Today's Poll: Did Oswald act alone?

I am one of those rare people who believe Oswald was the lone shooter. I have accepted that for 15 years or so, since I watched a program on just that and it proved it well enough for me. I believe it was on Discovery around 15 years ago. Proved the unlikely bullet path and the guy fired off the 3 shots in the time period numerous times. I have read other findings that support it, and other men who have fired those 3 shots from the same rifle in the same time. Oswald was alone. Now, as far as who put him up to it? The CIA, LBJ, Castro, the Mob...etc. I don't have a guess and i believe all were more than capable. I also believe that Ruby killed Oswald to keep the secret.

By the way, some may find it interesting that the bolt action rifle Oswald used had a 6 round mag and is currently legal to possess in New York.

It was mail ordered for less then $25..

And it was bolt action NOT semi automatic

Mark: Just wondering about how you commented, "And it was bolt action NOT semi automatic".

What, may I ask, brought up the words semi automatic?

Neither the comments preceding your comment, nor the article linked to the poll, mentioned semi automatic. Yet, to me, your comment appeared to contest someone's belief that a semi automatic was used.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, I kinda laughed when I read the article linked to the poll.
The author of that article (DAVID MACARAY) stated that Oswald changed the course of history. Which is a completely stupid statement. If something happens, then everything after that BECOMES history. Changing history cannot be done!

Ed the prior comments were references to the SAFE ACT, and the political drama these days is that all evil begins with semi automatic weapons. It was not a retort to the two previous post but an emphasis to their point.

Also Ed CHANGING THE COURSE of history and changing history are two distinctly different things.

True, you can not change history because by it's definition it has already occurred, but you can change the COURSE of history as that event will create different options for future events.

OK, Mark. I guess I now understand your comment about semi-automatic's.

As to the 'history' part, I believe that nobody can change the course of history. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

I'm a true believer in the old saying, "Que Sera, Sera". What's going to happen is going to happen. I don't think anyone can change it. Some people believe that a greater power has their handle on what has, is, and will happen. Others say it's pre-ordained. Whatever you want to call it, whatever happens, happens. If a man jumps off a bridge, and just as he's about to land, a boat-load of nerf balls appears directly below him, it is what it is. The 'course of history' is what ever happens. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else, but it makes sense to me.

Ed, if you drive west to east on a straight road every morning, you are traveling on a pre-ordained route or course, If one day a truck full of turkeys overturns a mile ahead, you would be forced to alter your course.

Que Sera or what ever will be exist in that you had no hand in turning over the truck, however, you have a choice whether to just stop and wait, turn around and change course or plow right through and make matters worse. In any event, your course was changed by the action of another, but you still had the option of choosing which course to follow.

Que Sera is the result of an action, not an action in itself. I had this same debate 40 years ago in a college philosophy class, in the end everyone in the room came to realize that destiny is not preordained rather a result of reaction to events, and several courses of action are possible, therefore not preordained but determined by what course is taken.

So to is the course of history, every event which is already history, prompts those future events largely by decisions made not by chance.

Yes, Mark, in the example you gave, your course was changed by some circumstance. But, what eventually will become 'history' was NOT changed. Your decision to take a different route IS what WILL BE history. No matter which decision you make, it is destined to be history. Even stopping to figure out ahead of continuing which way to go, will be history, one nano-second after you do it.

Ed, but the course that you choose now becomes history in itself, so the prior event which was history in it's own, forced a change in your course, ergo, changed the course of your path in history.

The course is ongoing, it only becomes history when it passes through a unique moment, that moment [Event] becomes history but the path or course continues on whether as previously planned or changed.

The course of history never stops, only changes based on the events left in it's wake which were deposited as historical events, or history.

So the moment Oswald shot JFK, the course of the future changed and with it all the things that we see now as history since..

Mark. I (pretty much) hate 'philosophy', per se, 'cause it makes my head hurt. So this will be my last on this.

You wrote that, "the moment Oswald shot JFK, the course of the future changed ...".
My way of looking at it (quite possibly wrong) is that the course of the future is just what it is - whatever DOES happen.

Good debate - not much accomplished.

Thanks!

Enoy the Orange groves Ed, will help that head hurt

I once again find myself in the minority by accepting established facts as opposed to conjecture, maybes, and what-ifs (redundant I know) and sensationalism?

To those conspiracy theorists that believe Oswald had help from the grassy knoll or elsewhere I pose the following questions:

Are the aliens' remains still kept at area 51?

Is there a Mrs. Bigfoot? Or a Mrs. Lock Ness Monster?

Is the slogan "NY - Open for Business" effective?

Many years ago I saw on PPS a documentary about the kennedy assassination conducted by an independent organization....the KGB from Russia. They conducted a through investigation minus the bias from the American press. Their conclusion was the Oswald did not act alone; he was set up to be the patsy or fall guy. JFK was killed by a head shot with an exploding round fired fromthe grassy knoll by a expert CIA marksman. I can't remember all the particulars but the evidence was quite convincing.

I think there is sufficient evidence that Oswald accomplished the actual assassination alone, whether he perpetrated the event without outside influence will remain conjecture forever. What is the most amazing aspect to me is the mechanics of the shoot. What Oswald pulled off is nothing short of legendary in terms of sniper capability. Factoring in the distance, moving target, having to chamber each round manually, and all accomplished successfully in less than 9 seconds is pretty impressive...tragic and abhorrent, but mechanically impressive.

I have no problem believing that Oswald pulled it off, the tragic irony is the testament to US military marksman training. There is also the psychological aspect of the act. Once Oswald came to the moment that he squared his mind to assassinate the President, the rote training took over allowing him the ability to proceed with precision without the distraction of thought. It is a fascinating example of the stress reaction capabilities of the human mind and body.

I've enjoyed a number of Oliver Stone movies - JFK was NOT one of them. And the fact that so many idjits take that movie as truth is scary.... very scary.

You have got that one right Tim