to hide. Pretty soon everybody is talking about flying saucers and nobody is talking about stealth aircraft.

    So, is there a real conspiracy there or not? Is the government hamming it up to make us think there's something there to misdirect us from the truth? Or is this just typical government bungling and we're just seeing a pattern of deception that isn't really there?

    Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  48. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They didn't say it was wrong (meaning that there was more than one gunmen), they said the analysis was not correct.

    I guess you could say it was misleading, but it's not the way I took it. I took it to mean the analysis was wrong, as in not correct.

    If any step in a proof is wrong, then the entire proof is wrong, even if the conclusion is actually a true statement.

    Of course it's all the other problems with the official story that naturally push my mind in the direction of there being multiple shooters upon finding out that the proof of the single shooter was incorrect. But I still didn't take the summary as implying that this was now proven.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  49. And this is news because? by slayermet420 · · Score: 1
    I think this is the best part of the whole article:

    They reached no conclusion about whether more than one gunman was involved...

    So they basically came up with a collective "I don't know *shrug*". This is fucking weak.

    --
    Geeks strike again 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  50. The power to kill a yak.. by affliction · · Score: 1

    from 200 yards away.

    With mind bullets.

    That's telekinesis, Kyle.

  51. What a surprise!...NOT by dtjohnson · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Anyone who spends some time looking at the evidence in the Kennedy killing will quickly realize several things:

    1) The evidence, such as it is, isn't good enough to show who did the killing, how it was done, or even what Kennedy's actual wounds were.

    2) Before even considering the bullet analysis evidence that TFA is referring to, the probability that Oswald did it is about 1 in a million. Not impossible, but unlikely for sure. The bullet analysis evidence, if it doesn't get quickly discredited (as is usual for Kennedy stuff), would make it impossible for Oswald to have done the killing so the probability has gone from .000001 to 0. Not exactly a big surprise.

    3) There was never any sort of official investigation like there would be for any random murder on a city street. There were a lot of reports and studies and commissions and such but none of these ever rose to the level of a real criminal investigation by a real law enforcement agency. The closest thing was probably a brief FBI investigation in the first week or so after the shooting that was quickly halted when the FBI agents started to close in on two of the secret service agents who were guarding Kennedy.

    4) The guy with the biggest motive to kill Kennedy was Lyndon Johnson, the guy who was president after Kennedy, and he was opposed to any sort of criminal investigation.

    1. Re:What a surprise!...NOT by Richthofen80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can't understand your arguement at all.

      #1: you say the evidence isn't good enough to know? What kind of proof do you require? Videotape? eyewitness? Since there's no such thing as a time machine, the best evidence in criminal cases comes down to either eyewitness accounts, circumstantial accounts, or evidentary. There were people who identified Oswald as eyewitnesses. There was plenty of circumstances that led one to believe Oswald committed the crime.

      #2 You come to the 'one in a million' account through no known reasoning. Explain where that number comes from.

      #3 This is just incorrect. There were THREE seperate investigations. The reason why the police didn't pursue heavily a full criminal investigation? They had a suspect in custody, who had been murdered. Did you view the records from the investigation at all? Do you know what processes the police, FBI, and federal agents went through?

      #4 Even if this were true, motive does not prove guilt. The same statement you made could apply to Kruschev, Castro, etc. You also state that he was opposed to any investigation. If that's the case, why were there investigations during his presidency? He was the one that declared the Warren Comission.

      You wrote that anyone who takes enough time looking at the evidence against Oswald. He's evidence. He worked at the schoolbook depository, a fellow employee DROVE HIM INTO WORK THAT DAY WITH A LARGE LONG PACKAGE WRAPPED IN BROWN PAPER. He was in the vicinity at the time of the shooting, Eyewitnesses identified him as the shooter in the window, Eyewitnesses identified him as the shooter of the cop afterwards. Also, Oswald attempted to assassinate General Walker a few months before he killed Kennedy.

      People take comfort in comspiracy theories because it makes them think a larger force is at work (same principle religion offers), and therefore that people can't just 'snap' and kill a lot of people, like what happened in 9/11 or the Virginia Tech massacres. But people can just snap, and kill people. This victim just happened to be the president. Its not hard to believe, Regan was shot, Lincoln was shot. No Conspiracy there.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    2. Re:What a surprise!...NOT by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      What?
      That is an easy shot for any trained marksman. Easy.
      Yes, some people look at that and think "Wow, Nobody could do that at the paintball range."
      That's about their experience.

      This new analysis needs to be done by others before it's creditable.
      If it is creditable, it only means the bullet lead didn't come from the same place. Nothing more. Not that they came from different guns.

      The grassy knoll would be a horrible place for second shooter, far worse then the book repository.If there is a conspiracy, it was probably to cover up an accidental discharge of an agent.

      So LJ went to the SS and sais "Psst, see that the president gets killed, here's a fiver?"

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:What a surprise!...NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And 9/11 was a conspiracy too. Masterminded by Osama Bin Laden of course.

    4. Re:What a surprise!...NOT by NFNNMIDATA · · Score: 1

      People like conspiracy theories because people are fundamentally mistrusting. The world spends an inordinate amount of energy making sure the other guy isn't trying to screw it over. So any time there are messy circumstances like with JFK it makes a lot of people want to take a second look.

      In this case it's entirely possible for Oswald to not have acted alone, i.e. he fired his shots and someone else also fired (with or without his knowledge). I was absolutely convinced based on research I did in college (library, no internet at the time) that there was another shooter. Nowadays I am less inclined to feel like I know what happened either way.

      I will say that if there was a conspiracy LBJ must have been involved at some level, because you don't kill the #1 for not advancing your agenda without knowing you can advance your agenda with the #2. And people in my family (who lived in Texas all their lives) always said LBJ was a mean so-and-so and they wouldn't put it past him.

    5. Re:What a surprise!...NOT by BLQWME · · Score: 0

      Read Hunt's book and check out the audio taped confession mentioned earlier. Then do some looking into LBJ's political past (stolen ballot boxes ,etc.). Then open your eyes...

      --
      "Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hit man or a video gamer"- Jack Thompson
    6. Re:What a surprise!...NOT by Darby · · Score: 1

      People take comfort in comspiracy theories because it makes them think a larger force is at work (same principle religion offers), and therefore that people can't just 'snap' and kill a lot of people, like what happened in 9/11 or the Virginia Tech massacres.

      Minor nitpick:
      I don't think anybody regardless of who all they think were involved in 9/11 thinks anybody involved "just snapped".
      There's no denying a level of planning beyond that.

    7. Re:What a surprise!...NOT by jgtheok · · Score: 1

      A bit before my time. But according to family members who were alive and watching the news:

      #1 - Eyewitnesses gave various radically different versions of events. Many present were CERTAIN that bullets were coming from a different direction. Careful selection of which accounts to believe could provide evidence for practically anything...

      #2 - I suspect one in amillion is hyperbole. However, people did not find the offical version convincing at the time. Nor did the later investigation change many minds.

      #3 - The conduct of the investigation did not increase public confidence. This was an era before the CSI TV series, but the handling of the body and other physical evidence indicated either remarkable ignorance of forensic science or a lack of concern about determining the truth. The murder of the suspect by an organized crime figure, attributed OFFICIALLY to a transport of civic spirit, did not help matters.

      #4 - The initial reaction of my family members upon hearing the news was "Johnson did it." Not any sort of evidence, but indicative of public opinion. And after the Warren Comission, some sort of conspiracy with him involved still seemed more likely than the official account of a lone gunman, some bizarre coincidences, and the worst spin control in recorded history.

      I don't have much emotional capital invested either way. It is a bit scary that I find the notion of a successful coup so plausible, but I've heard many whopping lies from the government over far smaller stakes. On the other hand, coincidences do happen. I'd like to know the truth, but suspect it's become a religious issue. Anyone doubting the official version gets labeled a crackpot, while any actual evidence for the offical version has obviously been manufactured by our secret overlords...

    8. Re:What a surprise!...NOT by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

      1) There were no eyewitnesses who said they recognized Oswald as the shooter. There was one guy who saw someone shooting from the school book building but he refused to identify the shooter as Oswald, even though he said he would recognize the shooter if he ever saw him again.

      2) For Oswald to be the shooter, he had to get the three shots off and hit the target (1 in 50), then race down the stairs to the 2nd floor in 90 seconds and satisfy an extremely suspicious police officer who had just raced in that he was not the shooter (1 in 100), then he had to make his escape from the crime scene on a city bus (1 in 20), then he had to successfully shoot the Dallas police officer with yet another weapon and hide in the theater (1 in 10). Multiply all of these improbable events to arrive at the overall probability...1 in 1 million. Most of us would have had an extremely difficult time even doing one of those things.

      3) No, it is not incorrect. None of the 'investigations' was an actual criminal investigation. The 'Warren Commission" was created by Johnson to provide the appearance of an investigation. The FBI quickly stopped their investigation at the request of the white house (Johnson) who put pressure on the FBI Director, Hoover. The Dallas Police Department did a little investigating but the Secret Service elbowed them aside as soon as Oswald was killed. Also, the Dallas PD was a little handicapped because the Secret Service had absconded with the body (at gunpoint), the photos, and the crime scene (the limo) and taken them back to Washington DC. The only thing that the Dallas PD had left was Oswald, the gun, and a few loose ends.

      4) Johnson had motive and opportunity, two key things for a murder. Johnson was the guy who created the phony Warren Commission and pressured the Dallas PD to stop doing even the little bit that they had done.

    9. Re:What a surprise!...NOT by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

      #2:

      Where do you get these numbers? How do you determine how likely a person is to be convinced of guilt.

      The cop who passed Oswald in the hallway was accompanied by an employee. The employee identified Oswald as a fellow employee. The cop was looking for someone out of place, and hearing that Oswald was supposed to be there was enough for him to continue his search. How is that a 1 in 100 chance? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there have been studies done that show if people believe you are supposed to be in a place or be an official, they will accept you as being in that position.

      The real reason you don't believe it is because the concepts are fantastical. They are non-ordinary occurrences. Presidential assassinations are never ordinary. Think of how much chance we encounter every day in our lives. What are the chances I'll catch my bus on my way to work? What are the chances that I'll run down the stairs in 90 seconds? What are the chances that a timeline, provided by people who didn't have synchronized watches, would even make it so sure that Oswald had '90' seconds?

      The chances are reversed. It is highly more likely that Oswald did the shooting given the evidence than it is that thousands of people were involved in a huge coverup to make LBJ president.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    10. Re:What a surprise!...NOT by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

      The cop who passed Oswald in the hallway was accompanied by an employee. The employee identified Oswald as a fellow employee. The cop was looking for someone out of place, and hearing that Oswald was supposed to be there was enough for him to continue his search. How is that a 1 in 100 chance?

      Oswald was in the second floor lunch room holding a coke when the policeman raced in, accompanied by the supervisor, looking for the shooter. Undisputed evidence shows that this occurred only 90 seconds after the last shot was fired so Oswald had to stash the gun under a box, race down four flights of stairs, go to the lunchroom, grab a cook, and look non-chalant and surprised when a policeman holding a drawn weapon entered and pointed it at him. Then he has to convice the policeman that he is completely innocent sufficiently that the policeman puts his weapon away and leaves. I don't know about you but I could have not done that and I don't think Dustin Hoffman or Jack Nicholson could have done it either. But Oswald was supposed to done exactly that after he had just allegedly shot the president of the United States. I give it a 1 in 100 chance of coming off successfully and that's generous. If you gave that little task to a thousand athletic young men with steady nerves, I don't think more than one of them would have been completely successful and I'm not sure about even that. The others would have had pounding hearts, out of breath, made a break for it, started to sweat, started shaking, had tinny unconvincing voices, fainted, couldn't say anything, peed their pants, etc.

      Regarding your other point, only a handful of people needed to be in on the actual coverup. The other hundreds were just following orders from someone else. For example, on the coverup of the medical evidence and the goofball autopsy, there is one guy who is everywhere telling everyone what to do, where to go, what to say, etc...Admiral Burkley...who was Kennedy's personal physician before the assasination and became Johnson's personal physician after. Admiral Burkley personally rode in the ambulance next to Kennedy's body as it was delivered from Parkland Hospital to Love Field. Maybe he was looking for signs of life.

  52. You are the conspiracy! by KDN · · Score: 3, Funny

    JFK IS NOT DEAD. The CIA cloned him and that was what was really shot. He faked his death so that he could live with Marylon Monroe, who also faked her death, and they are currently living on Cuba as a guest of Fidel Castro with their good friend Jimmy Hoffa.

    A fake conspiracy of who really killed JFK was drawn up to give the nut jobs who think everything is a conspiracy something to chew on, leaving just enough evidence to keep them going. To manufacture the evidence the Borg brought back a federation replicator which is powered by a V8 with a 500 mile per gallon carbarator with those tablets that convert water into fuel.

    If it seems like Deja-vu, its just another gliche in the Matrix.

    1. Re:You are the conspiracy! by blake3737 · · Score: 1

      He faked his death so that he could live with Marylon Monroe, who also faked her death, and they are currently living on Cuba as a guest of Fidel Castro with their good friend Jimmy Hoffa. You forgot poland Woops, I mean...You left out whitey bulger and Elvis!

  53. Re:seriously (as in "heart attack") by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dude, if you think the X-Files movie being available On Demand at the same time this research has come to light is merely a coincidence then you might want to get that wool off your eyes before you fall down and have an "accident".

    --


    This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
  54. The second gunman however by Bullfish · · Score: 1

    Just died in a nursing home at 93

    1. Re:The second gunman however by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Charles Harrelson... Woody Harrelson's dad, who was put in prison for life for killing a judge with a high-powered rifle. He looked suspiciously like one of the "hobos" that were taken off the trains and questioned behind the grassy knoll (there is a trainyard there... quick avenues of escape)

    2. Re:The second gunman however by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He admitted to being one of the hobos.
      E Howard Hunt admitted to being involved in the conspiracy as well.

  55. It's not funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why its funny. Listen to the song.
    A reference to a famous quote has the potential to be very funny. The more relevant the reference to the current discussion, the funnier it becomes. The quoted lyrics do the minimum, so that adds little to the humor.

    However, if the song itself was funny or was even a parody then that humor could be translated through the reference. Since the song did neither of these, that aspect adds nothing to the humor.

    Overall, the reference isn't really funny.

    And if you think that I'm a joyless pedant (based on the above text), here's what I think of as an excellent example. Since I can find the actual article in question, the post at 2006-08-01 01:38:17 PM has a screenshot of the top of the referenced article as it appeared that day.
  56. Shut up moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There's a nice photograph of the front of the TSRB as Kennedy rides by, published in Look magazine immediately after the assassination, which shows Oswald on the sidewalk, street-level"

    You mean the one with the guy who kind of looks a little like Oswald, except for the obviously different hairline?

    Yeah, so definitive. Case closed...

  57. Ah heck by WindBourne · · Score: 0, Troll

    based on the last election, I think that majority of the none republican have turned blue.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  58. Somebody call Mythbusters by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

    they obviously got it wrong to!

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  59. Not so different by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    The one in the doorway is shot from slightly below the doorway (i.e. looking up), while the clear oswald shot is from above (looking down). From those 2 photos, it is possible for them to be the same person. But I have not looked through any of these photos or really any of that.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  60. *sigh* by coaxial · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ahh yes. Someone stokes the consipiracy flames to sell a book, and that makes news. Meanwhile Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutior of Charles Manson, writes a book explaining in excrutiating detail about how the Oswald was the lone gunman and fired the shots from the book depository, and no one says a thing.

    All this talk about conspiracy theories is absurd. There's a group of people that that refuse to believe that shit happens. One guy can kill a president. A cult would willingly set themselves on fire rather than be arrested. That 19 guys from the desert can hijack airliners with boxcutters and crash them into buildings. I think it comes from that the need to place some meaning and reason on these acts. They can't fantom the power of a single commited individual, and so they find a vast and all powerful secret conspiracy is behind it all. The Knights Templar. The Illuninati. The Zeta Reticulians. The Water Fluoridation Industrial Complex. The Left Handed People of Borneo. The large underground homosexual population of Des Moines, Iowa. You name it. It's quite absurd.

    1. Re:*sigh* by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      You have the president of the US on one side of the scale and Oswald and an old rifle on the other side. In people's minds there needs to be some sort of emotional balance established, as if something big and important can only be affected by something big and important.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    2. Re:*sigh* by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      I really know nothing of all the bullet and assassin theories. But I do know this: damned odd that a mob nightclub owner just wanders up and pops one into Oswald in front of God and Country for no damned reason at all. Killing your patsy is an old, old way of covering tracks, and the CIA/Cuban Plumber hacks specialized old school idiot schemes. Apparently Robert Kennedy agreed; it was obvious they'd have the motives and means. He IDed the CIA/Castro nuts as the ones who did it, but was helpless as he lost his job as AG when his brother was killed. He was set to start a real investigation when he became President. Then another weirdo popped up and killed him. Game over, insert quarter.

    3. Re:*sigh* by Mex · · Score: 1

      You forgot The Black Crusaders...

    4. Re:*sigh* by m0rm3gil · · Score: 1

      "A cult would willingly set themselves on fire rather than be arrested."

      The FBI admitted to using flammable tear gas. They also admitted to using flash bang grenades which could ignite that gas. The Waco cultists did not burn themselves to death.

    5. Re:*sigh* by Darby · · Score: 1

      The large underground homosexual population of Des Moines, Iowa.

      You know what, Stuart? I like you. You're not like the other people here...in the trailer park.

      Don't forget about the left handed lesbian midget albino student union.

    6. Re:*sigh* by coaxial · · Score: 1
      And it's completely irrelevant.

      • The survellience recordings have Koresh ordering Schneider to empty Coleman fuel to be within the building.
      • Observers saw a man dressed in black start a fire with his hands.
      • The three fires started almost simultaneously in different parts of the building


      And most damning of all
      • As the fire spread, only nine people left the building


    7. Re:*sigh* by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Why? Do you find it unlikely that someone would "do their duty" and kill the person who killed the President? When John Wilkes Booth assinated Lincoln, Booth was killed by Boston Corbett against orders. Maybe Boston Corbett was acting under orders, but under orders by Andrew Johnson! See Johnson, wanted Lincoln out of the way so he could become president and roll back all of Lincolns radical civil rights reforms. He was from a slave state afterall.

      Then almost exactly 100 years another vice president is Johnson becomes president after an assination? Do I have to spell it out for you?!

      See? There's no end to the depth of a conspiracy theory. Once you decide that there's a conspiracy, you'll find "evidence" for it. Just look at the Bible Code, or the 23 Enigma. It's all self-selecting, confusing correlation and coincidence with causation. Eventually you're just putting two and two together and getting 22.

    8. Re:*sigh* by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      hey can't fantom the power of a single commited individual, and so they find a vast and all powerful secret conspiracy is behind it all. The Knights Templar. The Illuninati. The Zeta Reticulians. The Water Fluoridation Industrial Complex. The Left Handed People of Borneo. The large underground homosexual population of Des Moines, Iowa. You name it. It's quite absurd.

      ok...did anyone else do a google search just now for "the left handed poeple of borneo"?

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    9. Re:*sigh* by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Ahhh... the 9/11 attack and the armed cults are by definition consipracies, in that a group of people conspired to commit them. They are not part of a greater, world-wide conspiracy, but they are actual conspiracies, nonetheless.

    10. Re:*sigh* by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, don't argue with conspiracy theorists. You'd have more luck debating pork consumption with a Islamic extremist or abortion rights with an evangelical.

      Cpnspiracy theories are, in all important aspects, religions.

    11. Re:*sigh* by Krommenaas · · Score: 1

      The danger is that between all the crackpots with absurd theories, someone is actually telling the truth or at least raising a valid question, and noone will listen to him because he's just seen to be one of the conspiracy nuts. By opining that ALL conspiracy theories are absurd, you make it easier for actual crooks to cover up their conspiracies or blunders.

  61. "Bullet analysis was wrong"... by macraig · · Score: 1

    ... dead wrong?

  62. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Funny
    "Of course it's all the other problems with the official story that naturally push my mind in the direction of there being multiple shooters upon finding out that the proof of the single shooter was incorrect. But I still didn't take the summary as implying that this was now proven."

    Maybe now, FINALLY, the truth will come out!!

    That Oswald was really trying to be a hero, and shot only at the sniper he saw hiding in the grassy knoll!!

    (with apologies to Family Guy)

    :-)

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  63. Dude... by LaurieDash · · Score: 1

    ... d'you not watch prison break?!?!

  64. Really? by gr8dude · · Score: 1

    He's dead - get over it. Marilyn Monroe: dead too. Elvis: him too.
    Has Netcraft confirmed this?
  65. you fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_assas sination

  66. E. Howard Hunt Confessed on his Deathbed by MutualDisdain · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was surprised that no one commented here on E. Howard Hunt's audio tape confession of involvement in the Kennedy assassination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt#Audio- taped_confession Within the audio tape Hunt names Cord Meyer, Frank Sturgis, David Sánchez Morales, and David Atlee Phillips as co-conspirators. He also claims Lyndon Johnson approved of the assassination for political gain. "I think that LBJ settled on Meyer as an opportunist, parent--like himself a parent--and a man who had very little left to him in life ever since JFK had taken Cord's wife as one of his mistresses. I would suggest that Cord Meyer welcomed the approach from LBJ, who was after all only the Vice President at that time and of course could not number Cord Meyer among JFK's admirers--quite the contrary." E. Howard Hunt was also famous for organizing the bugging of the DNC in the Watergate scandal.

    --
    - Yes, I am posting at a -1, and no I will not use a proxy to bypass my circumstances.
  67. read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I guess you missed the recent revelations from e howard hunt's son about his dad's deathbed confession about the assassination conspiracy? Also the now old confessions from LBJs mistress? Or the "most famous wink in the world" picture taken on the plane with the body going back to washington?

    The high level shadow government goons had tremendous motive to whack jfk (oil depletion allowance, cutting the fed reserve out and going back to honest treasury money, they wanted a new war for profit, they wanted revenge for cuba and bay of pigs, several more), they certainly had the means(numerous examples of them pulling off forein coups, this is not any sort of hard or new work for themthe list of nations is large and the numbers murdered by the spooks and their proxies is even larger), and they created the opportunity (they ran JFK through a fishbowl killzone at very low speed). Then they offed the main witness, the fall guy, the patsy.

    Eisenhower warned the US people about them, in about as clear a language as there is, yet when we see example after example of their handiwork, dudes like you fall into immediate denial, because you are in a a CULT, the cult of statism and cognizant dissonance, you "believe" it couldn't happen because it's so heinous an event so therefore it just couldn't be anything but their cockamammy fairy tale story.

    Sorry, I am a natural skeptic, if it comes from official government sources-assume it's a lie until proven otherwise. They've been caught too many times lying about extremely important things. How about the "tonkin gulf attacks"? Never happened, NOW they finally admit it. A complete fabrication. Not one of the assholes involved has gone to jail over it. A couple millions "slopes" and 50 thousand US service people DEAD, based on a lie, for political and economic profit for a few fatcats. How about the USS Liberty, and killing your own guys? It's only because some lived through it and the ship didn't sink that we even found out about it, and it was that same crook LBJ and the zionazis who pulled that stunt.

    9-11, the government told their own lower level cops who were investigating matters ahead of the event to SIT DOWN AND SHUTUP about it, several of the cases still magically haven't gone to court yet. Gee, WHY NOT? What ya got to hide, STATIST PIG? What happened to the videotaping "dancing israelis" and their truck and equipment? WHO PROFITS? How about those israeli "art students", huh? Where'd they go to? Start from there and go backwards, you'll see, the guys in charge now are crooks and liars and murderers, and they get away with it because they "decided" to, because they have so many heel clicking MERCENARIES working for them, regular plain dumb and scared order followers who know you follow orders or it gets to be real bad news real quick like, that's why. And congress doesn't investigate because one-they have no guns, a severe oversight with the constitution and two, more practical and direct, none of them want to get WELLSTONED, or have a repeat of the anthrax WARNING they got to NOT question events and to play ball or else. And if you want to see some more of a motive, check out the latest on the *insane* armageddon cult that has infiltrated the DOD and executive branch. These are the fundiest of fundiest who think we NEED a severe huge mideast war to bring about "the rapture". These are guys, an american taliban basically, GIVING ORDERS now. High level, generals, admirals, pentagon chiefs, etc. loons. They DON'T CARE how many folks they kill as long as it brings about their whacked out "end times" scenario.

    You want more links, do your own research, there's enough here to find what I am talking about.

    As to the pristine bullet, it's the one found on the stretcher magically at the hospital in dallas.

    1. Re:read by hcmtnbiker · · Score: 1

      I hear tin foil hats are comfortable this time of year...


      Sorry, I am a natural skeptic, if it comes from official government sources-assume it's a lie until proven otherwise.

      I'm sorry you are too, it's stopped you from thinking logically. The burden of proof would lie on the skeptic, you in this case, if it is a lie it can be proven as such.

      How about the "tonkin gulf attacks"? Never happened, NOW they finally admit it. A complete fabrication.

      Actually all the evidence points to the original attack being real, however after the initial reports that got shown to congress and the press turned up to be exaggerated they created a second attack. And furthermore, it wasn't LBJ that seems to be the culprit but actually the captain on the Turner Joy falsifying his own report. LBJ said himself "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

      How about the USS Liberty, and killing your own guys? It's only because some lived through it and the ship didn't sink that we even found out about it, and it was that same crook LBJ and the zionazis who pulled that stunt.

      Would you like to show me your evidence of this? First off, its a known fact that we would know about this, even if people hadn't lived, the story had broken to the press far before the survivors could. Secondly, the NSA has released intercepted Israeli communications from an EC-121 surveillance aircraft prior to the incident that show them worrying about the ship, and later "confirming" it was Egyptian

      I'm not going to copy your 3rd paragraph its far too long to, but I will make some points about it. One, the "art students" where Egyptian, and where found, basically just being college students and partying a little too much and not going to class when they should have, sure this likely violates their visa, but they where found and investigated. Two, with a terrorist attack who do you think technically has the case, the NYPD which is respectable but doesn't have the means to do an elaborate investigation on something as large as 9/11, or the FBI, who may or may not still have the means but will come closer then the NYPD?

      You actually have way TOO much faith in the US government, strangely enough. The US government is too bureaucratic and in some instances also too stupid to pull off much of anything. It's actually amazing how inept our government is sometimes. Bill Clinton couldn't cover up a BJ, Karl Rove couldn't cover up something he didn't do(yes, Armitage admitted to it later, but they needed to fry Rove so they tried him on obstruction charges).

      --
      If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
  68. Oblig Full Metal Jacket Quote by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 3, Funny

    HARTMAN: Do any of you people know who Charles Whitman was?
    No response
    HARTMAN: None of you dumbasses knows?
    COWBOY raises his hand.
    HARTMAN: Private Cowboy?
    COWBOY: Sir, he was that guy who shot all those people from that tower in Austin, Texas, sir!
    HARTMAN: That's affirmative. Charles Whitman killed twenty people from a twenty-eight-storey observation tower at the University of Texas from distances up to four hundred yards.
    HARTMAN looks around.
    HARTMAN: Anybody know who Lee Harvey Oswald was?
    Almost everybody raises his hand.
    HARTMAN: Private Snowball?
    SNOWBALL: Sir, he shot Kennedy, sir!
    HARTMAN: That's right, and do you know how far away he was?
    SNOWBALL: Sir, it was pretty far! From that book suppository building, sir!
    The recruits laugh at "suppository. "
    HARTMAN: All right, knock it off! Two hundred and fifty feet! He was two hundred and fifty feet away and shooting at a moving target. Oswald got off three rounds with an old Italian bolt action rifle in only six seconds and scored two hits, including a head shot! Do any of you people know where these individuals learned to shoot?
    JOKER raises his hand.
    HARTMAN: Private Joker?
    JOKER: Sir, in the Marines, sir!
    HARTMAN: In the Marines! Outstanding! Those individuals showed what one motivated marine and his rifle can do! And before you ladies leave my island, you will be able to do the same thing!

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  69. It isn't my intent... by sub67 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...to make claims one way or the other, but even if the original theory was correct, isn't it reasonable to assume that if there were in fact two assassins that they could have simply shared ammo from the same box? I skimmed most of the comments but didn't see anything like this mentioned..

  70. 45 auto is 1911, 45 peacemaker is 1873 by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ever heard of a Colt 45 peacemaker?

    Granted they fired different cartridges and the peacemaker was originally a black powder round (lower velocity).

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  71. Could you say that in haiku? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :-p

  72. Re:You must have been dropped at birth, moron by GerbikManeuvers · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You squat 7 plates? and BP 4 or 5? To those of you who don't know about the world of body building these numbers are ridiculous for anybody who is not a professional and near the top of their sport at that.

  73. Comparative bullet lead analysis by Big+Bob+the+Finder · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering if the techniques they are using are "improved" over the old techniques- which, as of 1 September, 2005, has been declared unreliable by the FBI. The whole technique has been declared "flawed."

    For years, comparative bullet lead analyses were considered accurate and good proof; I remember reading the neutron activation analyses when I was in college as an undergrad, and thinking it was a fantastic technique. But now it looks like 40 years' worth of convictions are at risk- 2,500 analyses, with 20% of these being introduced as evidence at trial.

  74. Why are we focusing on 35+ years ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    JFK was a conspiracy, we knew that 35 years ago. Let's focus on the 2001 conspiracy that has us losing soldiers in Iraq today. There's only one important question concerning that conspiracy, did the US gov't allow/participate in 9/11?

    The answer to that query would explain the illegal wire-taps, suspension of habeas corpus, banning of books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, detaining of dissenters in fences miles away from events, and multiple wars based on lies.

    How can the gov't be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, ETC.)?

    In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony. How come we do not hold the gov't to the same standard as it holds us to?

    The gov't lied to us about Iraq and more Americans have died there than in 9/11. If the gov't lied about Iraq then why is everyone so reluctant to believe that the gov't lied about 9/11?

    Final link (before Google Books bends to pressure and drops the title):
    America Deceived (book)

    1. Re:Why are we focusing on 35+ years ago? by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      And then in 35 years we should forget about 9/11 when we got no answers?

      9/11 was no conspiracy. JFK was. If we're talking about shelf-life, let's talk about Jesus dying over 2000 years ago...

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
  75. Re:I really wonder if this is just by FamineMonk · · Score: 1

    That person in the Whitehouse currently, along with his pals, are trying harder than anyone in recent history to erode away and steal your personal freedoms. They are deserving of 'our' attention


    I could't agree with you more, just too bad I don't have any mod points today.

  76. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is relevant to the parent's post in what way?

  77. Argument from incredulity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A basic fallacy. A personal inability to conceive of something due to a perception of overwhelming complexity does not actually place it out of the realm of possibility, or even necessarily make it improbable.

  78. XKCD conspiracies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That particular comic is funny; I just saw it the other day for the first time after a link in another /. topic.

    However, you'd have to be a fool to believe the Warren Commission report. And you'd have to be a fool to believe there wasn't something amiss about the entire affair (and probable cover-up).

    I've yet to hear a comprehensible story come out of the frothing mouth of a bug-eyed, tinfoil hat wearing paranoid. But, there are such things as conspiracies. That many such theories are weird does not make some untrue or wacky. Something else happened beside the Warren report and it seems a number of powerful people knew some of the real story but preferred to whitewash the affair.

    Or do you really think everything is transparent? I don't.

  79. I think I speak for everybody by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    I think I speak for everybody here when I say it is our hope that you "truthers" are quickly put on your meds so the rest of us don't have to sift through your bullshit. There's really nothing dumber than claiming Bush knew about 9/11, because then he would have stopped it to make himself look good rather than reading through a kid's book after the secret service agent told him to stay put, making him look stupid to ignorant viewers of hack-job Michael Moore conspiracy films. It doesn't matter how many engineers who actually built the fucking towers claim you're controlled demolition theories are wrong. You just want something to believe in that has no proof whatsoever so that it gives you something mysterious in your life. Fuck that.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
    1. Re:I think I speak for everybody by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      You just want something to believe in that has no proof whatsoever so that it gives you something mysterious in your life. Fuck that. Personally, my theory about conspiracy theorists is that they're control freaks. They can't stand the thought that bad things happen for stupid reasons. No, they simply refuse to accept the truth, that there isn't some evil mastermind pulling the strings. They want to believe that if only we could stop these evil fiends, then these bad things could be stopped. They cannot accept that big horrible things can be perpetrated by 19 (9-11) or even 1 (kennedy) random nuts. Poor insecure babies.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  80. An interesting video about the JFK killers by razpones · · Score: 1
  81. Re:Does the government put up red flags on purpose by pant · · Score: 1

    I was born around 10 years after Kennedy's death. I've heard the theories. It was the Mafia. It was the CIA. It was LBJ. It was the military industrial complex. It was a nut named Oswald. It was the Russians. It was the combination of any or all of the above.

    I'm curious because it became a pivotal point in history. I understand that the government may not want to reveal some security precautions for its head of state, even though it is obvious that they would be changed after an event like this. I don't want to know what they are now.

    I do not, however, understand why pertinent details need to be classified for several generations, and I fear that when they are declassified, they will consist of pages of ancient photocopies obscured by black marker. I would like to know what happened, but I accept that I likely never will, because my collective servant will probably have some reason not to tell me.

    sigh

  82. Why was Kennedy in Dealy Plaza anyway? OT by dfenstrate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From what I understand, it was because the voters of Texas outright hated him and not even Johnson's voting fraud buddies could be counted on to keep things in line. He was there to try to gin up some good will.

    Of course, his assasination was the biggest boon to his legacy ever.

    He was actually a horrible president with a self-centered high school mentality, put in place by the political mechanations of his father and the Daley's in Chicago. Lyndon and Kennedy actually hated each other, and he was only brought onto the ticket to deliver Texas- fraudulently. JFK's only real gift was charisma, and that's all he needed to win given his father, the Daleys, and Johnson.

    If he wasn't assisinated his presidency would have been nothing more than a painful, distant memory by now.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:Why was Kennedy in Dealy Plaza anyway? OT by ShelfWare · · Score: 1

      There is a decent book out there http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Vietnam-Plot-Assassinate -Kennedy/dp/0806517727/ref=sr_1_19/002-3552579-977 6027?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179492508&sr=1-19 that has some compelling information - like a week before the assassination a National Security Memo from President Kennedy was issued regarding pulling American forces out of Vietnam. This was quickly rescinded shortly after his assassination.

      Lots of other information in there as well regarding the build up of arms after WWII in SE Asia, Helicopter companies (Bell) about to go under, etc. It may all be circumstantial, but it is worth a good read.

      So maybe if had stayed in office - we wouldn't have had the Vietnam black eye on our history.

  83. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by grassy_knoll · · Score: 4, Funny

    That Oswald was really trying to be a hero, and shot only at the sniper he saw hiding in the grassy knoll!!


    There was no sniper on the grassy knoll.

    [eyes shift back and forth]

    ps: dont look at my user name. ;-)
  84. who said they were incompetent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    They got away with it, even besides the dodgy evidence. They got away with the phony viet nam war for a long time. Shows some competence, lot of billionaires and mutli millionaires made out of that war. They keep getting away with treating sick and wounded vets like utter rubbish-yet still get enough people to "join up" to keep serving them. That shows some competence and leet skills in brainwashing the mass populations. Remember, you only have to keep the bulk of the population under control,not everyone, the rest can be dismissed in any fashion they choose. They keep getting away with ignoring the border and insourcing a lot of serf level labor and outsourcing industries for futher serf level wage scales, in order to drive down the wages of the middle class and increase the profits of the top 1%-, and there's still no mass revolt like there should be, because they have the middle class effectively terrorized, so that shows some criminal competence. They keep getting away with hijacked elections-that shows some competence. They got away with the newest ongoing iraq war, conveniently tied it to 9-11 even though saddam had nothing to do with al queda and OBL and in fact was enemies with the guy and was running a pretty secular modern nation as mid east dictatorships go (they are all dictatorships and certain classes and people are routinely killed and tortured over there), and keep getting away with it. Shows some competence. They keep creating artificial crash and burn bubble economies so they can then "legally" extract wealth from the productive middle class, by inflating the currency supply so much they get people scared they can't just save money, they have to "invest" in wall street ponzi scams, and they keep getting away with that, shows some competence. And so on.

      I think you might be confusing normal lower level bureaucratic bloat incompetence with high level successful geo-economic politics and massive fraud and successful buncoism. Remember, government is a jobs and income and power aggregating *racket*. As with all mobs in the rackets, murder is just one tool in their tool box. And lying is the least of their crimes. And all crooks lie, part of their nature.

  85. Re:You must have been dropped at birth, moron by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    Um, No? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_press You got a not competely in top shape army soldier bench pressing 345 there. And 600 is at a bit under half of the world record for squat. Now, had he claimed to do a couple hundred reps with those numbers, it might be different, but just being able to do those numbers once or twice really isn't all that astounding. Strong? Yes. Pathological liar material? No

  86. The best evidence of a second shooter... by NotPeteMcCabe · · Score: 2, Informative

    I read all the conspiracy books about 20 years ago, and the piece of evidence that most rules out the Oswald-only theory is that Kennedy was shot in the neck from the front. The emergency room doctor at the hospital reported that kennedy had an entrance wound in his neck, which the Dr. then cut through to perform a tracheotemy. This doctor, I recall, is the only person to examine Kennedy's body who had any real world experience dealing with gunshot wounds. [p]No evidence stronger than this, on either side, was presented at any point in the entire investigation.

    1. Re:The best evidence of a second shooter... by nido · · Score: 1

      The emergency room doctor's book is titled Conspiracy of Silence. I've only read bits and pieces, one being about how Secret Service agents 'stole' the president's body from the hospital. The doctors & local police wanted to keep it around for a while, to perform a proper investigation, as the crime & death did occur in their jurisdiction. But, as we all know, the government is pretty good at getting inconvenient evidence to go away (Oklahoma City Federal Building, structural steel from the World Trade Center buildings, etc)

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
  87. Don't blame the mods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Moderating this as "Funny" is sick.


    We didn't start the fire.
  88. Re:You must have been dropped at birth, moron by GerbikManeuvers · · Score: 1

    Dude I don't care about Wikipedia articles, I've seen this stuff first hand. Ronnie Coleman is one of the top body builders in the world and I think his max squat is like 800 pounds and he's a steroid ridden monster.

  89. Vanishing Brain by RiddleofSteel · · Score: 1

    If anyone doubts it's a conspiracy on some level, just ask yourself how the Brain of one of the most popular presidents disappears after a highly questionable assassination. I mean come on really, If the brains don't fit the conspiracy is legit!

  90. Bullet Lead Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullet lead analysis is useless and in-admissible in court. It has been proven that bullets from different batches and caliber can have the same chemical makeup and that bullets from the same batch and box of ammo can have different chemical makeups. This has something to do with the way lead is recycled by the ammo industry, most of which comes from old car batteries.

  91. Re:seriously -- get a grip by eat+here_get+gas · · Score: 1

    YOU LIE!

    2. He was an excellent marksman.

    it's a matter of record he attained "maggie's drawers" twice before getting his "MARKSMANSHIP" medal. Ask a military man, like myself, what maggie's drawers and marksmanship (e.g. NOT sharpshooter)are.

    4. His rifle was a Italian Carcano.

    the rifle the sheriff is holding up at the press conference is CLEARLY a GERMAN-made MAUSER.

    now shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down

    --
    the significance of a signature is insignificant
  92. RE: Experts Now Say JFK Bullet Analysis Was Wrong by layer3switch · · Score: 1

    Great. Now we know less than we knew then.

    --
    "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
  93. bullets from that batch are still on the market... by pedantic+bore · · Score: 1

    Highly suspicious to base an analysis on this. How can they be sure of the provenance of these bullets?

    After all, there still exist enough pieces of the true cross to build a cathedral, it is said.

    I'd also be a bit creeped out dealing with someone who collects bullets for this reason. Weird.

    --
    Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
  94. JFK killed for signing Executive Order 11110 by nbritton · · Score: 1, Informative

    I heard he was assassinated for signing Executive Order 11110 into law...

    Wikipedia excerpt:
    "This executive order allowed the US Secretary of the Treasury, as per delegated authority given to the President by the Thomas Amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, to issue silver certificates against silver bullion. The major change affected by this order was that the printing of paper money could again be carried out without any reliance on the Federal Reserve System, which by this time had become the sole entity responsible for currency distribution and valuation in the United States. Very little of this silver-backed money was ever issued, with the project largely being abandoned after Kennedy's assassination only a few months later. No President since JFK has ever availed himself of what this order allowed"

    You can learn more about the Federal Reserve here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE

    1. Re:JFK killed for signing Executive Order 11110 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nbritton wrote: "I heard he was assassinated for signing Executive Order 11110 into law..."
      A most particular and unusual speculation indeed.
       
      Can you say who it was you heard it from and in which year (roughly) you heard it, please?
    2. Re:JFK killed for signing Executive Order 11110 by nbritton · · Score: 1

      Can you say who it was you heard it from and in which year (roughly) you heard it, please?


      Sure... Heard it on YouTube... This year.

      It's plausible If you think about it... defiantly had means and motive. Anyone know if Oswald or his acquaintances had connections with the banking world? (sorry if there are typos, I've been awake 24+ hours.)
    3. Re:JFK killed for signing Executive Order 11110 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This theory is sadly very probably correct. Since you're interested in it, download the following 1-hour excellent documentary The Money Masters. It may get pulled off G. for obvious reasons. Therefore download it for permanent reference; just use Firefox and the VideoDownloader extension to download a copy actually onto your PC and let your friends know how to download it too. It's quite a large file, around 300MB as uncompressed flash.

      For similar and other not too distantly related topics, follow this guy's journal. He finds a lot of interesting stuff. If you add him as a slashdot friend, you'll automatically get a message on slashdot every time he posts a new journal entry. BTW, I'm not him and I don't know him personally.

  95. Oswald & Hitting The Broad Side Of A Barn by cmholm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That show you mention even had a guy pull out Oswald's shooters score book from the marines showing what an incredible shot he was, yet you can find evidence with google proving Oliver Stone's assertion that other marines said he had "maggies drawers" and/or was a poor shooter overall. They had simply pulled out a few instances of good shooting he had for your show.

    My dad was at one point a Sergeant stationed at MCAF Santa Ana, and enjoyed the dubious honor of being Oswald's last NCO, escorting him to the front gate the day he was discharged. Neither the old man nor the other NCOs he knew were impressed by Oswald's ability on a firing range, barely good enough to rate the "Marksman" shooting badge. When the nature of JFK's shooting came out, my dad could not believe JHO had the ability to pull it off.

    Granted, as my mom used to argue, anyone can have a lucky day. But, with two shots, that's damn lucky.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
    1. Re:Oswald & Hitting The Broad Side Of A Barn by Kagura · · Score: 1

      If you can get the lowest rating, a "Marksman" badge, then you should be able to hit a 50m target almost with your eyes closed and after taking a ride on the Whirly-go-round. It's really that easy for a 50m target, and the JFK assassination took place at a distance of 20m, using a telescopic scope mounted on Oswald's rifle.

      It's awesome to me that we have somebody like you able to deliver such a peculiar addition to this discussion. However, I think at the time your dad may not have had access to the exact information that we have nowadays. Until five minutes ago, I always assumed that Oswald was at least two or three hundred meters away from JFK's position at the time of the shooting, so it would not be unreasonable in your father's time to assume the same thing I found myself thinking.

    2. Re:Oswald & Hitting The Broad Side Of A Barn by cmholm · · Score: 1

      JFK shot at only 20m? I've only shot 50m once in a blue moon, so I don't have any first hand experience with attempting to qualify. It's quite possible my dad wasn't in possession of all the facts. I'll ask him about that.

      --
      Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  96. Who cares? by killpog · · Score: 0, Troll

    Really. The guy's dead.

    What really matters in the whole affair is how the course of history was changed as a result of Kennedy's death, not whodunit. If anybody can prove one way or the other any of the vast number of theories about the event itself, kudos.

    But it won't change the fact of his death, or the results of it.

    Governments are generally thrilled when an event like this comes along. It opens avenues through public fear for instilling greater control over what remains any government's greatest adversary - the very people the government governs.

    The same is true of the cascade of events since 9/11.

    A great deal of time can be wasted grasping at straws while ignoring what's going on in plain sight. Those buildings fell down. Big deal.

    Now, we've effectively lost 6/10 of the Bill of Rights through expert manipulation of public fear. There's the real tragedy.

  97. Re:Finally 9/11 why! by 3seas · · Score: 1

    People do things for reasons

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2704stock market.html

    It wasn't the first attempt on the world trade center.

    Ted Turner said it was an act of desparation, then a week later (after he was probably threated by anthrax) he changed his statement.

    The anthrax was a non-conspiracy government official with enough clearance to not officially inspect the anthrax store of the military base it was traced back to. This person knew enough about anthrax, as anyone trained would know, to do the dirty deed. But as a single person, [conspiracy requires two or more,] but who couldn't guess what the republican political party would do with the results? Those who are stupider'er than politicians? As it would certainly play into controlling the media for Bushes war drum banging....

    Fact is, the world stock market gamble caused a very big problem world wide, except for china who wasn't playing that game but got front row seats via hong kong lease ending.

    CNN and ABC did stories on the problems this gamble was causing south east asia, banks were closing and mothers couldn't afford to buy baby milk. Indonesians (CIA reports its 88% Muslim) knew it was teh americans but didn't know how they were doing it. They knew their own government was corrupt but this was beyond even that, and they knew it, just not how)

    World Bank (run by the US) offered to bail out south east asia for interest payment on such a loan. That did not go over at all. Ultimately interest rate went to 0% even in the US as part of the "saying sorry".

    Muslims in general are not to blame, as we Americans simply provided a very good excuse for radical extreamist to promote their cause against the US, so to enlist such a large following as they have. The war Bush waged on Iraq was in no way aimed at Bin Laden, though 9/11 was the excuse for the war. And that only pissed more off.....go figure.

    Why the pentagon and white house 9/11 targets? Simple: the target wasn't about hitting those directly responsible, as few knew where they were, but as a statement something along the lines of "wrongful world economic manipulation back by politically controlled military".

    I don't like Lil'natzi Bush, nor do I like radical extreamist. However, the Trillion dollar bet was VERY VERY WRONG!!! An dit is what gave cause to 9/11 by radical extreamist and a major excuse for Bush to finish his fathers work against Iraq.

    That much money doesn't just appear out of nowhere and then vanish into nowhere and some of the participants have been in teh news, mostly the losers like worldcom, enron, etc... and note the timing on the dot com boom and bust. Some of the winners had to put their easy winnings somewhere (easy come easy go)..... follow the money....

  98. Vincent P. Guinn, now-deceased!?! by rHBa · · Score: 1

    That sounds very suspicious, it must be a cover up!!!

    </sarcasm>

  99. Actually by ukemike · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Professor Jones of BYU got a sample of the slag from the discovered molten material. He has analyzed it and found that the component metals match the components of Thermate (not thermite).

    --
    -- QED
    1. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Professor Smith of YHBTU also got a sample of the slag from the discovered molten material. He analyzed it and found that the component metals match the components of YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

  100. Re:You must have been dropped at birth, moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Roid rage?

  101. No Mystery by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

    Why do people care about JFK's death? Because he was the president of the United States. He was mysteriously killed.
    There is no mystery.

    The far left executed a decapitation strike on the moderate left.

    It worked. The far left is in control of the Democrat party.
  102. It's Lister's fault! by Jaywalk · · Score: 1

    Well, we all knew that. According to the this documentary, the second bullet must have come from Kennedy's gun (the Kennedy from the alternate timeline) on the grassy knoll in order to correct the timeline and get the crew back to Red Dwarf. If Lister wasn't so hung up on Indian food, we wouldn't have these problems.

    --
    ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
  103. The Magic Bullet by BigBadBus · · Score: 1

    Time for me to put my two penneth in this argument; I've done a bit of writing on this subject, namely the bunched jakcte nonsense which has been pounced upon as proof of Oswald's guilt. Nonsense. Have a read of this: http://www.paullee.com/jfk/bunchedjacket.html Also, a mate of mine has done some writing on this, based on John Connally's wounds. He asks some very serious questions: http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/The%20Wounding%20of %20John%20Connally.htm

  104. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuhrman? Fuhrman? He's a racist. It's a racist name.

    I mean what is that? Fuhrer, German?

    Trust me as someone that says n***** a lot that n***** says n***** all the time.

  105. Slashdot has handlers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ha... sure we'll take your word for that.

    from dave schroeder's personal web site:

    "Association For Intelligence Officers"
    "National Military Intelligence Association"

    uh huh, no conflict of interest there.


    Interesting.

    BTW, it's weird how the baseless ad hominems against the skeptics are modded up, but interesting facts like this are buried. I'm willing to chalk it up to groupthink rather than overt conspiracy, though.
  106. Best Analysis of the shooting I've ever seen by Gresyth · · Score: 1

    http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/intro.htm This is very good evidence of only 1 shooter.

    --
    Tech Support: "No, sir...clicking on 'Remember Password' will NOT help you remember your password."
  107. LOL!!! by axia777 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Duh! DOH! Really? I would have never guessed that the governments own analysis was wrong. BTW, we will NEVER know the real truth.

  108. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by nwbvt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First, there never was a "proof", at least not in the way you are thinking. Such proofs only exist in the world of mathematics, and there they are only possible because mathematics is a completely abstract field that does not involve perceptions of the real world (which always have some degree of intrinsic doubt). You cannot mathematically prove that Oswald did or did not do it, because Oswald is not a mathematical construct. Its been said many times before, but it bears repeating because people still for some reason try to do it; NEVER interpret real world arguments as mathematical proofs.

    Second, here is the exact quote from the article summary:

    "Researchers... say that the government's 1976 conclusion that the bullets came from only one gun (Oswald's) is wrong".

    The summary is clearly saying that the conclusion was shown to be false (meaning Oswald didn't do it), not the argument itself. Which of course is not what the article says at all. If you read it differently, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

    Third, how the hell is this news anyways? Experts (or rather, people calling themselves experts) have been disagreeing with the lone gunman theory since the day Kennedy was shot. This can only be considered "news" if mainstream scientists can back up the lone research team.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  109. The real truth by smegged · · Score: 1

    JFK: You, err, want me to assassinate myself.
    Lister: Yeah, sure it'll drive the conspiracy nuts crazy but they'll never figure it out.

  110. One bullet, two guns... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Hey, just wait another 50 years and science will have advanced that far.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  111. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

    The summary didn't say the analysis was wrong...it said the conclusion was wrong. The summary claims, in effect, that these researchers proved that there was more than one gunman.

    --


    Evil is the money of root.
  112. 19 Guys in a Cave != Conspiracy ? by SRA8 · · Score: 1

    What I dont understand is how the standard government/big-media explanation is not a conspiracy theory? So supposedly 19 guys from various countries, driven by their people's hatred of freedom, were being controlled via walkie-talkie's by an ex-CIA officer living in caves in Afghanistan. Whether you do or do not believe the store, 20 people necessarily defines a conspiracy. So I dont understand why the standard explation is not a "conspiracy theory."

  113. Circular Logic by evought · · Score: 1

    Well, not saying I believe in one particular theory or another, but I find it interesting when people use this argument since they usually use it to invalidate the evidence that is there or declare the people who do come forward to be 'nutjobs', thus closing the possibility of anything other than the official explanation.

    In reality, governments do occasionally pull off rather large conspiracies of this order *precisely because* of this sentiment. The burning of the Reichstag springs to mind, or, on the other side, the rather large conspiracy *against* Hitler in the German military intelligence department. Such efforts seem so improbable that no one believes them even when faced with quite direct evidence. In fact, the Abwher conspiracy in Germany demonstrates exactly the scale of a military/government conspiracy which 9/11 theorists allege. In the end, it did not fail due to infiltration or bad security, but due to simple bad luck (Hitler survived the bomb).

    Secondly, if your theory is correct, that it is not possible for a large organization to keep a secret, how did a large international terrorist organization do it? How does organized crime work? Both require deep hooks into government to function and often carry out quite bold acts in broad daylight. The police knew full well the acts that Capone was responsible for but could not prove it, and he was so skilled in playing the media that much of the public refused to believe the charges as well. They do not need to keep a secret, they (whoever 'they' are) just need to get enough conflicting information out to muddy the waters. Real conspiracies, large and small, happen every day, and the bad guys do not wear black hats.

    The government's explanation is also a "conspiracy theory," and, a priori, deserves no more nor less consideration than any other.

    1. Re:Circular Logic by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      The burning of the Reichstag springs to mind Poor example. It's rather well known that the Reichstag fire actually was the work of one man. Van der Lubbe, the unemployed communist bricklayer, the so-called patsy in this "conspiracy". Really, the Nazis simply took advantage of the fire, at most perhaps hampering the efforts to put out the fire.

      Secondly, if your theory is correct, that it is not possible for a large organization to keep a secret, how did a large international terrorist organization do it? By existing as hundreds of isolated cells that don't communicate. al Qaeda can be best described as a franchise of independent terror dealers. They all look to the corporate headquarters for general direction, but they're mostly self governed. This arrangement is intentional, under the theory that the easiest secret to keep is one you don't know.

      How does organized crime work? Poorly. Rival gangs and backstabbing co-mobsters rat each other out all the time. The reason the big bosses are so hard to put away is that it's hard to gather sufficient evidence to convict a man 3 levels removed from the illegal action. It's certainly no secret what the mobs are doing, though.

      Both require deep hooks into government to function and often carry out quite bold acts in broad daylight. Bold acts like what? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

      The police knew full well the acts that Capone was responsible for but could not prove it, and he was so skilled in playing the media that much of the public refused to believe the charges as well. Bullcrap. Everyone knew he was a crime boss. They just couldn't convict him of anything because he didn't do anything himself.

      The government's explanation is also a "conspiracy theory," and, a priori, deserves no more nor less consideration than any other. Other than the fact that it is the simplest explaination, matches the evidence, and requires no one to have kept silent so effectively.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  114. Mod Parent DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This Karma-whore ripped off a comment from above.

  115. According to Nostradamus.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The shot came from the roof of a building, Oswald was/is innocent and the whole thing is obscured by the mist.

    If I assume that N. is correct, "mist" is code for "mystery" and that implies that all the talk and investigation is obscuring the real story....too much noise...

    I have to go with my gut. The shot came from the building next to the one Oswald was supposedly in and supposedly shot from. If you see the vids, the building I'm talking about has ample cover (billboard on the right, access-shed on the left)...yup. Of course, then you have to disregard the "back and to the left" mist. hmm.

  116. JFK Secret Service Standdown by nickmalthus · · Score: 1
    --
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
  117. Liberty by nickmalthus · · Score: 2, Informative

    The sailors who were there tell of a coverup.

    --
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
  118. The Republicans killed JFK and planned 9/11... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wake up. It is the same bad guys doing all these things. There is evil in this world and it's the BUSH family. They were involved in the murder of JFK, RFK, and JFK Jr as well as 9/11. And the lapdog Bush lickin trolls here will defend their devil with everything they got despite the evidence. They use rhetoric and put forth propaganda and misinformation to confuse you. Just look at the simple facts as to who benefits and who loves to deceive. All roads point to Bush, the GREAT SATAN. >:->

  119. Re:seriously -- get a grip by fredklein · · Score: 1

    he attained "maggie's drawers" twice before getting his "MARKSMANSHIP" medal. Ask a military man, like myself, what maggie's drawers and marksmanship (e.g. NOT sharpshooter)are.


    "a red flag that is waved from the rifle pits to indicate a complete miss of the target"

    From wikipedia: "Although, in May 1959, he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification than that of sharpshooter). Military experts, after examining his records, characterized his firearms proficiency as "above average" and was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, "an excellent shot". [9]" (Emphasis mine)

    Footnote 9 links to the Warren Report, page 191, where it states "...tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualification as a "sharpshooter".... In May of 1959, on another range ...scored 191, one point over minimum for ranking as a "marksman."" (Emphasis mine)

    It goes on to say "We have nothing here to show under what conditions the B course was fired. It might well have been a bad day for firing the rifle.... the rifle he was firing might not have been as good...."

    the rifle the sheriff is holding up at the press conference is CLEARLY a GERMAN-made MAUSER.


    1) What sheriff? What press conference? Details, people, details.

    Wiki sez: "A 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle was found on the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository by Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone soon after the assassination of President Kennedy.[27] The recovery was filmed by Tom Alyea of WFAA-TV.[28] This footage shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher-Carcano, and it was later verified by photographic analysis commissioned by the HSCA that the rifle filmed was the same one later identified as the assassination weapon."
    Footnote 28 links to http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html

  120. Lincoln Conspiracy by PolishPimpin · · Score: 1

    Dont Forget there was a conspiracy to also kill the VP and the speaker of the house to put the next one in the big seat, who had sympathy for the Southern cause. (Sorry guys forgot the names, dnt have time to look them up)

  121. Didn't anyone watch Chappelle's Show? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Oswald did it. He acted alone. He used a magic bullet.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  122. Could! Might Have! If! by qazwart · · Score: 1
    From the report:

    "This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said.

    "If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald."

    So, the bullets might have (but not necessarily) come from more than two bullets. And if the fragments did come from more than two bullets, there could be a second assassin!

    While we are doing all this wild eyed speculation, how about speculating up some brains for our current White House resident.

  123. Jones Report by nickmalthus · · Score: 1
    I feel the Jones report reflects the general concerns members of the truth movement have.

    No one claims that elements of the US government executed 9/11 successfully. If they had the evidence would corroborate the al queda explanation more than it did. If there was nothing to hide then full disclosure is in order. NIST should release the thousands of photos and videos they have possession of. The FBI should release all 80+ video's of the pentagon they claim they have. The American people deserve an earnest independent investigation with subpoena power. Do you honestly believe the Federal government has been completely honest about 9/11? Now put 9/11 in the context of the Iraq war deception. Why shouldn't people question the government's account of 9/11?

    --
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
  124. Two things I learned from TV. by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The first is how to find the suspect the Murder She Wrote way. You walk around investigating the suspects and then tell all of them that you know who did it and are going to reveal it tomorrow. The one who turns up that night to kill you, is the murderer. For the JFK assasination we need to go to the twist on that plot. Namely that the person who turns up is the one who wants to protect the person they think really did it.

    How does this relate? What is most intresting about the whole JFK thing is NOT who actually pulled the trigger, but the sheer number of people that turned up at night to kill Angela Lansbury. An awfull lot of people/groups/institutions reacted as if they feared that "they" had done it. Not they themselves but perhaps some over ambitious underling, some group they supported and could be traced back.

    Since plotting to kill the president of US of A is not what organisations like the FBI and CIA should be doing, just having them react guiltily is enough condemnation.

    Think of it like this. I am thinking of killing CowboyNeal and have talked about this with various people. Then all of a sudden CowboyNeal turns up death. I will then offcourse panic, what if someone I talked too actually did it, it could be traced back to me and so I start covering my tracks even though in reality there may be nothing to cover up.

    But for me to plot to kill CowboyNeal is not a crime in itself. If it was, millions of lovers of the english language would be in jail right now. It is not quite the same if a security agency plots to kill the president. It does not matter if Oswald worked for them, or even if he was the actuall shooter, that fact that they reacted as if they thought he might have is enough.

    The SECOND thing I learned from TV is that conspiracy people are dreamers. They like to believe that the world is run by someone with some degree of competence. Not someone they agree with offcourse but at least that someone is in control.

    Sorry. Nope. Unless someone out there is a truly amazing human with skill far beyond any know living being in all of history it just doesn't seem that likely that anyone could pull a shadow goverment type thing off for so long.

    People just ain't clever enough. If you look for instance at the 9/11 conspiracies you get the idea that these people desperately wish for a world in wich someone is in control. To set all this up would require a lot of skill that I have never seen displayed before.

    In a way conspiracy theorists HELP the powers that be. By looking for order they allow chaos to thrive.

    Again the JFK shooting and the Murder She Wrote method. By focusing on trying to find out who DID it, the conspiracy theorists are leaving in the clear everyone who THOUGHT they did it. Who has there been no investigation of the known facts that goverments officials had formed plans to kill the president? These are not disputed, they are know and well documented. BUT because they did not actually do it they get off because everyone wants to find some non-existant secret organisation.

    Same with 9/11 by wishing to find that the US goverment planned it all they are ignoring the facts that someone in the US goverment made some really bad choices. Those bad choices did NOT plan the attack but also did nothing to stop it. For some people, charged with the protection of the US, this is a crime itself. Just as plotting to kill the president is.

    In my darkest hours I fear that conspiracy theorists are the wetdream of every conspirator. By focussing on the outlandish they are letting the mundane go unnoticed.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  125. government is conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conspiracy happens all the time. Government always ends up being used for selfish evil ends, that is the history of man. Governments never fell and never conquered without conspiracy. Corruption often requires conspiracy; and many people believe that is the job of politicians: to conspire for a living. (think about it, politicians often have groups they think poorly of and try to harm in one way or another-- they spend a lot of time conspiring.)

    Don't even get me started on military, that is what military planning is- conspiracy. And that whole cold war was chucked full of conspiracy! People have to realize conspiracy is normal and start turning on their brains.

    I'm not a JFK expert nor was I alive, but my relatives all believe it was one. My uncles had the exact same gun on their farm growing up and knew it was impossible. Aside from so many facts which make it puzzling and clearly not so simple and wrapped up with a bow.

    The powerful groups must be checked and their power balanced because its in their nature to conspire; its a founding concept of representative republic design.

  126. Re:No really, it was on Discovery. So, it's fer su by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

    Reply to: No really, it was on Discovery. So, it's fer sure.
    Now that's a definitive source for ya. The cable channel on which the show aired has fuck-all to do with the production of the show. At any rate, the careful, rational experts they consulted are certainly more reputable than the same half dozen retarded moonbats the conspiracy fools keep trotting out.

    And Popular Science definitively disproved 9/11 was an inside job, right? Mhh Hmm. Americans. No, the authorities in the appropriate fields they consulted disproved it, you smug prick.

    Anyway, the CIA certainly shot Kennedy just as they did with Martin Luther King a few years later. Please. As evidenced by 9-11, the "surprise" fall of the Soviet Union, the Bay of Pigs, and countless others, it's quite obvious that the CIA couldn't find its collective ass with both hands and a flashlight. I've worked with the kind of ivy league fucktards that go into the CIA. They're all walking piles of preconceived notions. They couldn't conspire to have a pizza delivered, much less murder a public figure in broad daylight.
    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  127. So lets review the real facts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Joe Fed claims LHO, using a 1) single shot, 2) rusty, 3) bolt action rifle with a 4) misaligned sight was able to kill JFK while he was a 5) moving target and despite the fact he had 6) bad eyesight and was a 7) poor shooter?

    Yeah right.

    1. Re:So lets review the real facts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was able to kill JFK while he was a 5) moving target and despite the fact he had 6) bad eyesight and was a 7) poor shooter What does JFK's poor eyesight and skill with a rifle have to do with the assassination?
  128. ZOMG! Run!!! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    The uber-archetype of all conspiracy theories has been raised on Slashdot, the home of geekdom's Tinfoil Hat Brigade.

    Run! Escape before the whole mess collapses into a conspiracy singularity!

  129. conspiracies everywhere by nido · · Score: 1

    Sorry. None of the [skeptic/conspiracy nut] stuff is even a little credible. You need to offer credible counter-evidence, rather than smugly braying "open your eyes, you fools!"

    Taken individually, episodes of conspiracy are hard to prove because the conspirators do a half-way decent job of covering their tracks. But when conspiracies are viewed collectively, the entirety of a grand plot against The People begins to take shape.

    Rothchilds financing Rockefeller & Standard Oil, the implementation of compulsory schooling to dumb down regular folks (see Gatto's Underground History of American Education), establishment of the federal reserve bank, the sinking of the Lusitania & entry into WWI, mismanagement of the economy by the new Federal Reserve bank leading to the 'Roaring 20's' and the Great Depression, coercing the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, but making sure the most valuable ships (aircraft carriers) were out at sea, JFK assasination and Warren Commission whitewash, Vietnam, Iran releasing the hostages the day of Reagan's inauguration, Iran-Contra, Reaganomics and breaking organized Labor, Free Trade (NAFTA was a joint Bush-41/Cliton betrayal), 9/11, media consolidation, etc.

    Listen to Chomsky's Class War talk (buy the CD or find a torrent), read Gatto's Underground History of American Education (link above), read Mark Ames' Going Postal Rage Murder and Rebellion, find a copy of The Screwing of the Average Man (1973 or 1974, iirc), read Kenneth Cole's The Misdirection Conspiracy (early 1980's, I think), etc. Everything fits together nicely into a grand plot against ourselves - I know you didn't join the Army to wage war on yourself, but it's kinda funny how things work out, huh?

    Pretty amazing what a little concerted inter-generational organization can accomplish. They can't keep their conspiracy secret, but they can use their bull-horn to drown out everyone who's on to their plot ("they" own the mass-media through four or five media conglomerates, of course).

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
  130. The world is a boring place... by multi+io · · Score: 0, Redundant
    ..in which Al-Qaida terrorists planned and executed the 9/11 attacks, in which 12 Americans landed on the moon and returned safely to the earth, in which passive smoking is dangerous, in which a man-made global warming takes place, and in which a single depressed loser named Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy.

    Because this is all too boring to bear (and too unrewarding for book authors with large egos), people invent themselves a parallel universe in which all of the above is an illusion carefully crafted by the CIA, large corporations, scientists or the government.

  131. people don't just snap by nido · · Score: 1
    Mark Ames says so in Going Postal Rage, Murder and Rebellion. According to the book, Rage murders took off in the 1980's, under Reaganomics & the breaking of the unions. Rampages at postal facilities began after the efforts to move the postal service from a subsidized to self-funded endeavor, and there was much pressure placed on workers to support this transition. Most took the pressure alright, some snapped. School murders follow a similar formula: students get tormented to a breaking point, snap, and 'go postal' on their fellow inmates.

    The fact is that if schools remain wretched places, the shootings, and sympathy for the shooters, will continue. Sympathy for them is a common sensibility. The desire to destroy one's own school is expressed not only in pathos-drenched messageboards, but also in popular black humor. -pg 207


    I decided to finish the book after the virginia tech thing. That massacre seems to fit the pattern - Cho was continually tormented by his peers. I bet there was a ton of pressure to "stay in school", to "just get his degree"... Glad I'm out of the "education" madhouse. :)

    Beliefs are easy to mold - who picked yours?
    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
  132. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    (meaning Oswald didn't do it alone )

    There, fixed that for ya.

  133. Car Analogy Time by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

    In the UK we mostly drive stick, and the stick is mounted on the floor between the seats. In my car it's about a foot from the wheel. Now I can change gears, moving my arm from wheel to stick to wheel - including smooth accelerator and clutch action - from across the H pattern (say 3rd to 4th) in less than a second. In fact i reckon it's close to half a second, sometimes that also involves operating the indicator lever too as i'm probably negotiating a junction (switching it off as well as on, i can't stand the auto-off).

    When you're learning to drive stick it seems like the most complex, impossible task in the universe, having to coordinate all four limbs in a very precise fashion, including the spacial knowledge of the location of said stick and gears so you don't have to look. It's slow and painful to learn and you stall the engine a lot whilst doing so.

    It's only after driving ~20,000 miles in the same car that i can do it all so fast and efficiently.

    Back to LHO and the bolt action rifle. I'm fairly certain that having never operated a gun in my life i'd find the bolt action reload a real slow difficult pain in the ass. But if i had trained, reloaded, fired repeatedly the same gun hundreds of time's i'm fairly certain the same would apply. I wouldnt have to get up from my prone position, fiddle around in my pockets for cartridges and fumble the lever to reload. I wouldnt even need to take my eye from the sights, i could do it, without looking because my spatial knowlege and muscle memory associated with the rifle would operate my limbs for me. In the end it'd be just as fast and easy as changing gears in a car.

    In conclusion, it'd be easy for any old Joe to pick up one of those rifles and after five min os fiddling with the bolt action reload - having never encountered one before - to summarise that operating it 3 or more times in a 6 second period would be impossible.

    sorry, i seem to have ranted a little there

    --
    If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  134. Nah, it was the future JFK who shot himself... by Slashamatic · · Score: 1

    For those remembering Red Dwarf, it was a future John F Kennedy dogged by a messy divorce and investigations over the Mafia who killed his younger self in his prime. This happened after they accidently changed time by eliminating Oswald.

  135. Re:I really wonder if this is just by heinousjay · · Score: 1

    Yes, lets all stop what we're doing and pick up your pet cause full time.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  136. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by try_anything · · Score: 1
    The level of confidence is a crucial part of the conclusion. In this case, a very high degree of confidence eliminated entire lines of investigation. A very low level of confidence, which is what the new tests show (essentially no confidence in any conclusion), is an entirely different matter and an entirely different conclusion.

    This can only be considered "news" if mainstream scientists can back up the lone research team.

    This is indeed a "lone" research team, but it's hard to get more mainstream. In case you missed it: "Tobin was the FBI lab's chief metallurgy expert for more than two decades. He analyzed metal evidence in major cases that included the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 explosion of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island."

    Really, if you know of a way a person can be more mainstream, square, and conventional than that, please speak up. Oh, wait, there is a way: "The questions he and others raised prompted a National Academy of Sciences review that in 2003 concluded that the FBI's bullet lead analysis was flawed. The FBI agreed and generally ended the use of that type of analysis." This guy sets the standard for mainstream. He makes Dick Cheney look like a hippie. He makes J. Edgar Hoover look like a crossdresser. Wait... ignore that. He makes Thomas Friedman look like a Juggalo. I predict a sharp rise in conspiracy theories in which Oswald is the lone gunmen, as conspiracy nuts rush to distance themselves from his overwhelming and undeniable stench of mainstreamness.
  137. Re:Does the government put up red flags on purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was born around 10 years after Kennedy's death. I've heard the theories. It was the Mafia. It was the CIA. It was LBJ. It was the military industrial complex. It was a nut named Oswald. It was the Russians. It was the combination of any or all of the above.

    You forgot the Federal Reserve, which is not part of government. JFK authorized issuance of silver certificates to bypass the Fed control (or to give away liver, as others look at it). Fed didn't like and did what they had to to maintain control of the monetary system. The very next president Johnson ammended JFK order and stopped redeeming silver certificates. Now, _that_ is a conspiracy.
    I'll be here all week.
  138. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by nwbvt · · Score: 1

    "The level of confidence is a crucial part of the conclusion. In this case, a very high degree of confidence eliminated entire lines of investigation. A very low level of confidence, which is what the new tests show (essentially no confidence in any conclusion), is an entirely different matter and an entirely different conclusion."

    I think in the case of the JFK assassination, it would be very difficult to argue that any line of investigation, no matter how silly, wasn't looked at by somebody.

    "This is indeed a "lone" research team, but it's hard to get more mainstream. In case you missed it: "Tobin was the FBI lab's chief metallurgy expert for more than two decades. He analyzed metal evidence in major cases that included the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 explosion of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island.""

    I wasn't arguing that there is anything loony with this particular researcher, just that one team's findings isn't enough. It has to be backed up by others. Otherwise we would all be hopping into our cold fusion powered cars to go to work.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  139. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by try_anything · · Score: 1

    I think in the case of the JFK assassination, it would be very difficult to argue that any line of investigation, no matter how silly, wasn't looked at by somebody.

    How many were investigated by organizations that were skilled in investigation, had plenty of resources, and weren't just out to make a TV show? Not to mention the legal devices that the government has at its disposal. But actually I don't know when the results of the first bullet analysis were available, so I don't know what impact it had on the investigation.
  140. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    There was no sniper on the grassy knoll.
    sure there was it was shown on the BBC ;) that sniper was JFK himself.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  141. Elvis went home by clay_buster · · Score: 1

    Men in Black: Finally the truth about Elvis

  142. Tasteless Kennedy Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why wouldn't JFK make a good boxer?

    Because he couldn't take a shot to the head!

  143. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by NickFitz · · Score: 1

    (meaning Oswald didn't do it alone )

    There, fixed that for ya.

    (meaning Oswald didn't do it alone, or Oswald did it alone but also used a second gun which has never been found)

    There, fixed that for ya. :-)

    --
    Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
  144. Roll up! Roll up! See the Great Hall of Trolls by vorlich · · Score: 1
    Ladies and gentlemen, in order to provide for your comfort and protection during this guided tour of the Great Hall of Trolls you should take heed of the following safety instructions.
    1. Here be monsters.
    2. Wear a tin foil skull cap. Preferably aluminium. Pronunciation is not as important as the element.
    3. Bring adequate supplies of your own salt and be ready to take a pinch of it with each Trollish entry.
    4. Be aware, be very aware - THERE IS NO SCIENCE HERE. The absence of Majik cannot be guaranteed. All visits at your own risk
    5. You should carry an Occams Razor at all times
    6. If you did not have enough common sense to bring extra common sense with you, handy sized packets are available from our Trolls R Us store.
    7. The purpose of the Great Hall of Trolls is to offer up tribute to the demi-gods of Clickthrough and Clickon and their denizens.
    8. Only the mighty AdBlocker spell, turned on, can defeat the loathsome conspiracy behind this topic.
    9. In the Great Hall of Trolls, no one can hear you scream evidence.
    10. During your visit please, please, please don't utter the name James Randi... D'oh!
    --
    Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
  145. Brains for George. by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    He could have JFKs, if only "They" hadn't misplaced them in the National Archives next to the Ark of the Covenant.

  146. Was the holocaust a conspiracy theory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO. It wasn't yet the German government killed millions of people. How come then it is impossible to think that the US government is any different? It is a bull$ argument to say that it would take many people to commit a conspiracy and therefore you couldn't have one.

  147. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    First, there never was a "proof", at least not in the way you are thinking.

    That was the way I worded it, but the fact is that the statement is true for all logical arguments -- if one step in your argument is untrue, then your conclusion is unsupported. It doesn't have to be a mathematical proof. This is obvious, I didn't think the word "proof" would hang anyone up so much. Sorry.

    The summary is clearly saying that the conclusion was shown to be false (meaning Oswald didn't do it), not the argument itself. Which of course is not what the article says at all. If you read it differently, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

    You need to work on realizing that extreme pedantry in a natural language is not the source of good reading comprehension. A conclusion is wrong if the argument supporting it is wrong, because one cannot draw a conclusion from false premises. That you take "wrong" to mean "logical inversion of the stated term" is a perfect example of how your pedantry (and binary thinking) has caused you to fail to understand the statement.

    Experts (or rather, people calling themselves experts) have been disagreeing with the lone gunman theory since the day Kennedy was shot. This can only be considered "news" if mainstream scientists can back up the lone research team.

    Yes, news only occurs under those circumstances. Really, unnecessarily restrict the meaning of words much? That they claim to have disproved a specific analysis that was used to support the lone gunman theory in specific is the news. After all, as you say experts have been disagreeing with the official story for a long time, yet none have disproven this particular analysis. That's what's new, and thus news. Of course it would be more impressive if there was independent verification, peer-reviewed journal publications, and certainly won't be something I'd ever call "truth" until such is done. I just hope you at least realize that "news" is not synonymous with "truth".

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  148. Re:*sigh*...why is it so hard for you to see truth by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

    One guy can kill a president

    Sure...but that's not what happened to Kennedy. Why is so hard for you to accept the idea that Lyndon Johnson and a handful of extremists hated Kennedy enough to kill him? There are literally hundreds of examples of assassination of leaders in other countries. Many current world leaders got their job by deep-sixing their predecessors. Why do you think we surround the president with security? In Kennedy's case, Lyndon Johnson was never going to be president if Kennedy was alive...and Johnson knew it...so he conspired to kill Kennedy as his way to become president. The *fingerprint* of Johnson's guy, Mac Wallace, was found in the sniper's nest. Go read the book "Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K." by Barr McClellan. When you look at the state of the evidence in the Kennedy killing, it's the obvious handiwork of a lawyer (Clark) who understood how evidence was gathered and used. He puts Oswald in the building with a gun at the time the president comes driving by, by telling him some story about helping some government thing or whatever. Then the president gets shot and the shooters run for cover, leaving Oswald standing there wondering what happened. Of course, Oswald had to die...and quickly...before he realized what had really happened and started talking about who had told him what.

    You'll say, though, this is all fiction and Oswald did it. The problem is there is a lot of evidence now that shows that Oswald could not have done it. Even the article that is the subject of this thread shows that there was at least another shooter. For starters, Oswald didn't have gunshot residue on his cheek, as determined by a Dallas PD paraffin test, even though he allegedly fired a bolt-action rifle. Oswald did not have any motive to shoot the president. Oswald was an obvious government agent (phony defection to Russia, training in Russian at a prestigious military language school while serving as a Marine, assigned to a top-secret U2 base in Japan, etc.). How many marines today do you think get advanced russian language training, while on duty, unless it's needed for something they are doing for the government? Oswald didn't have a 'getaway' plan. How many assassins go get on a city bus to leave the scene of the crime? There wasn't any way for Oswald to have even known in advance what schedule and routes the buses would be running on the morning of a presidential motorcade. Obviously, the bus was just a spur-of-the-moment idea after Oswald suddenly realized after the shooting (that he probably didn't even know was going to happen) that his hands were dirty and he needed to get away. Yes, there was a shooter on the 6th floor, but it wasn't Oswald, and there were two other shooters, all carefully coordinated, probably by the guy standing on the sidewalk pumping the opened umbrella up and down on a sunny day at the exact spot of the shooting when the president came driving by.

  149. Slight Difference by Khammurabi · · Score: 1

    The united states government can't cover up a blow job from a 21 year old intern in the privacy of the oval office. What makes you think they can cover up an assassination on a crowded street at noon?
    That incident did not have the affect of changing the existing power structure in the US in a hugely dramatic way.

    A anti-Vietnam political leader was assassinated, and a pro-Vietnam political leader came into power. The war industry made billions off of Vietnam. The mafia and CIA were abandoned by Kennedy in Cuba, resulting in lost / captured men. To me those seem like a valid motive to consider either of those groups a suspect.

    Numerous eyewitnesses reported suspicious behavior immediately before and after the event. (Construction workers with odd implements, people potentially signaling before the incident, and every bit of photographic evidence confiscated and promptly lost, never to be seen by the public again.) The Secret Service did not follow the rules and guidelines to protect the president that would have been followed on any other day (which could be incompetence, but is also suspect). Reports of multiple gunshots coming from different locations. The accused shooter was killed before he or she could give any real testimony of the event. To me that sounds like case evidence and obstruction of a "crime".

    Now what happened in the aftermath is that one of the suspects (US federal gov't) proceded to conduct the investigation. The end result of this investigation was that a single shooter was responsible for the assassination. A photo of the man holding a rifle was provided and made the cover of a magazine, which has since been proven as a forgery by a number of experts. I have also seen enough guilty suspects being walked by policemen to know that Oswald did not have the typical expression most people do when they've committed a serious crime. Most people either smile and wave, or have a stonewall look to them. Oswald looked completely terrified. The only reason a person would be terrified would be if the event was done in the heat of the moment, or they were being setup.

    Now I'm not going to say who did assassinate JFK, but there seems to be a substantial amount of evidence that reinforces the assertion that it was not a one-man job. There also seems to be enough evidence to leave credence to the idea that it was also not a small team operation, and that a substantial organization was involved. It also seems reasonable that Ozwald was chosen as the fall guy because prosecutors felt there was "enough" information to get a conviction, whether or not it was true (let's face it, when a president gets shot, someone needs to take the blame, and quickly).

    If I were in charge of an organization capable of assassinating a president, the steps that would need to be taken to insure success seem to neatly match up with the events that took place that day. The steps for a single person to insure success seem less likely, and an extreme amount of luck would need to be involved. (As to who did it and why, we might never know for sure. But it seems reasonable that an organization was involved, not a lone gunman.)
  150. Re:Does the government put up red flags on purpose by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    Coverups are a reflexive action in government, I think. It's like "Oh shit, I think we just ran over someone. Quick, ditch the weed and brewskies!" It starts with "it wasn't me" and spreads from there.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  151. Bush says Warren Commission always right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's an interesting George H.W. Bush quote, "After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness. And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it and Jerry Ford's word was always good." Eulogy for Gerald R. Ford Jan 2, 2007

  152. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by nwbvt · · Score: 1

    "That was the way I worded it, but the fact is that the statement is true for all logical arguments -- if one step in your argument is untrue, then your conclusion is unsupported."

    You said "wrong", not "unsupported". And even "unsupported" doesn't work with real world conclusions. Its perfectly possible for them to still be supported even if one piece of evidence was false. This is because they (unlike conclusions from mathematical proofs or other logical systems) generally involve many pieces of evidence which builds up to a final conclusion. They are usually far from simple modus ponens arguments.

    Mathematics and predicate logic are very useful. However, you cannot apply rules from those worlds directly into real world arguments.

    "A conclusion is wrong if the argument supporting it is wrong, because one cannot draw a conclusion from false premises."

    No, not by any accepted definition of the word 'wrong'. At best you can say the researchers were wrong when they reached that conclusion. It is perfectly possible to get a right answer with faulty reasoning.

    "After all, as you say experts have been disagreeing with the official story for a long time, yet none have disproven this particular analysis."

    And they still have not disproven this particular analysis. At best they have cast doubt on it. But conspiracy theorists have been casting doubt on it for decades.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  153. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    No, not by any accepted definition of the word 'wrong'. At best you can say the researchers were wrong when they reached that conclusion. It is perfectly possible to get a right answer with faulty reasoning.

    But the conclusion of the researchers was that the bullets could not have come from multiple shooters. That conclusion is wrong, because the analysis that preculded other shooters was wrong. If this new analysis is correct, of course.

    And they still have not disproven this particular analysis. At best they have cast doubt on it. But conspiracy theorists have been casting doubt on it for decades.

    And have any of them done so through actual forensic science on the actual bullets? Have any of them had the ability to? Have any of them had the credibility in the field of forensics that the one conducting this study has? No? Then this is news.

    I can "cast doubt" on the moon landings by spouting off the stupid standard conspiracy points, that's a far cry from providing geological evidence that the "moon rocks" and "moon dust" are an exact match for sand and rocks from a beach in Paraguay.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  154. History Channel: The Men Who Killed Kennedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice the plural "men." This five-part series was released in 1988, with follow-up episodes in 1995 and 2003, totaling nine parts.

    If you can watch nine hours of material on the JFK assassination and still tote the party line, well that's some form of ideological heroism.

    Your favorite bittorent site should have this series.

  155. Re:*sigh*...why is it so hard for you to see truth by coaxial · · Score: 1

    Funny. I thought it was I thought it was the mafia.
    Or was it the KGB?
    Or was it the Cubans?
    Or was it the Exiled Cubans?
    Or was it the Military Industrial Complex as Oliver Stone implied?

    Seriously. Have you ever actually read the Warren Commission Report?

    I doubt it.

  156. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by nwbvt · · Score: 1

    "But the conclusion of the researchers was that the bullets could not have come from multiple shooters. That conclusion is wrong, because the analysis that preculded other shooters was wrong."

    Please RTFA. The new analysis does not prove the bullets came from multiple shooters at all. At best it casts doubt on the current evidence. Its still perfectly possible (not to mention likely) that the conclusion that the bullets all came from Oswald's gun is true.

    And if you want to bicker that their conclusion was something stronger than that, here is the actual quote from the article summary that we have disputed: "Researchers... say that the government's 1976 conclusion that the bullets came from only one gun (Oswald's) is wrong." This statement is not an accurate reflection of the article, there is no point in you looking like a dumbass while defending it any longer.

    " And have any of them done so through actual forensic science on the actual bullets? Have any of them had the ability to? Have any of them had the credibility in the field of forensics that the one conducting this study has? No? Then this is news."

    Yes, there have been people who have used actual forensic science while trying to dispute the government's claim. And this claim (which doesn't seek to prove anything, despite your claims otherwise) is actually relatively weak.

    " I can "cast doubt" on the moon landings by spouting off the stupid standard conspiracy points, that's a far cry from providing geological evidence that the "moon rocks" and "moon dust" are an exact match for sand and rocks from a beach in Paraguay."

    That would only be analogous if these researchers had found one of the bullets to be an exact match to one fired from a gun owned by some mafia hitman.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  157. jfk by fiftycentsaday · · Score: 1

    it's all known but we'll never know. government in the past has not always been so inept at things clandestine, as are the current banana heads in the big House. what we focus on from that time is really a shame...for far too long jfk has been given a pass by the media and historians because he took a slug in the skull. -50CentsADay.net

  158. Re:Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" by Listen+Up · · Score: 1

    You cannot mathematically prove that Oswald did or did not do it, because Oswald is not a mathematical construct.

    The universe operates Mathematically. In other words, the universe operates by an absolute and finite set of logical rules. Therefore, Oswald and the entirety of the universe is, in fact, a Mathematical construct.

    Such proofs only exist in the world of mathematics, and there they are only possible because mathematics is a completely abstract field that does not involve perceptions of the real world (which always have some degree of intrinsic doubt).

    Wrong.

    You are not a Mathematician (Pure Mathematics) nor a Physicist (Applied Mathematics). I am. Only make comments here when you truly know what you are talking about.