Oswald Did It, Acting Alone . . .

If any of you still think Oliver Stone did a better job of investigating the Kennedy assassination than the Warren Commission, there's a new book which will set you straight.  Vincent Bugliosi, the famous LA prosecutor who put Charles Manson and his family away for good, has completed his magnum opus, a 1,600 page book in which he sets forth the case that Oswald shot JFK acting alone (Click here: Amazon.com: Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: Books: Vincent Bugliosi).

Comments

[timinator]

I tell you it's a conspiricy. That is why they sell so many books on the subject. Even though Oswald killed Kennedy alone everyone has there own version of the story. At least we can count on God's Word for ultimate truth.

[Ismael Hilerio]

Nicely put timinator with the phrase "At least we can count on God's Word for ultimate truth".

[Alberto]

Why are people so obsessed with this? What makes people think it's a conspiracy?

[Joshua]

One doesn't need 1600 pages to be convinced that one bullet created more seven wounds in two different men, (while passing through the limo seat as well) and ending up on a stretcher in pristine condition. It's rather obvious.

Alberto, some are obsessed with it because they are nutballs. Some personalities are stimulated by utter skepticism and their own devious detective work. But some are obsessed with it because their Bible discourages them to believe that people in power of free countries are good guys incapable of large-scale murder and deceit. They rather hold to the Christian view that everybody (especially the degenerate) is evil and capable of every evil. Examination of evidence becomes meaningful to these people, not to be different but to perserve truth.

[Jesse]

So you hold to "Sola Oswald" then?

[Doug]

Great responses guys, esp. Joshua. And that "Sola Oswald" remark had me rolling Jesse. :-)

While I respect Bugliosi in his field of expertise, this is one area I think he's gone off the deep end. Too many things do not add up. Too many inconsistencies. And this is most timely considering a recent news story out of Texas:
http://tinyurl.com/36usvq

[zrim]

"But some are obsessed with it because their Bible discourages them to believe that people in power of free countries are good guys incapable of large-scale murder and deceit. They rather hold to the Christian view that everybody (especially the degenerate) is evil and capable of every evil."

could this be an argument against the current neo-con admin and one for the ACLU?

there is a difference between total depravity and utter depravity.

zrim

[walt]

Americans are starting to demonstrate the conspiracy theorism and paranoia that is rife in Islamic countries. Just look at how many people believe in this 9/11 truth garbage.

"could this be an argument against the current neo-con admin and one for the ACLU?"

zrim, I don't know how you could possibly be in favor of the ACLU. The organization was founded by a communist who believed in the removal of all property rights and teh total government ownership of property. The organization is virulently anti-American.

[Jeff A.]

I talked to Elvis yesterday...he told me Bruce Lee paid Jimmy Hoffa to kill Kennedy. Lee and Hoffa were then transported to Atlantis by Amelia Earhart...who, of course, was flying a rotocopter built by Mary Magdalene. The rotocopter...as we all know...was how Jesus, His wife and children were able to "ascend unto heaven."
Think, people. The truth is out there.
Signing off from Roswell...

[zrim]

walt! it worked...i was rousing you from your slumbers around here lately.

i wasn't saying i am "in favor of the ACLU" per se, but that the above quote could be construed as an argument in favor of such, don't you think? i am not one much for bifurcating the intrinsic value of certain instituitions or their antitheses, which is to say, the ACLU *can* serve a good purpose while at once promoting some irritating politics, for sure. so while i am not a card-carrying member, i am not so sure demonizing them serves any purpose either.

curiously, what do you make of their recently representing/joining up with the religious right (bong hits 4 jesus)? i think they even represented jerry falwell not too long ago...

zrim

[walt]

"walt! it worked...i was rousing you from your slumbers around here lately."

I knew I was being baited into that one.

"so while i am not a card-carrying member, i am not so sure demonizing them serves any purpose either."

Sure it does.

[zrim]

:) !!

oh, it was friendly baiting. sorry, i couldn't resist. i don't know if you lend any credence to birth-order psychology, but it must be the oldest child in me (emphasis on child).

you are correct, it does serve a purpose...a-hem.

zrim

[Steve]

Video of Vincent Bugliosi discussing his new book on JFK and explaining why people are still so obsessed with the assassination today, 44 years after it happened, is available here: www.fora.tv/reclaiminghistory

[Tod Samuelson]

I heard a new theory that there was a young man, Cheney something...

[Mark]

George W. Bush did it. Somehow.

[Dennis]

It's a shame that Pastor Riddlebarger, whose work on prophecy and the White Horse Inn I greatly appreciate, has based his conclusion on the JFK assassination on the work of one author. Other writers & researchers have published works that refute much of the sloppy science Bugliosi embraces for his lone gunman idea. But having Oswald as the lone shooter makes a nice neat package, doesn't it, by which we can put this nasty little episode in history behind us.