J.F.K. Assassination - What evidence raises your suspicions most?

Before I begin, allow me to highlight that this is my first thread on A.T.S., so any and all replies are very much appreciated.

Also, whilst I am aware there is another J.F.K. thread currently present on this board, I am aiming to discuss an altogether different aspect of the assassination here, otherwise I would have simply replied to that one. Now, that's the housekeeping out of the way, so allow me to begin.

Ladies and gentlemen, my question to you is - in itself - fairly simply, but the possible answers and implications of those answers are utterly enormous, hence my interest and intrigue in the subject.

As I write this, we are almost fifty-one years on from the day when John Fitzgerald Kennedy was murdered, in broad daylight, on the street of a major U.S. city. Countless points of view regarding exactly how the event took place have since been discussed and debated, but few certain facts have been agreed on by everyone involved, and thus I would pose the following question to you.

"Which single aspect of the assassination - be it in the build-up to the event, the event itself, or the aftermath - grabs your attention above all others? What piece of information makes you think, "This definitely is (or is not) a conspiracy"?"

A few examples of potential answers can be found below:

- Claims of multiple "Oswalds" in more than one place at a time (Mexico City etc)

- Eyewitness testimony placing Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby at the same nightclub table weeks prior to the event

- Lack of sufficient firing/aiming time in order to complete the assassination as described by the Warren Commission

- The "Magic Bullet"

- The movement of the President's head back and to the left

- Eyewitness reports of people's cameras/films being taken from them by unidentified men never to be returned

- The cleaning of the car outside the hospital, partially destroying an element of a crime scene

- Suggestions of interference with the President's body en route to Bethesda

- An insufficient autopsy carried out by individuals far too inexperienced for such a procedure

- The disappearance of the President's brain?

- The murder of Lee Harvey Oswald pre-trial?

- The litany of strange deaths (including remarkable "suicides") of witnesses after the event?

Of course, the list which I have provided is limited, but I am very interested to hear your thoughts on what elements, if any, lead you to believe above all others that there was - or there was not - a conspiracy to kill the President of the United States of America?

In closing, I'm sure we can all agree - regardless of our respective opinions - that our thoughts and prayers are with the slain President and everyone affected as the anniversary of a horrific chapter of world history comes and goes once again.

for me it is the average shot at best oswald making the shot at all
him claiming to be a patsy and then getting killed by ruby on tv...

those are the biggest issues for me

I'm gonna go with the driver....

For me, it's the doctors at Parkland who said the throat wound was an entry wound. That tells us the shot came from the front, hence Oswald could not have been alone (if he was even one of the shooters)

a reply to: Grovit

That's a fair point.

If my memory serves me correctly I'm sure sharpshooters brought in by the Warren Commission (who were far better shots than Oswald) were incapable of repeating his supposed one off feat, which would have been done under incredible pressure.

Also, relatively speaking, his supposed choice of rifle was also poor at best.

a reply to: texasgirl

The wounds may well always remain objects of much debate and contention.

The throat wound was opened up in an attempt to perform a tracheotomy, destroying what it looked like previously to the extent I'm sure the Bethesda doctors didn't even regard it as a wound initially, simply an incision.

However, as you correctly point out, the nature of the initial wound - be it entry or exit - was destroyed when that procedure was carried out, so we can only go on what the Parkland doctors have since said about it.

His brains were spattered on the rear trunk of the car. I knew the official story was a bunch of hooey the first time I saw it as a child.

a reply to: questionyourtruth

I found the unedited version of the zapruder film to be interesting and eye opening as it shows the driver turn around with a shiny metal object in his hand...presumably aiming...right before JFKs head goes back and to the left. Also the stand down order of the SS just before they turn onto the plaza was quite interesting to see in footage.

Lee Harvey Oswald as a lone wolf shooter just doesn't make sense to me...and clearly he wasn't acting alone, if at all, if jack ruby was ordered to off him to keep it quite.

JFK is the ultimate conspiracy next to 9/11 for me. To many question marks to buy an original story.

OP you feel it's a coverup? I do. Always have, he or someone close to him acted out of line and was taken out as a public example. Thing is, the ones it was used as an example for were put in line that day, they knew if you act out of line and don't follow the script, you lose everything.

originally posted by: questionyourtruth
a reply to: texasgirl



The wounds may well always remain objects of much debate and contention.



The throat wound was opened up in an attempt to perform a tracheotomy, destroying what it looked like previously to the extent I'm sure the Bethesda doctors didn't even regard it as a wound initially, simply an incision.



However, as you correctly point out, the nature of the initial wound - be it entry or exit - was destroyed when that procedure was carried out, so we can only go on what the Parkland doctors have since said about it.

One of the surgeons who was present, Dr. Robert McLelland, has been doing speaking engagements at several clubs in the Dallas area (I have the McKinney paper on one these events) and he says the throat wound was an entry wound.

I, for one, believe him. He has always stood by his story.

a reply to: skunkape23

Well, when the Zapruder film was first shown on TV in 1975 (I may have the year wrong) that certainly swung a lot of people's views that way. The argument you made, even as a child, remains very difficult to refute.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

Personally speaking, I don't agree with the driver theory, although with an event such as this, its not a surprise people see things differently.

I absolutely agree with your latter points though, it was the story of a generation, just as 9/11 was. Ironically, I believe neither official version!

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Personally, I do believe it was a cover-up and a conspiracy yes. I could probably write thousands of words explaining why, but sufficient to say I agree with the testimonies of Governor Connally and his wife, who both said the Governor was hit by a second shot a short time after Kennedy was first struck.

It's impossible to fire the alleged weapon in twice in the time period seen in the Zapruder film, therefore unless you buy the magic bullet theory (which I don't), that means there was at least one other gunman and therefore a conspiracy.

I watched a very compelling documentary that made a very good case for the throat shot coming from Oswald and the head shot coming from an accidental discharge by a Secret Service agent holding an M16 in the car behind the presidential limousine.

The agent holding the M16 was not well-trained with the rifle and the only reason he had it was due to the other agents getting drunk the night before.

The throat wound was consistent with a full metal jacket round from a Carcano and the angle is consistent with having been fired from the book depository. The head wound is consistent with the higher velocity, smaller-caliber M16 and the angle is consistent with having come from the Secret Service vehicle. It would also explain Oswald's strange behavior and comments following the assassination. He knew, smugly and ironically, that he didn't fire the fatal shot.

The conspiracy surrounding Oswald's involvement can be argued but I think the kill shot was an accident and the USSS cover-up has helped perpetuate a lot of the mystery.

For me the most interesting bit of evidence is Oswalds girlfriend. She said that Oswald called her and told her he was going to try and save Kennedy from the secret government agents. She also had tons of info about the coffee business being used as a cover for secret agents training for covert ops and Oswald being apart of it. There is just so much information she had that checked out, plus she was also threatend to be killed if she talked back then. Someone posted a good documentary of her side of the story in another Kennedy thread.

a reply to: Answer

Hmm, so you think it was negligence on the part of the Secret Service?

Wow, and they're still negligent. Fence jumpers, people running across the lawn. Yikes.

a reply to: questionyourtruth

I guess it does not take an Einstein to figure out something is very out of place. Kennedy and his brother were both gunned down. I believe the same people had both Kennedy brothers killed. Beyond that it is anyone's guess.

Seems strange that Kennedy's son died in a light aircraft crash. The President's brother and son both had ideas of running for President.

Something is going on there or it is a mighty weird coincidence what tragedies have haunted that family. Kennedy's father possibly had mob dealings. He made his fortune during the prohibition. Was there some mob vendetta thing going on? Were the Kennedy family compromised in some way that risked the security of the Presidency too much beyond what certain interests were willing to tolerate? The whole Marilyn business that she was seeing both Kennedy brothers and a serious mob boss almost at the same time gets me thinking that there is a lot more to this story than we may ever be told.

a reply to: Answer

How did multiple rounds discharge accidentally at the exact same time?

a reply to: NiZZiM

You're certainly right with regards the fact Marina is an interesting figure - as is Ruth Paine!

a reply to: lonesomerimbaud

I've seen that documentary, and whilst I thought it was an innovative look at the event, I didn't personally think there was much truth to it, but people will always perceive events of this nature differently.

You're absolutely correct though with regards the government and relevant authorities' secrecy since the event, its only perpetuated the mystery.