The JFK movie? Are you serious? You couldn't pick a worse source to rely on. There were three shots. That's it. In reality, the first missed, the second hit Kennedy and Connally, the third hit Kennedy in the head. In conspiracy land, the first hit Kennedy, the second hit Connally, the third, from the knoll, hit Kennedy in the head.

It's really not hard to find this information.

Invictus, do you think Barry Goldwater was crazy? Or Jackie Kennedy? Or Russel Long? Or the members of the House Select Committee on Assassinations? Or Bobby Kennedy? Or the KGB? Or Mary Pinchot Meyer (JFK's mistress and the ex-wife of Cordell Hull, who was murdered in 1964)? What of E. Howard Hunt's taped deathbed confession? Or LBJ's mistress' report that LBJ told her on the night of 11/21/63 “After tomorrow, those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again. That’s no threat. That’s a promise.”? Do you really believe that Jack Ruby - a mob thug and all-around low-life - was acting out of altruism when he executed Oswald? What do you think happened to JFK's brain? Why is it that the doctors at Parkland Hospital initially described the wound to the back of the head as an exit wound instead of an entrance wound? We could go on with another couple hundred questions, but I don't want to overwhelm you. I'm probably a lost cause, but if you - with your undoubtedly extensive knowledge on the topic - can answer most or all of these questions, maybe you could dissuade some other more impressionable soul(s) from the path of conspiracism and towards acceptance of the state-proclaimed Truth.

"Again I'm assuming that the JFK movie is accurate according to conspiracy theorists."

I believe Oliver Stone's position on his movie is that it presents a theory and does not claim to represent 'what really happened'. Many JFK researchers have problems with aspects of the film (particularly with the allegations of Clay Shaw's involvement), but Stone has said that the purpose of the film was not necessarily to indict, but to encourage interest and discussion on the subject, which was fading from public consciousness at the time (and as a side benefit, he made a lot of money off of it). That said, the film does present many of the basic elements common to (nearly) all theories about the assassination.

Your 11:06 post just throws out questions. That's not evidence. That's just speculation. Also just rank hearsay in the quote from LBJ's alleged mistress. In fact, the LBJ angle as a whole is the least likely one, really. Robert Caro's Talmudic biography of him turns up nothing to tie the then vice president to the assassination at all.


Tolstoy is regurgitating the same tired conspiracy tropes that have been easily discredited by serious investigations that don't arrive at the issue looking to prove a conspiracy. I'm surprised he doesn't trot out absurdities like Badge Man or the idea that J.D. Tippit was a CIA agent. The problem with the conspiracy story is that it's much sexier than the truth and therefore lingers on, reality be damned.

Regarding the JFK movie: I apologize, I actually believed that what the movie was suggesting was what conspiracy nuts actually believed.

I haven't wasted my time going through conspiracy theory websites to find out what they do and don't believe, I just thought that the movie showed what they believed and haven't done any research on the conspiracy beliefs outside of that movie.

"Robert Caro's Talmudic biography of him turns up nothing to tie the then vice president to the assassination at all."

I'll take the opinions of Kennedy's kinfolk and the "hearsays" of many of the top movers and shakers of American politics over the opinion of some sycophantic biographer who knows he must avoid "conspiracy theorism" if he wants his work to be taken "seriously" any day.

"Tolstoy is regurgitating the same tired conspiracy tropes that have been easily discredited by serious investigations that don't arrive at the issue looking to prove a conspiracy."

I am? Does this mean that Kennedy's brain has been found somewhere? When did this happen? Who has it? What have they been doing with it? What does it show us about the trajectory or the bullet(s) that killed him? Oops! This is one of the questions "serious investigations" refuse to deal with.

"The problem with the conspiracy story is that it's much sexier than the truth and therefore lingers on, reality be damned."

Sexier? It's a flipping mystery that I know will never be solved with absolute certainty. It's damned frustrating. At any rate, I'll bet you would've been that guy in the forum who believed the "official story" every time a Roman emperor died suddenly and mysteriously as well. "14 stab wounds? Obviously an accident... stairs and knives just don't mix..."

"I... haven't done any research on the conspiracy beliefs outside of that movie."

How can you be certain it's all bull if you haven't actually looked at the issue for yourself?

No need for scare quotes around hearsay. It is hearsay. That's a fact.

Its a known fact that the first bullet missed though because a fragment hit James Tague.

Honestly, the conspiracy theory Tolstoy is putting forth makes less sense then the movie.

That could have something to do with the fact that I haven't put forth a theory.

Well I'm assuming the theory Invictus is discrediting is the one you believe.

I believe Invictus is suggesting that *all* possible explanations that vary from the Warren Commission report are crazy and is not addressing any particular theory.

Well he is making the claim that conspiracy theorists think that there were only 3 bullets, which I don't think is possible for that much damage to have been done with 3 bullets if we think the neck wound on Kennedy and the wounds on Connelly were done by different bullets.

Webdip - smarter than the FBI, smarter than e'rrybody.

@ Tolstoy: "Does this mean that Kennedy's brain has been found somewhere?"

Despite what you've seen on Futurama, I don't think it is standard practice to keep the brains of deceased Presidents in storage for perpetuity.

Where is Abraham Lincoln's brain?
Where is James Garfield's brain?
Where is William McKinley's brain?
Where is George W. Bush's brain?

Where is yours?

In a jar marked "Abby Normal"

In perpetuity, no. But JFK's brain - a crucial piece of forensic evidence if ever there was one that would settle the matter of where the fatal shot came from pretty conclusively - disappeared in 1966. Add to this the cleaning and repair of the presidential limo in the weekend after the assassination and the immediate laundering of Connally's suit and the disappearances of all the still camera and home video footage seized by the authorities and I can't think of another murder case in modern history where so much vital evidence was disappeared so quickly - before the investigation had even begun. Maybe my brain is missing too, but don't you think the investigation of a presidential assassination should be given at the very least the same level of care as an investigation into the murder of the local gang thug?

I thought Robert Kennedy stole his brother's brain to cover up the fact that JFK really, really liked amphetamines.

Coincidentally, part of Rosemary Kennedy's brain disappeared not too long before that.

Are you referring to her lobotomy?

Ok, Tolstoy, I'll come clean.

I've got Kennedy's brain. John McCone gave it to me in 1981 for safe keeping. It had been in a chest freezer in his garage since 1966 but he was having the relatives over for Thanksgiving dinner and needed extra freezer space.

I'll let you have it, but it'll cost you. Please PM me your bank details and we'll take it from there.

If I were to investigate a very high-profile assassination, I would keep all evidence and possibly all investigators off the radar.

Is it really that weird that no investigator went like: "Kennedy's brain? Look, it's right here in my suitcase!"

Assuming the official story is the truth, I would expect to never hear about the brain.

I honestly don't see how a 'missing' brain must be a conspiracy.

Governments keep secrets. The US government does for sure.

Why is the brain such a big deal? Again, conspiracy theorists latch on to one strange little thing in the case and use that as confirmation that a whole bunch of other things happened.


Shh, 2ndWhiteLine! We're not allowed to talk about things that upset the Camelot narrative. Next you'll bring up how JFK forced an intern fellate Dave Powers in the White House pool, or how he carried out the Secret War in Laos with gusto despite the claim he was on the brink of pulling out of Indochina altogether.

I'll just leave this here.
http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2013/08/camelot-delusion-reassessing-john-f-kennedy%E2%80%99s-legacy-50-years

Oswalt's devotion to communism (per Tolstoy forced choice number 1) is debatable.

Anyway all three shots were indeed fired by Oswalt. And at the same time Lee Harvy (Oswald) was indeed a patsy. It was actually Patton Oswalt (from a different time stream) having joined a group of trekkies who had discovered time travel, went back in time to Dallas and assassinated JFK to prevent JFK from mocking Star Trek in his second term thus causing it to be cancelled early.

If you don't ignore inconvenient evidence it's abundantly clear Oswald was totally committed to communism. He defected to the Soviet Union, for one. And after he came back he ran a chapter of a Cuban propaganda group. He tried to kill a leader of the John Birch Society just before he killed Kennedy. What more do you need for him to be a committed communist?

He also tried to move to Cuba to help the revolution. Mere weeks before the assassination.

Oswald never renounced his US citizenship and was returned his US passport. He also never formally applied for Soviet citizenship.

How many 'defectors' return to the country from which they defected?
As for the assassination attempt on Walker, there were two people involved and they both drove away in cars. Oswald could not drive. The witness who saw the men get in the cars did not recognize Oswald as either of the men.