Opinions about the JFK Assassination

[Phony Moderate]

I think lies were told about it. The second shot clearly hit JFK from the front in the Zapruder Film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IHYSwK9Xac

[Franzl]

I don't know....and if I'm totally honest, I don't even really care.

I think it's probable that some "conspiracy" existed....I'm not sure if intentional lies were told. I tend to doubt it.

[minionofmidas]

I see no reason to assume a conspiracy. A half-crazy self-styled commie who was a decent shot and had attempted to murder an American far rightist leader before (and not been caught) hears that the President will be passing right below his workplace. Easy to guess what happens next.
Besides, there is the matter of the circumstances of Oswald's arrest. No, if you want a US political murder where conspiracy theories make some sense, MLK is the corpse to go to.

[Franzl]

I see no reason to assume a conspiracy. A half-crazy self-styled commie who was a decent shot and had attempted to murder an American far rightist leader before (and not been caught) hears that the President will be passing right below his workplace. Easy to guess what happens next.
Besides, there is the matter of the circumstances of Oswald's arrest. No, if you want a US political murder where conspiracy theories make some sense, MLK is the corpse to go to.

I didn't mean a government conspiracy was likely...just that I wouldn't be surprised if Oswald had connections with some third party.

On the second point, any concrete theory on your part concerning MLK?

[12th Doctor]

I think lies were told about it. The second shot clearly hit JFK from the front in the Zapruder Film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IHYSwK9Xac

Ummmm... no.  It didn't "clearly" hit him from the front.  There is no telling how a human body will react when struck by a bullet.  Bullets on their own have insufficient mass, to shift the course of a human body, even traveling at their speed.

In the mean time, if you run a computer simulation putting all the main actors in their correct positions, with Connely seated lower, and more to the left of JFK, then the trajectory of the first bullet lines up perfectly.

[12th Doctor]

As for Oswald's shooting skill the film JFK lies through its teeth.  Oswald was an excellent shot, maintaining a tight cluster at 200 years, without a scope.  Kennedy was actually positioned no more than 85 yards away from Oswald at any given time.  The scope might have been off slightly, which would explain why Oswald missed the first shot.  But as a trained Marine, he would have adjusted on instinct.  The Zapruder Film reveals that he made all three shots in 11 1/2 second... not the eight seconds given in JFK; an easy time window.

Bottom line, I could have made those shots.

[Phony Moderate]

As for Oswald's shooting skill the film JFK lies through its teeth.  Oswald was an excellent shot, maintaining a tight cluster at 200 years, without a scope.  Kennedy was actually positioned no more than 85 yards away from Oswald at any given time.  The scope might have been off slightly, which would explain why Oswald missed the first shot.  But as a trained Marine, he would have adjusted on instinct.  The Zapruder Film reveals that he made all three shots in 11 1/2 second... not the eight seconds given in JFK; an easy time window.

Bottom line, I could have made those shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5rqf7pf-6w

[12th Doctor]

As for Oswald's shooting skill the film JFK lies through its teeth.  Oswald was an excellent shot, maintaining a tight cluster at 200 years, without a scope.  Kennedy was actually positioned no more than 85 yards away from Oswald at any given time.  The scope might have been off slightly, which would explain why Oswald missed the first shot.  But as a trained Marine, he would have adjusted on instinct.  The Zapruder Film reveals that he made all three shots in 11 1/2 second... not the eight seconds given in JFK; an easy time window.

Bottom line, I could have made those shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5rqf7pf-6w

A conspiracy theory to cover up for the inadequacies of the conspiracy theory... imagine my shock.

Okay, let's review.

First of all, I am somewhat skeptical that the film has not been retouched by the people putting on this presentation, but I don't need that.

First, the original homemade movie cameras (meaning homemade movies, not cameras) being used by Zapruder are notorious for the kind of choppy, imprecise quality of their movement from one frame to another.  They weren't using Hollywood technology.  They were using something very rudimentary.  So, I would not be in the least bit surprised if some of the action was missed by the camera, simply because of the nature of the camera itself.

Second, motion capture on film can vary in inconsistent and tricky ways, based on the movement of individual people in the frame.  The Secret Service driver whose head supposedly "jerks with impossible speed" was likely moving too fast for the camera to catch up with his motion.  That would be entirely unsurprising.

Third, film degrades at inconsistent intervals, based on colors, exposure, movement, position, etc.  Anyone with any experience with old film of any kind could tell you that.  Differences in "sharpness" of objects can be easily accounted for.

Fourth, the "blur" at the bottom of the lamp post is obviously a sign of some sort.  Solved that one pretty quickly, geniuses.

Fifth, Many spectators heard the first shot.  Thus, they turned to move in that direction.  Most simply thought a car had backfired.  This accounts for why some in the crowd, at those frames, are not looking at the President.

Sixth, have you ever tried to "hit the gas" in a car?  You will notice that, even in an automatic, there is a momentary slow down in the motion of the car before it accelerates.  That is elementarily level stuff  If you note, the car actually does seem to slow down in relation to the background for a some frames, before finally speeding up.  If they were driving a standard, as opposed to an automatic, then this explanation makes even more sense.

Seventh, the comments were based off of computerized reconstructions of film, which show the "flow" of the film to be accurate, even if the time speed capture of the film leaves something to be desired.  The computer reconstructions also remove the sign, which was, indeed, hindering, not helping, the anti-conspiracy side from proving their point.  Such reconstructions also confirm that there was no clear shot from any of the locations posited by conspiracy theorists.

Eighth, "Everything was so slow. - Jacqueline Kennedy" I don't think she was talking about the speed of the car, but nice try.  As for the other reports, people's minds often fill in certain details about tragic events that just didn't happen.  It's a nature human response in such cases, and has been proven time and again.

[Phony Moderate]

As for Oswald's shooting skill the film JFK lies through its teeth.  Oswald was an excellent shot, maintaining a tight cluster at 200 years, without a scope.  Kennedy was actually positioned no more than 85 yards away from Oswald at any given time.  The scope might have been off slightly, which would explain why Oswald missed the first shot.  But as a trained Marine, he would have adjusted on instinct.  The Zapruder Film reveals that he made all three shots in 11 1/2 second... not the eight seconds given in JFK; an easy time window.

Bottom line, I could have made those shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5rqf7pf-6w

A conspiracy theory to cover up for the inadequacies of the conspiracy theory... imagine my shock.

Okay, let's review.

First of all, I am somewhat skeptical that the film has not been retouched by the people putting on this presentation, but I don't need that.

First, the original homemade movie cameras (meaning homemade movies, not cameras) being used by Zapruder are notorious for the kind of choppy, imprecise quality of their movement from one frame to another.  They weren't using Hollywood technology.  They were using something very rudimentary.  So, I would not be in the least bit surprised if some of the action was missed by the camera, simply because of the nature of the camera itself.

Second, motion capture on film can vary in inconsistent and tricky ways, based on the movement of individual people in the frame.  The Secret Service driver whose head supposedly "jerks with impossible speed" was likely moving too fast for the camera to catch up with his motion.  That would be entirely unsurprising.

Third, film degrades at inconsistent intervals, based on colors, exposure, movement, position, etc.  Anyone with any experience with old film of any kind could tell you that.  Differences in "sharpness" of objects can be easily accounted for.

Fourth, the "blur" at the bottom of the lamp post is obviously a sign of some sort.  Solved that one pretty quickly, geniuses.

Fifth, Many spectators heard the first shot.  Thus, they turned to move in that direction.  Most simply thought a car had backfired.  This accounts for why some in the crowd, at those frames, are not looking at the President.

Sixth, have you ever tried to "hit the gas" in a car?  You will notice that, even in an automatic, there is a momentary slow down in the motion of the car before it accelerates.  That is elementarily level stuff  If you note, the car actually does seem to slow down in relation to the background for a some frames, before finally speeding up.  If they were driving a standard, as opposed to an automatic, then this explanation makes even more sense.

Seventh, the comments were based off of computerized reconstructions of film, which show the "flow" of the film to be accurate, even if the time speed capture of the film leaves something to be desired.  The computer reconstructions also remove the sign, which was, indeed, hindering, not helping, the anti-conspiracy side from proving their point.  Such reconstructions also confirm that there was no clear shot from any of the locations posited by conspiracy theorists.

Eighth, "Everything was so slow. - Jacqueline Kennedy" I don't think she was talking about the speed of the car, but nice try.  As for the other reports, people's minds often fill in certain details about tragic events that just didn't happen.  It's a nature human response in such cases, and has been proven time and again.

I'll reply to those in my next post probably, but i'd like to make two more points. First, Jackie Kennedy gets out of the car onto the back of it, then back in, but the Muchmore film shows she got out but DIDN'T get back in, it doesn't run as long, but she stays out longer than in the Zapruder film. So i'd say the Zapruder Film shows her in reverse when she got back in. Second,  the Zapruder Film was of course filmed in 1963, but it wasn't shown to the public until 1975. A video of the first plane going into the first tower on 9/11 was shown on the day or the day after the attacks. Why would they keep it from the public for 12 years?

[Хahar 🤔]

Don't really care.

[12th Doctor]

As for Oswald's shooting skill the film JFK lies through its teeth.  Oswald was an excellent shot, maintaining a tight cluster at 200 years, without a scope.  Kennedy was actually positioned no more than 85 yards away from Oswald at any given time.  The scope might have been off slightly, which would explain why Oswald missed the first shot.  But as a trained Marine, he would have adjusted on instinct.  The Zapruder Film reveals that he made all three shots in 11 1/2 second... not the eight seconds given in JFK; an easy time window.

Bottom line, I could have made those shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5rqf7pf-6w

A conspiracy theory to cover up for the inadequacies of the conspiracy theory... imagine my shock.

Okay, let's review.

First of all, I am somewhat skeptical that the film has not been retouched by the people putting on this presentation, but I don't need that.

First, the original homemade movie cameras (meaning homemade movies, not cameras) being used by Zapruder are notorious for the kind of choppy, imprecise quality of their movement from one frame to another.  They weren't using Hollywood technology.  They were using something very rudimentary.  So, I would not be in the least bit surprised if some of the action was missed by the camera, simply because of the nature of the camera itself.

Second, motion capture on film can vary in inconsistent and tricky ways, based on the movement of individual people in the frame.  The Secret Service driver whose head supposedly "jerks with impossible speed" was likely moving too fast for the camera to catch up with his motion.  That would be entirely unsurprising.

Third, film degrades at inconsistent intervals, based on colors, exposure, movement, position, etc.  Anyone with any experience with old film of any kind could tell you that.  Differences in "sharpness" of objects can be easily accounted for.

Fourth, the "blur" at the bottom of the lamp post is obviously a sign of some sort.  Solved that one pretty quickly, geniuses.

Fifth, Many spectators heard the first shot.  Thus, they turned to move in that direction.  Most simply thought a car had backfired.  This accounts for why some in the crowd, at those frames, are not looking at the President.

Sixth, have you ever tried to "hit the gas" in a car?  You will notice that, even in an automatic, there is a momentary slow down in the motion of the car before it accelerates.  That is elementarily level stuff  If you note, the car actually does seem to slow down in relation to the background for a some frames, before finally speeding up.  If they were driving a standard, as opposed to an automatic, then this explanation makes even more sense.

Seventh, the comments were based off of computerized reconstructions of film, which show the "flow" of the film to be accurate, even if the time speed capture of the film leaves something to be desired.  The computer reconstructions also remove the sign, which was, indeed, hindering, not helping, the anti-conspiracy side from proving their point.  Such reconstructions also confirm that there was no clear shot from any of the locations posited by conspiracy theorists.

Eighth, "Everything was so slow. - Jacqueline Kennedy" I don't think she was talking about the speed of the car, but nice try.  As for the other reports, people's minds often fill in certain details about tragic events that just didn't happen.  It's a nature human response in such cases, and has been proven time and again.

I'll reply to those in my next post probably, but i'd like to make two more points. First, Jackie Kennedy gets out of the car onto the back of it, then back in, but the Muchmore film shows she got out but DIDN'T get back in, it doesn't run as long, but she stays out longer than in the Zapruder film. So i'd say the Zapruder Film shows her in reverse when she got back in. Second,  the Zapruder Film was of course filmed in 1963, but it wasn't shown to the public until 1975. A video of the first plane going into the first tower on 9/11 was shown on the day or the day after the attacks. Why would they keep it from the public for 12 years?

Think maybe you are reaching alot with that "proof"?  What, do you think Jackie just rode most of the way to the hospital on the trunk?

Also, the footage from the film is shocking, even watching it today.  People were severely sensitized to that kind of thing in general until Vietnam.  It took a decade, and a major landmark event in TV reporting to coax the footage out, publicly.

[7,052,770]

Oswald acted lone.  There was no conspiracy.

This has been virtually proven with computer simulations, and yet conspiracy nets persist.

[Franzl]

Oswald acted lone.  There was no conspiracy.

This has been virtually proven with computer simulations, and yet conspiracy nets persist.

There are conspiracy theories for virtually everything....especially when politicians or other famous people die.

[Magic 8-Ball]

I'm not terribly concerned with it.  At this point, those who believe in the conspiracy theories have made themselves into a parody.

[minionofmidas]

I didn't mean a government conspiracy was likely...just that I wouldn't be surprised if Oswald had connections with some third party.

"Had connections"? Wth is that supposed to be? I guess you could say he "had connections" with the Cuban embassy in Ciudad Mexico and the American embassy in Moscow, by virtue of having been there.

There's no reason to assume he was acting on anybody's orders. Or had shared his plans with anybody. Nada.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Just noting the official account looks weirdly dodgy. (Which incidentally is the position of King's descendants, too.)

[Franzl]

I don't mean to press on this issue...but do you believe that James Earl Ray is innocent...or just that he was acting on behalf of some "part" of the government?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You history buffs will know better than me, but haven't most, if not nearly all assassins or would-be assassins been loners?   Hinkley and Squeaky Fromme come to mind in recent time.

I realize it doesn't necessarily follow Oswald was a loner, but I can't envision HIM as being stable enough to conspire to steal pencils from a librarian.  He seems more along the lines of Hinkley and Fromme.

[SPC]

I don't mean to press on this issue...but do you believe that James Earl Ray is innocent...or just that he was acting on behalf of some "part" of the government?

King's family believes he is innocent.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I don't mean to press on this issue...but do you believe that James Earl Ray is innocent...or just that he was acting on behalf of some "part" of the government or other group?

The later, fixed

[12th Doctor]

You history buffs will know better than me, but haven't most, if not nearly all assassins or would-be assassins been loners?   Hinkley and Squeaky Fromme come to mind in recent time.

I realize it doesn't necessarily follow Oswald was a loner, but I can't envision HIM as being stable enough to conspire to steal pencils from a librarian.  He seems more along the lines of Hinkley and Fromme.

Indeed they have.  The reason people seek out "vast conspiracies" is because it is just hard to imagine that some loner, who just has a problem, and is trying to get attention, could kill such an important person.  And yet, it happens all the time.

[minionofmidas]

I don't mean to press on this issue...but do you believe that James Earl Ray is innocent...or just that he was acting on behalf of some "part" of the government?

Innocent, or not the main player. Fall guy for somebody... somebody with backing from (individuals in) law enforcement. Just what it looks like to me, not a fullblown theory.

Certainly not "the Government" though, that makes no sense. Why would they want MLK dead?

[Coburn In 2012]

Oswald, a communist, acted alone.  Why is a mystery since kennedy was quite sympathetic to communism.  Perhaps Oswald felt that Kennedy didn't go far enough in advancing the leftist agenda.  The irony is that it gave us the most ANTI-communist foreign polocy president in a long time who was also the most communist-style domestic policy President until obama came along.  Kinda weird.

What I have always wondered about was the whole jack ruby thing.  I mean, I am pretty sure he was just some dude who wanted to take out the President's killer.  But the whole mafia connection is interesting to speculate about.

[minionofmidas]

Oswald, a communist, acted alone.  Why is a mystery since kennedy was quite sympathetic to communism. 

You aware of the Missile Crisis? You aware of anything Jack Kennedy ever said during his Senate tenure? The man was a very dumb, very violent anticommunist in the Coburnin2012 mould.
Of course, the reason he was killed is simply that he passed below Oswald's workplace in an open car.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nixon, actually. The "throw money at our problems and hope they go away approach" that Reagan would later rail against was Nixon's, not Johnson's.

[Coburn In 2012]

Oswald, a communist, acted alone.  Why is a mystery since kennedy was quite sympathetic to communism. 

You aware of the Missile Crisis? You aware of anything Jack Kennedy ever said during his Senate tenure? The man was a very dumb, very violent anticommunist in the Coburnin2012 mould.
Of course, the reason he was killed is simply that he passed below Oswald's workplace in an open car.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nixon, actually. The "throw money at our problems and hope they go away approach" that Reagan would later rail against was Nixon's, not Johnson's.

Some one has never heard of the bay of pigs or Kennedy's soft peddal "well all breath the same air" speech which was a load of tripe.  Some one has never heard of the Great society or the war on poverty...  I didn't think you were this unedcuated Lewis.

[The Mikado]

You history buffs will know better than me, but haven't most, if not nearly all assassins or would-be assassins been loners?   Hinkley and Squeaky Fromme come to mind in recent time.

I realize it doesn't necessarily follow Oswald was a loner, but I can't envision HIM as being stable enough to conspire to steal pencils from a librarian.  He seems more along the lines of Hinkley and Fromme.

True for the most part.  The only major American assassin I can think of who was part of a much larger plot was John Wilkes Booth.