Is everyone missing the point?

  • New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
  • The message board is closed between the hours of 4pm ET Friday and 8:30am ET Monday.

    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

Do you believe Lee Oswald assassinated President Kennedy?

  • yes

  • no


Results are only viewable after voting.
Apr 4, 2014
29
114
29
I agree that King's book is a work of fiction and not intended as a primer on the JFK assassination. King has, however, both in his book and at public events layed out the case against Oswald. That evidence is persuasive. There is no real conjecture about Oswald's guilt from King's perspective either in the context of this book or outside it. It is not an "alternative reality." It wasn't ambiguity regarding Oswald's guilt that made him select the JFK assassination to drive the fictional plot but rather what would happen if a major historical event was altered (i.e. Oswald was stopped from assassinating JFK). I agree though that the topic of Oswald's guilt is generally pointless to debate. My experience with JFK conspiracy theorists is that no amount of evidence or common sense can ever change their opinion. It is a matter of faith-based belief in how the world works that this had to be the work of sinister forces that control all major events. If they were capable of exercising reason and common sense, they would not be conspiracy theorists to begin with. So the better argument for not engaging in these endless debates in my opinion is that no one will ever change their mind. The history books record that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK. Every official investigation has reached that same conclusion. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that conclusion for any reasonable person who takes the time to study the basic case. The fact that some can never be convinced of this obvious conclusion is meaningless when the facts and circumstances support Oswald's guilt.
There's always going to be people that don't believe something unless it is 100% confirmed and there's absolutely no way to deny the truth. While the history books do say Oswald assassinated JFK, there's no doubt that there are some serious odd things that happened that can lead to question, which can lead to doubt... people have the right to be curious and not just accept something because it seems "the most likely thing to be true." Thats just my take. I believe that there are enough things that happened before, during, and right after the assassination that there is still a sliver of doubt about what truly happened on that infamous day.
 

Dana Jean

Moderator
Moderator
Apr 11, 2006
46,765
194,802
Thornfield
There's always going to be people that don't believe something unless it is 100% confirmed and there's absolutely no way to deny the truth. While the history books do say Oswald assassinated JFK, there's no doubt that there are some serious odd things that happened that can lead to question, which can lead to doubt... people have the right to be curious and not just accept something because it seems "the most likely thing to be true." Thats just my take. I believe that there are enough things that happened before, during, and right after the assassination that there is still a sliver of doubt about what truly happened on that infamous day.
Although I think Oswald did it, was capable of doing it, I agree with this. There will just always be questions.
 

RichardX

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2006
1,684
4,150
There's always going to be people that don't believe something unless it is 100% confirmed and there's absolutely no way to deny the truth. While the history books do say Oswald assassinated JFK, there's no doubt that there are some serious odd things that happened that can lead to question, which can lead to doubt... people have the right to be curious and not just accept something because it seems "the most likely thing to be true." Thats just my take. I believe that there are enough things that happened before, during, and right after the assassination that there is still a sliver of doubt about what truly happened on that infamous day.
I agree to some extent. We are rarely ever going to have 100% certainty regarding any event in human history. I could not prove John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address on Nov. 19, 1863, or that astronauts landed on the moon if absolute certainty was the standard and I could simply pick and choose curious events and inconsistent statements from the record and claim there was doubt. That would be absurd but it is exactly what has happened with the JFK assassination. There is a mountain of evidence and witness statements in the JFK case. It is the most investigated criminal case in history. If you go through it all - as JFK conspiracy theorists have done for the past 50 years - and pick out some oddities and weird coincidences you could argue this creates doubt. But those oddities exist in every human event. They usually go unnoticed, however, because no one spends the time and effort to uncover them. It is the norm rather than the opposite. The basic evidence in the case links Oswald to the assassination with as much certainty as we can have absent Jake's time machine. He carries a long package to work on the morning of the assassination (he later denies this to the police), his rifle is found on the 6th floor with his fingerprints on it (he denies owning a rifle), bullet casings from his rifle are found under the window from which several witnesses confirm the shots were fired, his prints are on the boxes around that window, a large brown paper sack is found next to that window with Oswald's prints (matching the package he carried to work), his rifle is missing from the location where he stored it when the police search hours after the assassination, he is the only TSBD employee to flee the building and not return, he doesn't pause to ask what is going on despite the chaos but instead leaves work within minutes of the assassination and travels to his boarding house where he gets his pistol, he then shots a police officer, sneaks into a movie and resists arrest trying to shoot another police officer when approached before even knowing what they want. It is a drumbeat of guilt that satisfies any reasonable standard of judging such matters. We can't confuse the absence of certainty with any real doubt.
 
Apr 4, 2014
29
114
29
Well with the John Wilkes Booth situation multiple people saw him do it at the theater whereas people claimed they saw where the shots at Kennedy were fired from, but no one literally saw Oswald do it. Now, I'm totally with you and fully believe Oswald fired multiple times. My point before was that there are a fair amount of unresolved questions from that case, which leads people to question whether he had help, someone else fired the kill shot, if Lee was put up to it, etc. I just feel that there wouldn't be such a satisfaction with the case if all of the details were that cut and dry.
 
Likes: Neesy
Aug 22, 2016
18
75
47
I believe Oswald was in the depository and fired his rifle and was an active part of the conspiracy to kill JFK. I DON'T think he acted alone, nor do I think he fired "the" shot...the one that blew Kennedy's head all over the back of the limo. I was in the military for over a decade, and have fired more than my share of weapons, from pistols and rifles to machine guns and tank cannon. And I've never seen any instance, ever, of shooting something on one side and that side exploding back the way the bullet entered. Ever. When JFK was hit, his head literally flew right back, and his brains landed on the limo behind him. No way did that shot come from above/behind. Someone else took a shot, too. I believe Oswald when he said he was a patsy. I believe Ruby killed him to shut him up. But will we ever really know the whole story? Doubtful.
 
ELEVATION is now available in hardcover, ebook, and audiobook!