November 13, 201311 yr Yes, there was something about that theory a few months ago. It is certainly more plausible than most of the theories put forward over the years. It also made a decent job of clearing up the "magic bullet" question which is a bit unfortunate for Oliver Stone's film.
November 13, 201311 yr Interesting documentary on Ch.5 tonight, saying that a Secret Service agent in a follow-up car fired the third and fatal shot by mistake. Then a cover-up of the autopsy followed. Have read that theory before. There has been 1001 different theories as to who is responsible, that is why I don't watch any of these as none of them have a clue what actually happened Over the years I have seen blamed LBJ Mrs Kennedy Cubans Russians Mafia French hitmen Lee Harvey Oswald Oil barons Dallas Police Industrialists CIA FBI About only people not linked so far are Colonel Mustard and Prince Philip :rolleyes:
November 13, 201311 yr Author The most stupid theory is that Jackie took a pistol from her handbag and finished him off because of his affairs and the fact she was cheating on him too. :rolleyes: Also the car driver shooting him theory. Bonkers. So many people would have seen. Edited November 13, 201311 yr by Common Sense
November 13, 201311 yr There has been 1001 different theories as to who is responsible, that is why I don't watch any of these as none of them have a clue what actually happened Over the years I have seen blamed LBJ Mrs Kennedy Cubans Russians Mafia French hitmen Lee Harvey Oswald Oil barons Dallas Police Industrialists CIA FBI About only people not linked so far are Colonel Mustard and Prince Philip :rolleyes: The one thing this theory has going for it is that it starts with a cock-up theory rather than some plot to remove Kennedy. It also leaves Oswald bearing the bulk of the responsibility.
November 13, 201311 yr Author Yes, there was something about that theory a few months ago. It is certainly more plausible than most of the theories put forward over the years. It also made a decent job of clearing up the "magic bullet" question which is a bit unfortunate for Oliver Stone's film. Was a good programme and explained it very well. Was surprised they showed the Zapruder head shot a couple of times. I'd read that most broadcasters wouldn't show it. Edited November 13, 201311 yr by Common Sense
November 13, 201311 yr Was a good programme and explained it very well. Was surprised they showed the Zapruder head shot a couple of times. I'd read that most broadcasters wouldn't show it. Channel 5 isn't "most braodcasters". After all it is owned by the owner of the Daily Express.
November 13, 201311 yr Author Channel 5 isn't "most braodcasters". After all it is owned by the owner of the Daily Express. My mum was glad they showed it as she'd never seen it before! She never knew such a film existed. Mind you, it's said to be a fake by some CT's.
November 13, 201311 yr The one thing this theory has going for it is that it starts with a cock-up theory rather than some plot to remove Kennedy. It also leaves Oswald bearing the bulk of the responsibility. I have never had any doubt in my mind that it was solely the work of Oswald acting alone Not long before shooting Kennedy he tried to kill a military commander through his front window, he took a job at the book place, he planned the whole thing with precision
November 13, 201311 yr I have never had any doubt in my mind that it was solely the work of Oswald acting alone Not long before shooting Kennedy he tried to kill a military commander through his front window, he took a job at the book place, he planned the whole thing with precision This theory comes close to agreeing with that. The crucial difference is that it is being suggested that he did not fire the fatal shot. However, without Oswald, that shot would never have been fired. For me, the main reason to be at least slightly suspicious of the official explanation is that it is very difficult to fire three shots in just over five seconds using the rifle Oswald used. Note, it's not impossible, just very difficult.
November 13, 201311 yr Author This theory comes close to agreeing with that. The crucial difference is that it is being suggested that he did not fire the fatal shot. However, without Oswald, that shot would never have been fired. For me, the main reason to be at least slightly suspicious of the official explanation is that it is very difficult to fire three shots in just over five seconds using the rifle Oswald used. Note, it's not impossible, just very difficult. Kennedy should never have been in an open-topped car as there'd already been threats against him when he went to Dallas. The Secret Service knew that and were half expecting an attempt on his life. They should have had two agents riding on the back of the car but JFK said he wanted to be seen easily so they were stood down but were on there earlier in the motorcade journey. Probably wouldn't have saved him but you never know. Most agents were drinking heavily the night before AND some drank that morning. This would never be allowed now. Clint Hill, who climbed aboard the limo, never forgave himself for not being a split second quicker and taking the fatal third shot himself. Edited November 13, 201311 yr by Common Sense
November 13, 201311 yr This theory comes close to agreeing with that. The crucial difference is that it is being suggested that he did not fire the fatal shot. However, without Oswald, that shot would never have been fired. For me, the main reason to be at least slightly suspicious of the official explanation is that it is very difficult to fire three shots in just over five seconds using the rifle Oswald used. Note, it's not impossible, just very difficult. I remember reading that because Oswald was a decent but not spectacular sharpshooter in the Marines he couldn't have taken out Kennedy, but he could have improved a lot after he left the marines especially if he got any training from the Russians etc I have never believed the grassy knoll theory, it would have been so easy for the guys on the grassy knoll to take Kennedy out alone without any need for Oswald to be involved. I will see this program out of curiosity, it is an interesting theory
November 13, 201311 yr Kennedy should never have been in an open-topped car as there'd already been threats against him when he went to Dallas. The Secret Service knew that and were half expecting an attempt on his life. They should have had two agents riding on the back of the car but JFK said he wanted to be seen easily so they were stood down but were on there earlier in the motorcade journey. Probably wouldn't have saved him but you never know. Most agents were drinking heavily the night before AND some drank that morning. This would never be allowed now. Clint Hill, who climbed aboard the limo, never forgave himself for not being a split second quicker and taking the fatal third shot himself. Even allowing for the fact that attitudes towards drinking were different then, that fact is staggering.
November 19, 201311 yr Author New movie opening at UK cinemas on Friday, Parkland, focusing on the fight to save JFK at the hospital of the same name. I've read that he was DOA though but they went through the formalities
November 19, 201311 yr I don't think there was any chance of saving him so it seems a bit of a pointless film.
November 21, 201311 yr Author The much publicised TV film, Killing Kennedy, starring Rob Lowe and first shown this week on National Geographic, is on Ch.4 at 9pm on Saturday.
November 22, 201311 yr http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/16/be...ders-president/ We were wondering whether a genuine alternative might go for it...
November 22, 201311 yr More simplistic soak the rich nonsense which in reality would raise very little revenue and instead drive the rich out of America Instead taxes need cutting for the rich, as has been shown in UK, the lower the tax rate for the rich the more willing they are to cough up and pay their share and the more foreign investors will move there Sanders is a dinosaur Edited November 22, 201311 yr by Sandro Raniere
November 22, 201311 yr Going back to JFK it would be best if everyone just moved on, news full of JFK tonight No point dwelling on the past, everyone should learn from the past but focus on the future
November 22, 201311 yr Is it really that objectionable that the fiftieth anniversary of one of the most shocking events in world history is remembered? It's not as if most people spend their days focusing on JFK's death.
November 22, 201311 yr Is it really that objectionable that the fiftieth anniversary of one of the most shocking events in world history is remembered? It's not as if most people spend their days focusing on JFK's death. Yeah but like its the top trend on Twitter tonight, with all due respect to the twitter generation i would bet like 0.1% were alive when JFK died I can understand the importance to people who were alive at the time but thats it really
Create an account or sign in to comment