Kennedy is gunned down by an erratic young drifter named Lee Harvey Oswald.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 21, 2012 4:38:52 PM PST
Jim Koepke says:
If the description posted about this book is accurate then it's fair to say the book is 100% nonsense. No way did Oswald kill Kennedy.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 11:47:45 AM PDT
I think Oswald was somehow involved, but I think there were other shooters, too. Afterwards, Oswald was a convenient fall guy. Perhaps if he hadn't conveniently been shot down on live TV, maybe he would have named names and we would have gotten the whole story. Such a sad time in our history.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2012 10:36:15 AM PDT
Sapara says:
I'm with you, Jim. Oswald was just what he said he was... a Patsy.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 10, 2012 9:02:30 AM PDT
Johnny Pasta says:
I agree. At the time of his arrest he exclaimed he was the Patsy. Oswald was framed for the assassination of the JFK. And the Warren Commission botched up that investigation. Check out a video that the real Jim Garrison did. It may not be available anymore. I have a copy of it on VHS if you can believe that. Garrison points out in the video that Oswald was way too calm for someone who supposedly just assassinated JFK. Some other interesting facts too about Oswald is that he was not that good with a firearm. Barely a sharpshooter when he left the Marine Corp. Also the rifle found in the Texas Book Depository was a cheap $30 rifle. Many marksmen have tested that rifle and it was proven time and time again that it could of not been possible with that rifle. Plain and simple Oswald was framed and the shooters who did it are still alive and well and it was done from the grassy knoll and also from a storm drain in Dealy Plaza.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2012 2:19:22 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 12, 2012 2:22:12 AM PDT
I was thinking the exact same thing that Jim Koepke posted. If the book is built upon the premise that Oswald was the shooter, then why buy the book? We all know that that isn't possible.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 22, 2012 12:36:55 PM PDT
Ben Holmes says:
Actually, I think there are advantages to buying such books.

For example, I bought Vincent Bugliosi's book, only to read how blatantly he lied about Carrico and Perry's description of the original bullet wound in JFK's throat. Seeing what the WC defenders are afraid of is amusing to me.

Posted on Sep 23, 2012 9:12:53 PM PDT
Google "LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK" and that will give you a good overview of the JFK assassination.

Posted on Sep 25, 2012 4:07:21 PM PDT
Another key point: Lee Harvey Oswald was U.S. intelligence and he shot NO ONE on 11/2263. Re: Oswald's intelligence connections read:

1) "Oswald and the CIA" book by John Newman
2) "Spy Saga: Lee Harvey Oswald and US Intelligence" book by Philip Melanson
3) "History Will Not Absolve Us" by Martin Schotz (Chapter 5 "Oswald and U.S. Intelligence" by Christopher Sharrett)
4) "Me and Lee" book by Judyth Vary Baker (Oswald's mistress in New Orleans, summer 1963)
5) "A Certain Arrogance: U.S. Intelligence's Manipulation of Religious Groups and Individuals in Two World Wars and the Cold War - and the Sacrificing of Lee Harvey Oswald" book by George Michael Evica
6) "Accessories After the Fact" by Sylvia Meagher, Chapter 19 "Oswald and the State Department'"
7) "Coup D'Etat in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy" by Alan Weberman & Michael Canfield, Chapter 3 "Was Oswald a CIA Agent?"
8) "Oswald in New Orleans: Case for Conspiracy with the CIA" by Harold Weisberg
9) Google "Lee Harvey Oswald's reading habits summer 1963" by Judyth Vary Baker

Posted on Oct 14, 2012 6:08:57 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Oct 14, 2012 6:11:08 PM PDT]

Posted on Oct 14, 2012 6:10:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 15, 2013 10:38:16 PM PDT
Sam Clemens says:
It has been soundly demonstrated that Oswald was an agent of American intelligence (who had worked as a Marine Corps radar operator on a military base in Atsugi, Japan and was part of Naval Intelligence (or possibly CIA) during his operation in the USSR). It has also been revealed that there were at least two prior, very similar, aborted operations developed--in Miami and Chicago--intended to cut down the president and present a patsy for the shooting. Then, it has been established that the Zapruder film was an East coast film-lab production (not a "right out of the camera" original), and that much of the evidence in those days was ignored, destroyed or altered (including the Z-film and the body of the President). See, e.g., "Best Evidence" by Lifton, and Jim Fetzer's books, as well as Mr. Horne's magnum opus, "Inside the ARRB." Clearly, the Warren Commission was designed to be a white-wash, and it fufilled its mission in this regard. Anyone swallowing this book's scenario of Oswald as the "lone killer" and "magic bullet" scenario either has some screws loose, has vested interest in the coup d 'etat, or is abysmally ignorant of the entire subject...and perhaps a dimwit.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 14, 2012 6:13:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2013 11:33:58 AM PDT
Sam Clemens says:
Yes, simply more junk propaganda (AKA disinformation) for us to swallow!!..along with the stupid lies about WMDs, and the Arab terrorists who-They insist-want to destroy the USA. Bogeymen and plenty of jingoism to choke on, now that they no longer have the Cold War..which, btw, left the American Intelligence people standing around with their d*cks in their hands. Obviously, once that was gone they had to "manufacture" a new enemy. Voila...it's them damn Arabs!!

Posted on Nov 10, 2012 6:02:21 AM PST
Ikihi says:
There's no way in hell Oswald shot Kennedy

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 12:53:03 PM PST
Sam Clemens says:
Well, duh!!!!! ; )

Posted on Nov 16, 2012 9:08:54 AM PST
Ralph Yates says:
Yes, absolutely correct. Oswald was erratically drifting in between CIA and FBI covert operator assignments. Most of the swarm reviewers of O'Reilly's book are clueless to the numerous books that show this.

Posted on Nov 17, 2012 8:25:54 AM PST
Ben Holmes says:
Ralph Yates said: "Yes, absolutely correct. Oswald was erratically drifting in between CIA and FBI covert operator assignments. Most of the swarm reviewers of O'Reilly's book are clueless to the numerous books that show this."

Yep... Oswald's intelligence connections are quite obvious to anyone who studies this case. But as I've always stated, the truth doesn't need lies to support it.

O'Reilly's book, for example, claims that Oswald was a 'crack' shot. Now anyone familiar with the record will bust out laughing at how blatant that particular lie is. The shooters that the Warren Commission used to try to duplicate the alleged shooting scenario were indeed crack shots - but Oswald could not, in anyone's wildest dreams, be honestly considered a 'crack shot'. That was simply an outright lie. And one that I suspect O'Reilly will never address.

Bugliosi, when asserting that Perry and Carrico described the original throat wound as "ragged" - another blatant lie. An entire *book* has been written detailing the lies of Posner. Many people have written about the provable lies told by the Warren Commission.

If the Warren Commission's theory that Oswald alone shot JFK, THEN WHY DOES EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS THAT THEORY HAVE TO LIE IN ORDER TO DO SO?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 2:36:48 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 28, 2012 11:55:00 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 2:40:25 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jul 15, 2013 10:39:11 PM PDT
Sam Clemens says:
There is NO REASON to assume Oswald was one of the shooters. What about the principle in American jurisprudence of presumption of innocence?" What about the significant evidence that he was on the second floor (or out front) of the TSBD at the time of the shooting? At most, he was a marginal suspect.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 6:08:56 AM PST
Ben Holmes says:
Sam exclaims: "HOLD ON!!!

If the Warren Commission's theory that Oswald alone shot JFK, THEN WHY DOES EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS THAT THEORY HAVE TO LIE IN ORDER TO DO SO?

You want to correct this sentence? It make no sense."

I'm guessing that you don't believe that a Warren Commission supporter needs to lie to defend their beliefs...

So let's try a real simple example: When Bugliosi was facing the most damaging evidence for a frontal shot - the description of the original bullet wound in JFK's throat - rather than face that evidence honestly, he LIED ABOUT IT. He stated that Perry & Carrico described the wound as "ragged".

Now, a simple test for you... Did Bugliosi tell the truth?

Posted on Dec 28, 2012 7:18:28 AM PST
Ben Holmes says:
I'm guessing that Sam has disappeared...

My statement stands, unrefuted: "If the Warren Commission's theory that Oswald alone shot JFK, THEN WHY DOES EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS THAT THEORY HAVE TO LIE IN ORDER TO DO SO?"

It's amusing to me that no-one dares to try to shoot down that statement. The example I gave was Bugliosi, in 'Reclaiming History', where he spent 20+ years not understanding one of the central facts in this case that support conspiracy, the throat wound. After 20+ years, he *still* didn't understand that it looked like an entry wound. Instead, he claimed that Perry and Carrico had described the wound as "ragged".

Not *ONE SINGLE PERSON* who believes the Warren Commission Report has dared to correctly label that statement by Bugliosi a lie. Not one. The most amusing explanation that I've seen so far was that this was a "senior moment" on the part of Bugliosi.

Anyone care to try giving a credible explanation?

Or explain why - if the Warren Commission's theory is correct - that all those defending that notion must lie about the evidence in order to do so?

Posted on Dec 28, 2012 11:17:50 AM PST
Jim Koepke says:
There are still two pieces of evidence that will put this matter to rest. The Russians have evidence that LBJ was involved - that's according to an FBI memo I found years ago - I've been trying to get the Russians to release it for fifteen years. Our State Department refuses to help. I'll keep at it until I convince the Russians to release it. Second, I think - note I do not have concrete proof - that a copy of the missing 18+ minutes of Watergate tape still exist - and Nixon explains on it that there was a conspiracy. Still working on that one too.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 11:54:09 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 2, 2013 12:06:17 PM PST
Sam Clemens says:
I PRESUME Ben meant:

If the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald alone shot JFK, THEN WHY DOES EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS THAT THEORY HAVE TO LIE IN ORDER TO DO SO? A reasonable question.

And, no, Vincent "Whitewash" Bugliosi DID NOT tell the truth. He, along with Gerald "Wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass" Posner. ; )

Posted on Dec 31, 2012 12:02:52 PM PST
Charlie P says:
I find some of these posts very interesting - and I appreciate the sincerity that people have in finding the truth. Let me also say that I believe Bill O'Reilly is one of those people that is in search of truth. That being said, here is my take on the book, after reading it.

I really don't think that Bill and Martin were trying to put this event "to rest" at all. I learned an awful lot from the book that was never taught in any of my history classes - at least not anything that I remember. I was born in 1965 and in my school years, I understood that this event shook the nation. But I can't say that I ever appreciated John F Kennedy for who he was, nor Jackie Kennedy. But after reading the book, I understood a lot about him and what made him "tick" - the good AND the bad. I appreciate learning that he seemed to be consumed about stopping the spread of communism. Again, didn't really learn that in school. I appreciated the opportunity to learn so much about Jackie.

I really wasn't thinking that reading this book would tell us what really happened on that fateful day. People have been trying to do that for almost 50 years and there is still no concrete conclusion - it's hard to believe that it will change now (but I don't discount that it might!).

Again - I appreciate the people who are sincerely trying to get to the truth. But I would be very careful about saying Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard have done a disservice in writing the book. I don't think they have at all.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 2:24:57 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2013 11:37:04 AM PDT
Sam Clemens says:
Much better: "JFK and the Unspeakable" by Douglass. Kennedy was mostly a hero...and displayed real vision. His murder (no, not by LHO, who was manifestly a patsy) was a de facto coup d'etat. A very sad chapter in our country's history. By comparison, Johnson and Bush were monsters.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:30:02 AM PST
Ben Holmes says:
Sam asserts: "Ben...I apparently mis-read your question...and now, have no problem with it. Keep on truckin!'
And, no, Vincent "Whitewash" Bugliosi DID NOT tell the truth. He, along wtih Gerald "Wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass" Posner. ; )"

I appreciate that. Thankyou. There's far too many people who illustrate their character by either running away, or by blaming me for poor writing skills. We all misread from time to time, and to correct the record shows honesty. Thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:35:33 AM PST
Ben Holmes says:
Charlie P states: "Again - I appreciate the people who are sincerely trying to get to the truth. But I would be very careful about saying Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard have done a disservice in writing the book. I don't think they have at all."

Ah! But when you produce outright LIES about history... then what service are you doing? O'Reilly claimed that Oswald was a "crack shot" in the military. If that book is all you have ... you'll never know just how wrong that statement is. It's an outright lie on O'Reilly's part.

I think *true* service is to provide the truth... but how is "truth" based on lies? You assert that "I really wasn't thinking that reading this book would tell us what really happened on that fateful day." - but the title of the book proclaims that "what really happened on that fateful day" is the TOPIC.

And *that* was a dis-service to anyone seeking the truth.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 102 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  34
Total posts:  2538
Initial post:  Feb 21, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 10, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot
Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot by Martin Dugard (Hardcover - October 16, 2012)
4.4 out of 5 stars   (6,179)