You make interesting points, putin. Nevertheless, I think dirge hits the nail. Some of Oswald's behavior is consistent with some things, some of it with others -- ALL of it is consistent with dirge's (and the mainstream) picture of him.

Ballistic evidence points to all the shots coming from the depository window, and virtually all evidence points to Oswald being in that window. The shooting aspect of the conspiracy is beyond legitimate debate.

However, as John Kerry recently put it, it's still possible that Oswald was coaxed into carrying out the assassination or was a pawn in a wider conspiracy. But it's far from a slam-dunk and those questions and loose ends can be solved with the official story of him being a weirdo, to less eloquently paraphrase dirge. Is it possible there was more to the assassination than the accepted, mainstream narrative? Of course. There's just not the evidence to back it up, so believing in it is a matter of faith rather than a result of a fair analyisis of what happened.

The whole JFK conspiracy is the ur-example of Baby Boomer self-centeredness. It was a defining moment in their childhoods, so it just CAN'T be the case that the dashing young president was killed for no reason by a nut with an old rifle. It had to be an evil conspiracy carried out by the same wicked old men they would later protest against over Vietnam, which they laughably claim JFK was about to call off. Instead of a mediocre president who didn't govern as much of liberal at all, JFK had to become the martyred patron saint of American liberalism, who can get praise for being the real developer for LBJ's Great Society and civil rights achievements without having to give due credit to the racist warmonger Baby Boomers came to hate. Instead of a presidency on the brink of collapse under the weight of numerous scandals, we get Camelot and a de facto royal family.

Through tragedy, a mediocre president has been transformed into an icon. Just imagine if President Garfield had been better looking.

Everything is obvious. Nothing is legitimate debate.

What a rant. Demands to carefully consider the evidence quickly turns into a psycho-analytic screed about the Baby Boomer generation and JFK's mediocrity. What twaddle.

I don't suppose conspiracy theorizing will ever be put to rest. I don't think a wider conspiracy is possible to ever disprove. But, if for the sake of argument we were to say Oswald was put up to it-- History would have to judge the conspirators foolish for picking Oswald to do the job considering one of the first things out of his mouth in public was "I was a patsy."

"Just imagine if President Garfield had been better looking."

Just imagine if post-civil war Presidents actually did anything.

The assassinations of Lincoln & McKinley haven't prevented them from being demonized by the right & left respectively. The reason why Kennedy gets a pass is largely because the GOP admired him almost as much as the dreaded 'liberals' do. The same reason why Reagan has gotten a pass.

Putin33 -- and you believe the evidence will be sorted weighed and accurately analyzed on the Webdiplomacy Forum? Perhaps you should not point your finger so fast.

Maybe. Occasionally we've surprised ourselves. But the point is Invictus has made a big show about only making statements based on what the evidence says (and the evidence, according to him, leaves no room for debate) yet he goes on this anti-boomer rant based on absolutely nothing. Just a massive ad hominem against anyone who disagrees with his reflexive need to believe the mainstream of everything. One could go on a psycho-analytic rant of that particular habit of his, but why bother.

Well your right about invictus using it to liberal bash. But he has some good points even if he is a fox news zombie.

Whatever points he made is undone by his visceral Kennedy-hate. It seems that he's working backwards from the lone gunman theory because it satisfies his need to believe Kennedy was struck down in a mediocre way. How's that for psycho-analytic nonsense.

"Everything is obvious. Nothing is legitimate debate."

Did you read what I said? A wider conspiracy behind Oswald is possible, but him making the shots is certain. The shots could only have come from the depository window, and only Oswald could have been there. With regards to what might have motivated him, your agent provocateur idea is certainly possible. I think unlikely, for many reasons, but it's not something to dismiss out of hand like a second-shooter theory. So I don't know where this claim about what you think I think comes from.

"The assassinations of Lincoln & McKinley haven't prevented them from being demonized by the right & left respectively."

Where's the demonization of Lincoln by the right? The GOP proudly refers to itself as the Party of Lincoln.

"Invictus has made a big show about only making statements based on what the evidence says (and the evidence, according to him, leaves no room for debate) yet he goes on this anti-boomer rant based on absolutely nothing."

There's an obvious distinction between what I say about the events and what I say about the historiography. Maybe I'm full of shit on my Baby Boomer idea. Could be. But that's a subjective position. That's different from facts related to the assassination itself, which I say indisputably prove Oswald was the lone shooter and lean strongly against a wider conspiracy behind him

In the end, we all die alone. And it is true, it is easier to idolize those how die at the top of their game.

I'm sure if the same thing had happened to George W. . . . er . . . no, I guess he never had a top game; not a good analogy.

"Well your right about invictus using it to liberal bash. But he has some good points even if he is a fox news zombie."

I don't know where the perception I'm bashing liberals is coming from. Kennedy hagiography transcends party lines. Look not further than how Ted Cruz just wrote an article in NRO on how much he loves JFK and his tax-cutting ways.

true

"I'm sure if the same thing had happened to George W. . . . er . . . no, I guess he never had a top game; not a good analogy."

He had the highest approval rating ever recorded just after 9/11. If there had been a further tragedy in 2001 or 2002 he'd definitely be a JFK analogue for the modern era.

"So I don't know where this claim about what you think I think comes from."

How do you make the claim that is' an absolute certainty that Oswald was on the 6th floor when we have a picture of his likeness standing in the doorway of the depository at the time when the shots were fired? It's not remotely obvious that Oswald was the shooter. The people who did the ballistic tests, which you claim conclusively show Oswald was the shooter, had to repair the gun multiple times just to be able to shoot it. They raised Oswald as the suspect without knowing hardly anything about the shooting. No forensic tests had been done, no ballistics, they didn't even know how many bullets had hit Kennedy, but somehow they just knew that Oswald was the shooter. The one witness who said he saw Oswald at the window, was near-sighted and first couldn't pick him out in a line-up. Shell casings were found on the 6th floor which came from a rifle other than the Italian one Oswald is said to have used. The paraffin tests they did on Oswald came back negative.

There is no way to objectively look at that information and claim that is conclusive that Oswald did it.

re: George II: "He had the highest approval rating ever recorded just after 9/11."

okay, and did that have anything to do with his presidency? I think very little.

"If there had been a further tragedy in 2001 or 2002 he'd definitely be a JFK analogue for the modern era."

Yeah, sure. No, I don't think you're insane. By the way, would like this nice tin foil hat to go with your fox news channel?

"Where's the demonization of Lincoln by the right? The GOP proudly refers to itself as the Party of Lincoln."

Thomas DiLorenzo, Ludwell H Johnson, Mel Bradford, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, basically the entire paleo-wing of the GOP and the entire southern establishment from the beginnings of the "Lost Cause" narrative onward. There's a long conservative tradition of hating on Lincoln.

Lincoln was racist

Who? who? who? who? and two extreme party outsiders....

Putin the Rapist once again paints with his broad brush.

Go the fuck away, you lying piece of trash.

"Yeah, sure. No, I don't think you're insane. By the way, would like this nice tin foil hat to go with your fox news channel?"

If all there was to judge George W. Bush on was his immediate response to 9/11 then he'd be irrationally lionized just like JFK is. Remember, he was only inaugurated in January 2001. The attacks happened before Iraq, before his tax cuts, before anything that people dislike him for.

Putin33, read the damn link semck83 posted. Oswald is not in the picture. That's a fringe idea even in the conspiracy community. You might as well still believe in Badge Man. The rest of your paragraph is a mixture or untruth and easy interpretation.

The JFK conspiracy when it comes to the shooting itself is a lot like the tales around the Marie Celeste. There is an answer for it that solves all the questions, but the same half-truths and discredited positions keep swirling around which make it look like a controversy still exists.

@invictus, oh, I suppose you were being sarcastic. der.

"easy interpretation" should be "misleading interpretation." Not sure how that happened. I'm not on my phone.

"Lincoln was racist"

Not as much as Lord Palmerston.

its all relative. I was just being hyperbolic.

I need to sign off now and do something productive

"Not as much as Lord Palmerston."

Pitt the Elder!

"The attacks happened before Iraq, before his tax cuts, before anything that people dislike him for. "

His approval rating pre-911 was 51%.

"Oswald is not in the picture. "

Really why was the shirt unbuttoned at the top? Just for kicks? Hey, the President is driving by, I'm at work, I'm going to wear my shirt all dissheveled? We know why Oswald wore his shirt that way, he was missing buttons at the top. We know why the shirt was loose-fitting, Oswald weighed 130 pounds at most. We have a picture of Lovelady - the alleged doorman - at the police station with a tight-fighting buttoned up shirt. I guess he just let it all hang loose, somehow, when the President was driving by.

And you talk about articles of faith?

"His approval rating pre-911 was 51%."

I've been talking about another tragedy AFTER 9/11. When he was in the 90s.


Dude, Oswald isn't in the picture. Just like Anton LeVay isn't on the Hotel California cover.

The point is Bush wasn't exactly well liked prior to 9-11. He had low approvals considering he hadn't done anything yet and wasn't being criticized in the media except for taking lengthy vacations. His approval rating had climbed down to the 50s before the Iraq war had begun. It's doubtful that Bush would have been raised to the status of icon simply for presiding over the worst intelligence failure in American history combined with being killed.

I disagree, since his presidency ending just after the fall of the Taliban and still in hot pursuit of bin Laden would leave people's last memories of him as also their best memories, but this is a monumentally worthless thing to argue over.