Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New JFK assassination revelation could upend the lone gunman theory

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 403 posts

Re: New JFK assassination revelation could upend the lone gunman theory

#361

Post by Aeolun »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #288
Aeolun wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was also a 24 year old that had just seen the head of someone very familiar to him explode in front of him. I’m kind of inclined to expect peculiar behavior from him.

Shock is the only explanation that makes any sense to me. However, remaining "largely silent" for 60 years about it implies that there's other factors at play.

Depends. If you realize after they’ve gone through a whole investigation and produced a report, do you want to go up to them and tell them all their conclusions are pointless because of something you did?

Re: New JFK assassination revelation could upend the lone gunman theory

#362

Post by lost_tourist »

philistine wrote: post #329
jimhefferon wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember with 100 percent clarity doing great in sophomore high school math. I loved it and I went on to get a PhD. Then my mom passed and I got a box of stuff with my name on it from her house. It included my report card. C.

You had low standards when you were a kid. You thought a C was great.

yep possibly "oh shit I'm gonna fail, I better study like crazy" gets 100 on the final and brings a D up to C, and realizes he can do math pretty well when he tries.

Re: New JFK assassination revelation could upend the lone gunman theory

#363

Post by lost_tourist »

empath-nirvana wrote: post #27

The problem with conversations about this topic and similar topics (9/11) is that almost no-one who cares about the topic deeply enough to have an argument about it online is interested because they're just super into ballistics and forensics and don't care about the political implications. It's all motivated reasoning because they don't like the _implications_ of the official story for whatever reason (or, alternati…

This seems like one outlook but either case wouldn't drastically change my skepticism of government. That it happened exactly as the official report says or it turns out that the CIA lied and there was a second shooter. I've seen an attempted coup (and the GOP attempt to minimize that and continued support of the dictator-in-waiting) which I thought would never happen in my lifetime despite noticing the polarization we're all seeing. Nothing really surprises me much any longer when it comes to politics and how dirty it can be or if they didn't lie at all.

Re: New JFK assassination revelation could upend the lone gunman theory

#364

Post by [deleted] »

harry8 wrote: post #360
mulmen wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meta argument is the one which is unreasonable. Forming reasonable small arguments is easy. People engage them easily. But because so many can be created so cheaply it’s possible for people’s minds to cloud.

Ok so you acknowledge it was well reasoned and you are apologising to op for saying it wasn't. And moving forward you've come to: So many well reasoned arguments can be created so it is possible for people's minds to cloud. I have no idea what you are trying to say here but it seems like it's not contributing anything much to the discussion. Perhaps your mind clouded before you wrote it? edit: did you edit your origi…

[deleted]

Re: New JFK assassination revelation could upend the lone gunman theory

#365

Post by Obscurity4340 »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #121
morby wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to that. The author details how this new detail subsequently alters the version of events. Namely it suggests that the bullet that hit JFK in the back and hit Connally were two different bullets and that they could not have been fired at that rate (the rate suggested by the video evidence) with the weapon used by Oswald

In other words, there can only have been more than one shooter. Not just Oswald.

Didn't the same thing happen to one of his relatives/descendants at a hotel in California? One guy went down for it but there were multiple firings from seperate angles and placements and witnesses reported hearing multiple shots from different orientations?

Re: New JFK assassination revelation could upend the lone gunman theory

#366

Post by thephyber »

dave_sullivan wrote: post #309
a2tech wrote: post #225

I used to be passingly interested in the conspiracy part of the JFK assassination until I watched this EXTENSIVE in length and sourced video on the assassination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8tO16xdrY It's all very logical and straightforward.

I suppose it's impossible to prove the specifics of the conspiracy, but that Jack Ruby, a guy running strip clubs for the mafia, takes it upon himself to publically shoot Lee Harvey Oswald kind of proves to me that there was some kind of conspiracy. What other explanation could there possibly be? What Oswald might have said if we were kept alive... no one will ever know. But if there was nothing there, why did Jack R…

> But if there was nothing there, why did Jack Ruby kill him?

That line of thinking can power any conspiracy theory.

Do you really think there are only 3 options for his motives? Why not “an impulsive criminal businessman with a gun filled with rage in the hours after a presidential assassination in his town during a Cold War looks for a way he can personally feel some modicum of control in a world that is mostly chaotic”.

Re: New JFK assassination revelation could upend the lone gunman theory

#367

Post by kanzenryu2 »

whartung wrote: post #183
xyzelement wrote: post #118

Not directly related to this article, but I found the lone gunman theory much easier to accept after visiting the museum in the former book depository in Dallas. You can look down onto the plaza from the exact spot Oswald shot from, and you can easily imagine how the bullet fired from there would go through JFK and into the governor sitting in front of him. Not that this proves anything, it was just a "oh, I can tang…

Years ago, on Discovery or History channel, I watched a show where they replicated the “magic bullet” shot. The magic bullet was the one that hit the President and the Governor, that apparently went all zig zag, and left a pristine bullet. For the experiment they had all the measurements and distances, detailed ballistic dummies (with bones and whatnot), positioned properly (the Governor was on a smaller, lower jump…

Recently it was revealed that the car had been modified and the back seat was quite a bit higher than is normal for that model, and the original bullet trajectory analysis was therefore inaccurate.

Re: New JFK assassination revelation could upend the lone gunman theory

#368

Post by kanzenryu2 »

xyzelement wrote: post #118

Not directly related to this article, but I found the lone gunman theory much easier to accept after visiting the museum in the former book depository in Dallas. You can look down onto the plaza from the exact spot Oswald shot from, and you can easily imagine how the bullet fired from there would go through JFK and into the governor sitting in front of him. Not that this proves anything, it was just a "oh, I can tang…

Or you can play the game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5U5iu85oUM

Re: New JFK assassination revelation could upend the lone gunman theory

#369

Post by kanzenryu2 »

JohnBooty wrote: post #60
PrimeMcFly wrote: post #7

I don't know why people are so obsessed with this conspiracy theory. Occam's Razor says it was Oswald. Why invest time speculating and arguing over it when there is no way to verify anything? This new revelation doesn't change anything, it's just hearsay.

If there were three shots, Occam's Razor says it wasn't Oswald alone. For it to have been Oswald alone, he would have needed to reload and re-aim in a superhuman way. So that isn't the simplest explanation. There are a lot of people who didn't/don't like the US, and a lot of people who like the US but didn't like Kennedy! It is not exactly outlandish to think that maybe >1 people wanted Kennedy dead.

A lot of sharpshooter/sniper types who have tried it seem to say it's pretty easy. Interestingly they tend to miss the first shot (like Oswald) due to the steeper downward angle.

Re: New JFK assassination revelation could upend the lone gunman theory

#370

Post by sireat »

a2tech wrote: post #225

I used to be passingly interested in the conspiracy part of the JFK assassination until I watched this EXTENSIVE in length and sourced video on the assassination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8tO16xdrY It's all very logical and straightforward.

Fascinating video and indeed pretty straightforward.

However, the bank robber analogy starting at 26mins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8tO16xdrY&t=1601s does not sit quite right.

You can't just stick with one theory and keep fitting other facts to that theory forever - there is going to be a breaking point.

To keep going with that particular bank robber story - Jake.

In the example barring other facts, it is 99.9% probable that Jake indeed is the bank robber.

What if instead of finding $9k out of $10k, police only find $5k out of $100k on Jake?

What if not only talking to his girlfriend about robbing the bank he also talked about robbing the bank at the bar the previous week?

What if there was an amateur theatre troupe at that bar that night?

What if one of those actors was also an accomplished make up artist and high speed driver?

Okay, the story keeps getting sillier.

Even with these new facts the prosecution would still win.

Let's add a new fact security cameras at a bar also show Jake, with similar timestamps to the bank's cameras. There are 3 more patrons that are willing to swear it was Jake.

An old lady reports that she saw a car drive up at a high speed to Jake's car and leave a package.

At that point we have a problem with being so sure on Jake being the guilty one. There is some reasonable doubt now.

My point is you can never be 100% sure. All you can do is adjust priors.

With JFK as it currently stands we might say 95% chance that Oswald was the lone gunman and 80% that he acted completely alone.

We can also say there is a 40% probability there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, there might have been even more than one, but those might have had nothing to do with Oswald.

Post reply on HN