Advertise here with Carbon Ads
This site is made possible by member support. ❤️
Big thanks to Arcustech for hosting the site and offering amazing tech support.
When you buy through links on kottke.org, I may earn an affiliate commission. Thanks for supporting the site!
kottke.org. home of fine hypertext products since 1998.
Reader comments
dowingbaNov 19, 2003 at 1:51PM
They've already been disproved, by investigators.
MartinNov 19, 2003 at 5:05PM
Talk about disrespectful.
"a fictional New Orleans district attorney who reopened the assassination files".
So, Jim Garrison didn't exist then?
Shame on the Washington Post. I would have expected better from a publication of their pedigree.
Tomorrow evening, over at The Copydesk, I hope to make available the enhanced Zepruder film - and when you see it, you can make up your own mind whether Oswald fired the six shots from a bolt-action rifle at a moving target.
GeofNov 21, 2003 at 12:09PM
Three shots. Three. Not six. Not three in six seconds, but three in about 8.3 seconds.
The actual show was pretty solid, I thought.
Paul MurrayNov 21, 2003 at 1:15PM
Martin, yeah, that was a stupid oversight on the WP's part. But Oliver Stone's version contained a lot of fiction. And having the real Garrison do a cameo as Earl Warren was positively insulting to that Chief Justice.
MartinNov 22, 2003 at 9:02AM
Well Geoff, let's see, shall we.....?
....according to the Warren Commission, there were a total of six wounds: four on Connally, and two on Kennedy.
Now, let me get this straight: you're telling me these six wounds all happened with three bullets? - one of which the Warren Commission said missed the motorcade entirely?
And the other one ended up in pristine condition?
That would make it two bullets that caused the six wounds.
No - hold on - one of those bullets struck Kennedy on the head, didn't it...?
So, let me see... that would mean that only one bullet inflicted a total of five wounds on Kennedy and Connally.... wouldn't it?
Right.
Three shots, six wounds.
Sure.
And by the way - the wounds were all influcted over roughly a six-second period - not 8.3 seconds.
The debate continues over at The Copydesk....
jkottkeNov 22, 2003 at 9:53AM
Ok, Martin, tone down the self-righteous sarcasm. You can make your points without being an asshole about it.
MartinNov 22, 2003 at 12:22PM
No sarcasm? Where's the fun in that (point number 10: Have fun)?
My tone was sarcastic because it was answering a pretty dull and obvious point.
I wasn't uncivil or rude to Geoff. I merely stressed my point in a similar way to which my original point was replied to. Geoff's welcome to refute this.
I think calling someone an asshole is a bit strong though.
HOwever, if you don't want sarcasm, that's fine - it's your ball, after all, and I wouldn't want to feel unwelcome - but maybe it should say that in the rules....?
BobbyNov 22, 2003 at 11:06PM
According to the documentary that I saw, (and I am pretty new to this whole JFP assassination thing), it didn't say anything about six wounds. Connally was struck, but from the moment Kennedy put his arms up to the moment his head blew off was 8.3 seconds.
They recreated the event and a guy was able to pull it off in 6 seconds, and run down the stairs in less time.
MartinNov 23, 2003 at 4:05AM
I'm happy to accept that this documentary recreates the events (some forty years later, and thanks to computer science), but it doesn't explain the pristine bullet or the single, magic bullet theory.
According the medical reports, Connally was wounded four times. Kennedy was wounded twice. Don't you find it convenient that this documentary ignores this?
If Oswald fired three shots and managed all of this damage, he must have been a crack shot - yet, conflicting military reports say he was a poor marskman - and according to the Warren Commission, one of those shots missed entirely, and one hit Kennedy in the head.
So we still don't have a valid explanation as to how one bullet did all this damange, yet was left in pristine condition.
maggiDec 13, 2003 at 8:19AM
Suppose Lee Harvey Oswald wasn´t the 6th floor sniper in TSBD, who was ?
1) This Conspiracy shooter would have to have known in advance that he would be able to go all the way up to the 6th floor (with a rifle ?) without being seen by employees (including Oswald) and have ample time to stack boxes in the sniper´s nest knowing he wouldn´t be disturbed.
2) He would have needed another accomplice who had to make sure that at the time of the shooting and immediately after it, Oswald wouldn´t go outside to see the motorcade and wouldn´t be seen by or be with other employees (BTW, the motorcade was 5 minutes behind schedule !!!)
3) He also had to assume that police would not immediately search and seal the depository where the presence of a stranger would cause suspicion !! , Did Baker and Truly see anyone on the 6th floor ??
4) How did the conspiracy shooter know in advance he would be able to leave the depository without being seen by other employees or the police ???
5) Did Bonnie Ray Williams, Charles Givens, Harold Norman, James Jarman, Jack Daugherty or anyone else ever testify to seeing a stranger in the depository that morning, did Oswald ???, How did the conspiracy shooter/team know they wouldn´t be seen, how could they even know for sure they wouldn´t be seen ???
6) Why did Oswald, just three minutes after the president of the United States had been shot outside the building where he worked, decide to leave work without telling his boss, Mr. Truly or anyone else, when he knew it would cause suspicion ???
7) If the president of the United states were passing by your place of employment, would you be sitting in a lunchroom
8) Why, in order to set Oswald up as the lone gunman, did conspiracy central deploy two or possibly three gunmen, thereby having to alter autopsy photographs when there was no need to ??
Berio Marina Jan 21, 2004 at 9:54PM
Seekers of truth invariably turn to lies.
This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.