This is not an exhaustive list of everything suspicious concerning this event. There are tons of books on this event and for good reasons. It can take an 800 page tome to SORT OF explain what happened that day and all the events leading up to it. This is true whichever version one chooses to believe, because a lot of things are simply not clear. In the following list MBT stands for Magic Bullet Theory, meaning the official version. Here is what we do know:
- There is no way around this: Nobody saw Oswald pull the trigger. Those who saw someone up in the window where Oswald is supposed to have been, failed to correctly describe him. Several witnesses saw more people sneaking around with guns that day.
- Someone spots Oswald many floors down sipping cola a very short time after the president got shot. He looked calm and not short of breath from running down
- Oswald said he did not do it. For someone who is often portrayed as someone who wanted to be famous for killing a celebrity this is at least erratic
- Modern voice technology suggests Oswald was telling the truth
- Oswald was tested for chemical traces to check if he had fired a gun that day and they couldn’t find anything on his right cheek, though his hands did test positive. The paraffin test used is notoriously unreliable and with the results gathered from Oswald’s test his guilt cannot be proven. Those who like to see him as guilty point out that his hands tested positive and those who like to see him as unguilty point to the fact that his cheek was negative. The truth is that this test says very little and that there is no conclusive proof to say Oswald did it or did not do it. His hands may have tested positive, because at work he came into contact with a lot of ink. This would have made his hands test positive.
- He said: ‘I’m just a patsy’.
- The police interrogated Oswald for about 12 hours and TOOK NO NOTES. Why not? They had no paper.
- According to the MBT Oswald shot a police officer after killing the president. The police officer’s name was Tippit. Again, there is no real proof that Oswald killed this officer.
- The Dallas morning news has reported the following: ‘Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev believed Dallas police had been an “accessory” to the assassination, because he found it implausible that presidential security was so “inept” for Kennedy to be killed without a conspiracy.‘
- Oswald had lived in the Soviet-Union for a while. He got in and out so easily – at the height of the cold war – that many experts have come to believe he was working as some sort of secret agent for the US. The Soviets did not consider him to be a communist.
- According to the army he was not an aggressive soldier and he seems to have been a rather gentle spirit, although ambitious and perhaps restless
- In a video filmed on the day of the assassination a security guy looks completely confused if not angry because someone is ordering him not to sit on the back of the car to protect the president
- the protective motorcade is not in its usual position to give the president maximum protection
- Oswald would have had a much easier shot if he had shot at the president moving towards him not moving away from him. Some defenders of the MBT say this was because Oswald was such a coward he couldn’t look at his victim’s face when he shot him. This is a guess. The fact is that someone who wanted to kill the president from the floor where Oswald was according to the MBT could easily have picked a much more practical position
- Oswald ordered the rifle – a piece of junk – over the mail. This leaves a trail that can easily link the gun to him. For someone who denied killing the president this looks like a very amateuristic mistake
- The rifle used according to the MBT was a bolt action rifle. It was an Italian made weapon left over from the second world war. Not exactly a high-tech sniper rifle.
- Trained snipers have tried to use a similar weapon and to redo the shots Oswald pulled off ON A MOVING target. Their target wasn’t even moving and they still failed. The MBT says: he just got lucky.
- Even though Oswald is accused of killing a police officer allegedly because that officer had stopped him in the street he is later arrested in a movie theatre shouting again and again ‘I am not resisting arrest’
- his lover has said he went to the movie theatre to meet his boss or to find instructions stuck under one of the seats. Movie goers described him as going from one seat to the next as if looking for something
- AFTER the president is shot Oswald goes home to get a handgun
- The Italian weapon is found on the floor of the book depository. It wasn’t hidden well.
- Many witnesses that day said they thought the shots came from different directions
- the route of JFK’s trip through Dallas was changed at the last moment
- a sound expert has claimed he can hear way more than three shots in the Zapruder film
- the car JFK sat in was immediately scrapped. This looks like someone wanted to obstruct future investigations. One may reasonably expect police forces to keep the car for a thorough investigation
- Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA, had been fired by Kennedy and was later selected to head the investigation into the murder of his ex-boss
- The CIA ran an assassination programme that tried to kill Fidel Castro on numerous occasions and had in the months leading up to JFK’s death killed the leader of South-Vietnam, Diem. Although the intention was to just remove him from power they ended up killing him. The Americans also helped to kill the in western eyes unruly Patrice Lumumba, the leader of Congo. President Eisenhower ORDERED to kill this prime Minister. American officials have a proven track record of killing political opponents
- In the Zapruder film you can see a guy holding an umbrella on that sunny, dry day in Dallas, Texas. When questioned about this he says the umbrella was to remind Kennedy of how his father was not well liked as the American ambassador to England. A weird explanation to say the least. He may have used the umbrella as a sign to warn the shooters
- Why is there talk of a magic bullet? According to the official version one of Oswald’s three bullets does a staggering amount of damage and even makes a U-turn. It hits the car, body parts and bones of two people but is later found almost intact on a gurney in the hospital. Weapon experts will tell you this is impossible.
- When JFK’s body arrives in Washington his brain is gone. The undertaker who prepared his body for burial has confirmed this on camera. If you want to avoid an investigation to determine which way the bullets came flying then getting rid of the brain is a good move
- JFK’s body was basically kidnapped. There is some evidence to suggest a surgeon tried to make the dead body of Tippit look like Kennedy with wounds resembling the official version, but failed. The solution was to just lose the brain. The family members of this surgeon have testified on camera that he was trying to flee to Mexico with his family until news came over the radio that Oswald was dead. Then he immediately calmed down, turned the car and drove home. I already wrote something about Tippit three years ago.
- The Zapruder film was kept from the public for six years. It seems to have been tampered with. It looks like someone managed to make it appear as if Kennedy’s car kept driving the whole time. But if you look at the video closely the car briefly stops. As if to allow the shooters a better chance at finishing the job.
- Several suspicious men were spotted, arrested and then quickly released. There are pictures of them and they are known as ‘the tramps’. One guy turns up at work with muddy shoes and pants on a dry day. There is a sewer hole right next to the spot where JFK was fatally shot in the head. JFK’s killer may have been hiding in that sewer.
- Woody Harrelson’s father claimed he was involved in Kennedy’s murder
- Jack Ruby’s motive for killing Oswald was to spare Jackie Kennedy the anguish of a trial. If one respects the widow of a murder victim so much doesn’t it make much more sense to give her a chance for closure and justice via a trial?
- JFK’s brother Robert Kennedy was also assassinated in rather weird circumstances just when he seemed on the right track to win the presidency. One may at least wonder if someone was taking out a political clan that had made plenty of enemies by opposing the CIA and being against war and giving the maffia a hard time
- JFK was indeed anti-war and opposed some pretty violent and crazy schemes by some of his generals and the CIA. They blamed him for the failed invasion of Cuba. He was against US involvement in Vietnam. His successor immediately escalated the Vietnam conflict. The US government lied about events concerning Vietnam right from the start. They claimed North-Vietnam had attacked their navy -which was provocatively close to North-Vietnam – and decades later they admitted this incident had never taken place. So we are dealing with a US government here that is clearly capable of lying and misrepresenting major events
- There is the question of motive. Oswald had no clear motive. If he wanted to be famous for killing the president it’s a little odd that he goes on to deny it. The maffia was out to get Kennedy for cracking down on them. The CIA hated him for not going along with their plans. He fired their boss. The military and those who profit from the arms production hated him for wanting to stay out of Vietnam. Texas oil men weren’t happy about him. Anti-Castro Cubans hated his guts. The list goes on. This man had a lot of enemies.
- Some defenders of the magic bullet theory claim that the main reason why people don’t believe this version is that people find it impossible to accept that somebody so famous and so powerful was killed by a ‘nobody’ who acted alone. Well, Lincoln was killed by one man and almost nobody has ever had any trouble accepting that. I admire Lincoln and Kennedy. Both were killed by one man says Wikipedia. In the one case I have no trouble accepting that and in the other case I find the idea that one guy did it very unlikely. That’s simply because there are way too many strange things surrounding the Kennedy assassination. Something stinks. To ignore that and simply believe the official story would be lazy if not downright irresponsible. I think it’s not a sign of insanity to at least question certain events. Historians CONSTANTLY disagree over past events. Nobody blames them for it. It’s their job. Why would it be crazy to question ONE version of the JFK assassination? Sometimes historians are way off and the history books need to be adapted. It happens and it’s normal.
- Some people claim Oswald knew his own killer, Jack Ruby, and some say he didn’t. It’s an other thing we can’t be sure about
- The people who saw Oswald enter the building said the package he was carrying was too small to contain a rifle. Sometimes they aren’t even sure if he was carrying a package
- Every time the media reminds us of the JFK assassination they should also remind us that Oswald is also said to have killed police officer Tippit. They don’t always do. People should know this is a complex story. They should hear all the facts.
The bottom line is that there is no conclusive proof Oswald did what he is accused of.
I think the Oliver Stone movie JFK gets the assassination itself sort of right, although I think the fatal shot came out of a sewer and not from the grassy knoll. I think the docu ‘Everything is a rich man’s trick’ offers the most plausible version of what happened.
I was happy to see that a level-headed Swiss historian like Daniele Ganser has come forward to say he is convinced ex-CIA boss Allen Dulles organized the assassination. This makes me think that also serious researchers are willing to put their career on the line. Make no mistake. We have been trained systematically to treat anyone who disagrees with an official version of an event as an attention seeking lunatic. But Daniele Ganser is clearly not a lunatic. He could have a very comfortable career and not draw lots of criticism for speaking out on this. He also doesn’t say he has the final word on this event, but that he is almost certain Allen Dulles ordered the hit.
If I had to bet on it I would say Oswald didn’t do it.
Not because I think one man acting alone cannot kill a famous and powerful man. That is certainly possible. I don’t believe it because you really do have to think Oswald was a magician according to the official version. Shooting a bullet that led a life of its own once in the air. Using a piece of junk to do it. Running all over the place like superman without breaking a sweat. And the police seem to have been not just grossly incompetent that day, but farcically incompetent. Then there is the question of motive. And the course the US took immediately after Kennedy’s death. As if there were not enough coincidences needed to make this story work his brother Robert Kennedy ALSO gets murdered 5 years later. Just when it looks almost certain he will be the next president of the USA. One should at least wonder if their could be a connection between the two murders.
There are too many coincidences and one unlikelihood after the other here.
Examine it. Read several versions. Draw your own conclusions.
Why does it matter?
Suppose that the US government and most of the media did lie to us. What else have they lied about?
We know for a fact that they do lie. About the explosion on the US Maine, about the Ton Kin incident, about the war in Vietnam in general, about Saddam and his non-existent weapons of mass destruction, about Iraqi soldiers killing babies in Kuwait (never happened! The media presented us with a completely fake testimony of a tearful girl without investigating her bogus story).
It’s ok to be sceptical.
We SHOULD be sceptical.
You can think am a nutcase for writing this article, but all am saying is: read Jesse Ventura’s book. Watch Daniele Ganser’s lecture on YouTube if you know German. Explore.
Dare to know.