The GIGANTIC PLOTHOLE in 22-11-63 *SPOILERS*

  • New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
  • New 2019 Hours: The message board is closed between the hours of 4pm ET Thursday and 8:30am ET Tuesday.

    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.
Aug 19, 2015
17
37
55
#1
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT

The big plothole is of course the effects of a reset button. To know for sure if Oswald was the killer, Jake could have killed Oswald in 1958, gone back to 2011 to see if Kennedy survived or not. If he hadn't, Oswald would not have been the killer, and he would have had to go back to 1958 which would have reset Oswald into life again. That might even have prevented him from becoming a patsy, saving Oswalds life. And then he would have had to wait for the real killers to show up.
This doesn't get mentioned a lot by reviewers, only some boards discuss this like the Guardian and Reddit.

Preventing the attack would have been easy with a modern fake IED, (to spook the Secret Service) that would explode BEFORE Dealy Plaza, at a point where the motor cade could still turn.
But sure, then we wouldn't have a 800 page novel, so I guess that's motivation to ignore the plothole right there.

Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good novel, even if it was a little saccharine at times. Especially when it came to small towns.

[blockquote]It's noted in the book that Jake couldn't kill Oswald outright until he knew he was acting on his own. If he had killed Oswald early, and he was part of a group, they could have just used another killer.[/blockquote]​

Don't see how that changes anything. The reset is still in effect. Plus, King offers us a binary choice: it's either Oswald or a "conspiracy" which King tries to ridicule.
Lets say JFK still gets murdered, then we know that all detective work should look at other people, not Oswald. But King is a bit lazy to fully work out alternatives, perhaps because there is a ton of material on every little move Oswald made, but not on alternatives.
 
Aug 19, 2015
17
37
55
#2
Aside from the plot hole, Kings certainty that it is Oswald is odd for several reasons:
- majorities of Americans think there was some conspiracy and reject the Lone Gunman Theory
- The Magic Bullet Speculation. And yes, I've seen the youtube docus that say seven bullet holes with one bullet is possible. I don't buy it.
- The undamaged bullet on the gurney.
- Oswald was never a skilled shooter, and that MC gun is not a good weapon.
- All the potential witnesses dying mysteriously.

Lesser reasons:
- The New Zeeland thing
- The photoshopped photo

Also, there is the simple fact that big things usually are effected by large powerful groups, not by individuals.
  • World War 1 would have happened even without the assassination in Sarajevo.
  • Hitler would have lost no matter what, because of supply lines and because he was simply outnumbered.
  • The civil war was 22 million against 7 million, with most or all of the warindustrial advantages to the North.
and so on.
The Warren commission seems biased, their goal was to not rock the boat. If they had said: We think sections of the Army/CIA have done this, there'd been a new Civil War.
But saying that a killer is "crazy" is the usual excuse. This is said about Sirhan Sirhan, and about Dylan Roof. Both have or had excellent motives for their assassinations other than "crazy"
 
Last edited:

Neesy

#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
May 24, 2012
58,957
223,591
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
#3
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT

The big plothole is of course the effects of a reset button. To know for sure if Oswald was the killer, Jake could have killed Oswald in 1958, gone back to 2011 to see if Kennedy survived or not. If he hadn't, Oswald would not have been the killer, and he would have had to go back to 1958 which would have reset Oswald into life again. That might even have prevented him from becoming a patsy, saving Oswalds life. And then he would have had to wait for the real killers to show up.
This doesn't get mentioned a lot by reviewers, only some boards discuss this like the Guardian and Reddit.

Preventing the attack would have been easy with a modern fake IED, (to spook the Secret Service) that would explode BEFORE Dealy Plaza, at a point where the motor cade could still turn.
But sure, then we wouldn't have a 800 page novel, so I guess that's motivation to ignore the plothole right there.

Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good novel, even if it was a little saccharine at times. Especially when it came to small towns.

[blockquote]It's noted in the book that Jake couldn't kill Oswald outright until he knew he was acting on his own. If he had killed Oswald early, and he was part of a group, they could have just used another killer.[/blockquote]​

Don't see how that changes anything. The reset is still in effect. Plus, King offers us a binary choice: it's either Oswald or a "conspiracy" which King tries to ridicule.
Lets say JFK still gets murdered, then we know that all detective work should look at other people, not Oswald. But King is a bit lazy to fully work out alternatives, perhaps because there is a ton of material on every little move Oswald made, but not on alternatives.
11-22-63 Welcome.JPG

Hi - I have not been on here in about a week (more or less) - so Welcome to the Board!

11/22/63 is one of my favourite books.
 

PatInTheHat

GOOBER MEMBER
Dec 19, 2007
13,362
12,036
58
Lair of the Great Kentucky Nightcrawler
#4
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT

The big plothole is of course the effects of a reset button. To know for sure if Oswald was the killer, Jake could have killed Oswald in 1958, gone back to 2011 to see if Kennedy survived or not. If he hadn't, Oswald would not have been the killer, and he would have had to go back to 1958 which would have reset Oswald into life again. That might even have prevented him from becoming a patsy, saving Oswalds life. And then he would have had to wait for the real killers to show up.
This doesn't get mentioned a lot by reviewers, only some boards discuss this like the Guardian and Reddit.

Preventing the attack would have been easy with a modern fake IED, (to spook the Secret Service) that would explode BEFORE Dealy Plaza, at a point where the motor cade could still turn.
But sure, then we wouldn't have a 800 page novel, so I guess that's motivation to ignore the plothole right there.

Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good novel, even if it was a little saccharine at times. Especially when it came to small towns.

[blockquote]It's noted in the book that Jake couldn't kill Oswald outright until he knew he was acting on his own. If he had killed Oswald early, and he was part of a group, they could have just used another killer.[/blockquote]​

Don't see how that changes anything. The reset is still in effect. Plus, King offers us a binary choice: it's either Oswald or a "conspiracy" which King tries to ridicule.
Lets say JFK still gets murdered, then we know that all detective work should look at other people, not Oswald. But King is a bit lazy to fully work out alternatives, perhaps because there is a ton of material on every little move Oswald made, but not on alternatives.
What?
And um, practically the whole of all conspiracy material are the alternatives, and this one is so no different, 'cept bein' this is our century's doozy of one in America.
 

FlakeNoir

Original Kiwi© SKMB®
Moderator
Apr 11, 2006
41,933
163,989
New Zealand
#5
Aside from the plot hole, Kings certainty that it is Oswald is odd for several reasons:
- majorities of Americans think there was some conspiracy and reject the Lone Gunman Theory
- The Magic Bullet Speculation. And yes, I've seen the youtube docus that say seven bullet holes with one bullet is possible. I don't buy it.
- The undamaged bullet on the gurney.
- Oswald was never a skilled shooter, and that MC gun is not a good weapon.
- All the potential witnesses dying mysteriously.

Lesser reasons:
- The New Zeeland thing
- The photoshopped photo

Also, there is the simple fact that big things usually are effected by large powerful groups, not by individuals.
  • World War 1 would have happened even without the assassination in Sarajevo.
  • Hitler would have lost no matter what, because of supply lines and because he was simply outnumbered.
  • The civil war was 22 million against 7 million, with most or all of the warindustrial advantages to the North.
and so on.
The Warren commission seems biased, their goal was to not rock the boat. If they had said: We think sections of the Army/CIA have done this, there'd been a new Civil War.
But saying that a killer is "crazy" is the usual excuse. This is said about Sirhan Sirhan, and about Dylan Roof. Both have or had excellent motives for their assassinations other than "crazy"
What is the New Zealand thing? (curious)
 

mal

content
Jun 23, 2007
3,999
22,254
56
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
#9
If he was a crackpot loner in his "normal" life I might buy the lone gunman theory. Just because of his associates, I do not. I am not saying guilt by association just saying that it's more than likely he was not alone in his thoughts regarding the whole mess, even if he may have been the only shooter. No evidence for this just looking at human nature.
 

FlakeNoir

Original Kiwi© SKMB®
Moderator
Apr 11, 2006
41,933
163,989
New Zealand
#10
Think that's the part of the Oliver Stone movie where some supposed NZ news headline(s) didn't jell with the time of the assasination, I think maybe...pretty sure twas part of Donald Sutherland's big scene.
This? (found online)

Mr X and the New Zealand Newspaper
The Mr X character (played by Donald Sutherland) alleges that a New Zealand newspaper, the Christchurch Star, published a biography and photograph of Oswald four hours before Oswald had been charged with President Kennedy’s murder (p.107). This is correct, but is not as sinister as the film claims. Oswald was not charged with JFK’s murder until around midnight, ten hours or so after he had been arrested for Officer Tippit’s murder. Stories naming and describing Oswald had already been broadcast, and in any case many newspapers possessed Oswald’s details in their files from his defection to the Soviet Union in 1959.
Hmmm... we've always been an intuitive bunch. :biggrin2:
 
Aug 19, 2015
17
37
55
#11
What?
And um, practically the whole of all conspiracy material are the alternatives, and this one is so no different, 'cept bein' this is our century's doozy of one in America.
I really didn't get one word of what you said, sorry ;)
Do you think that those who support the Lone Gunman are more rightwing and those that do not, are more liberal?
 
Aug 19, 2015
17
37
55
#14
I just realized I said Dylan Roof had an excellent reason to slaughter those people. That was really, really unforgivable.
Roofe had a warped political motive, coming from his irrational fear that whites are the victims here, that blacks "are gonna take over". Or it was his desire to start a race war, or both. It's infinitely more likely that he was convinced that this was a noble cause because of his cultural background, that told him that blacks are "taking over", that blacks aren't really people etc, than that he was merely "crazy".
His fears are imaginary, because whites outnumber blacks 5 to 1, have 20 times the median wealth, and have let's say 100 times more positions of power.

Sirhan Sirhan shot RFK because of RFKs anti-Palestinian stance which would get more Palestinian dying. This wasn't imaginary.
 
Likes: kingricefan

PatInTheHat

GOOBER MEMBER
Dec 19, 2007
13,362
12,036
58
Lair of the Great Kentucky Nightcrawler
#16
I really didn't get one word of what you said, sorry ;)
Do you think that those who support the Lone Gunman are more rightwing and those that do not, are more liberal?
The real beauty of a successfull continually ongoing conspiracy, is that it takes all kinds, a bridge builder if you will...or won't, makes no difference to me.
And this one is every bit of that, it will never be proven one way or the other to anyone's complete satisfaction.
 
Aug 19, 2015
17
37
55
#19
The real beauty of a successfull continually ongoing conspiracy, is that it takes all kinds, a bridge builder if you will...or won't, makes no difference to me.
And this one is every bit of that, it will never be proven one way or the other to anyone's complete satisfaction.
The known facts of the case have convinced me it wasn't just a Lone Gunman. My money is on the military-industrial complex, but it could have been the maffia, Cuba, Soviets, or any combination thereof.

It's not so much a conspiracy as an inevitability of history. JFK upset the establishment too much. He would have been stopped one way or the other. This is why WW1 would have happened, one way or the other, stopping Prinzip would not have prevented WW1.
 
Likes: kingricefan
The Institute - Coming September 10th, 2019