Comments on: Libra

Libra

painquale — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:01:40 -0800

The Academic JFK Assassination site is an unbelievably thorough compendium of information on the Kennedy assassination. It's an excursion into conspiracy theories without any crackpottery. Some of the articles are immensely readable. See, for example, Richard Popkin's 1966 New York Review of Books article The Second Oswald.

By: painquale

painquale — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:04:43 -0800

I found this link when searching for information on Richard Popkin, the historian of ideas who just died. It's an excellent site and seems pretty old, so I'm a little worried that this post is a double, but I couldn't find any trace of the site in the archives.

By: notsnot

notsnot — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:07:09 -0800

Why is it that people need to think there was a conspiracy? I've been to Dallas (for a meetup, no less!) and stood where the motorcade was, and it's an easy fuckin' shot.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:38:20 -0800

Kennedy wasn't even the target. Connelly was. Combine that with the target moving away from the shooter, and his using a cheap-ass rifle, and you have a whole new perspective on the whole damn thing.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:35:44 -0800

Boy, if that's true, imagine the "OOPS" moment Oswald experienced.

By: BackwardsCity

BackwardsCity — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:39:05 -0800

On the other side of things, the McAdams Kennedy site is indispensible on this subject, and was a big factor in moving my gut instinct from "probably a conspiracy" to "probably not."

By: clevershark

clevershark — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:42:09 -0800

Well, it WAS Connelly's signature on Oswald's dishonorable discharge papers.

By: caddis

caddis — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 21:30:33 -0800

Grassy knoll

By: painquale

painquale — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 21:49:27 -0800

It's kind of funny that the site I linked to has a stated goal of dismantling the assassination conspiracy theories and supporting the lone gunman hypothesis. I've always thought that the conspiracy theorists were a bunch of crackpots, but reading some of the articles on the site (particulary the "Second Oswald" article linked above) has me wondering if I haven't been too hasty. This seems to me to be one subject where I'm perfectly willing to say, "I have no opinion on the matter." It really makes no difference to the world what I believe or not, and working my way to an informed opinion would take too much reading and work that could be devoted to my more primary interests. (I'll bet a lot of casual creationists feel this way about evolution. Unfortunately, while any one person's viewpoint isn't too important, their collective views do have real impact on science policy. Coordination problem, here).

By: X4ster

X4ster — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:23:12 -0800

I counted a total of 40 theories in the two Esquire articles. For a lot of reasons I'm with Gerald Posner on the JFK assassination; "Case Closed". The Warren Commision examined 5,000 pieces of physical evidence and produced a 20,000 page report. In spite of the evidence there are people who will forever have beliefs or convictions that there had to be some other far more mysterious cause for President Kennedy's death.

By: keswick

keswick — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:21:51 -0800

I heard the Cigarette Smoking Man did it.

By: gsb

gsb — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:23:52 -0800

He did do it, there's an X-Files episode all about it. It includes the real shooter's position, in the storm drain.

By: gsb

gsb — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:24:40 -0800

Oh, nice link, by the way.

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:02:20 -0800

Nonsense. Everyone knows the gunman on the grassy knoll was John F. Kennedy.

By: Mean Mr. Bucket

Mean Mr. Bucket — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:13:21 -0800

Umbrella Man made me a believer.

By: gubo

gubo — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:15:58 -0800

The motorcade sped on.

By: foodeater

foodeater — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:17:03 -0800

I leery of anyone who suggests that they know one way or another. For some, their opinion may have to do with their political leanings. Others have a bent towards conspiracies. But it IS possible to talk about "conspiracies" being generally goofy, without suggesting that one involving JFK's assasination is goofy as well. I'm not overly interested in the subject, but think that there are too many holes in the "official" line. The reason why so many who believe in a conspiracy come of as "buffs" is that they often go a step beyond said "holes" to hypothesis.

By: foodeater

foodeater — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:24:21 -0800

On the other side of things, the McAdams Kennedy site is indispensible on this subject, and was a big factor in moving my gut instinct from "probably a conspiracy" to "probably not." Its not like McAdams doesn't have apparent holes in his information:

By: foodeater

foodeater — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:25:57 -0800

.....http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id151.htm

By: aGreatNotion

aGreatNotion — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:58:47 -0800

thank you for refueling my JFK assassination obsession with this post.

By: gigawhat?

gigawhat? — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:20:50 -0800

The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone. Who are we to question its findings? Besides, everyone knows conspiracies only happened in the olden days.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:04:27 -0800

*places tinfoil hat squarely on head* *peruses site* *removes TF hat* Ok, good post. Still, lotta 'lone nuts' doing a lotta shooting back then....