In the J.F.Kennedy assassination, do you think Oswald acted alone, with someone else, or wasn't invoved at all

Question

I'm doing a project at school on the J.F.K assassination, and I want to know others thoughts. Oswald seems too easy of an answer to me.. If he did it don't you think he would have hid it better?? I feel he was a cover up.. what about you???

Answer 1

I think he acted alone.

Answer 2

Oswald was the only shooter and not a particularly good one at that. Track down and read an unabridged copy of the Warren Commission Report as it addresses not only the physical facts of the case but it also addresses most of the Oswald and Ruby related conspiracy theories of the time. Having been to the sight myself I can tell you it is entirely reasonable that Oswald was the only shooter. It is a really tight, confined area and the Book Depository is almost perfectly situated for the shot. The street turns and goes down a little hill. The president's car was traveling slowly and in line with the shot probably less then 100 meters when Oswald would have lined up his sight picture. The rate of descent by the vehicle going down the hill would have helped compensate for the drop of the projectile making an easy shot even easier. It would be almost impossible for any half way competent marksman to miss his target under those circumstances. It is a testament to Oswald's incompetence that he actually missed with the first shot.

Oswald was, for lack of a better term, a nut. His marriage was falling apart, his wife openly mocked his manhood and the Communist party had rejected him. He was a pathetic little man who was desperate for some sort of recognition, any sort of recognition. He was crappy marksman and a failed man who, against all evidence to the contrary, believed he was going to be acknowledged as a hero some day. Gee, I guess he was right because every conspiracy-nut does accord him a sort of heroic martyr status. Too bad it is all lies and imagination gone to waste.

All of the physical evidence supports a single shooter. Most of it precludes a second shooter in any position other then the Book Depository. Don't be sucked in by a bunch of paranoids without enough common sense to look at the actual evidence. No conspiracy proponent has EVER been able to provide physical evidence in support of a second shooter. There has been loads of people manipulating evidence to suggest that there "might have been" a second or more shooters but no solid physical evidence. There "might have been" fairies dancing on the White House lawn last night but until someone can provide me physical evidence I'm not going to believe it.

Answer 3

Oswald was the lone gunman who shot, the history channel's specials pretty much proved that to me. Sorry there was no grassy gnoll shooter. In fact the tape that the grassy gnoll picture is taken from did a pan shot where you could see many people in the shadows clearly, since photogenic laws did not change on the grassy gnoll the infamous is this a rifle image is just a bush. Th biggest thing that convinced me on Oswald is that when the police went into the book depository they locked in on Oswald so there was something about him that resonated guilt. The only reason he wasn't arrested there was the owner put in a good word and told the police to let him go. Oswald then of course left and killed the police officer down the street (what he was actually arrested for) and the rest is history.

What keeps the conspiracy alive is it is true that a lot of people wanted Kennedy dead. Joe Kennedy, the patriarch of the Kennedy clan, made his fortune bootlegging during the '20s and had mob ties. So conspiracies are very easy to come up with and round about prove. I would suggest looking up the history channel's special on the Kennedy assassination, it is very informative.

Answer 4

Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill Kennedy

Kennedy's limo was driving AWAY from the Book depository when he was shot. The President had his back turned to Oswald and the Book depository when he was shot from the FRONT, the bullet exiting the BACK of his head.

Jackie Kennedy even crawls onto the trunk of the car to retrieve his brains.

How was the President shot from the front by a man who was behind him?

There's no way Oswald killed Kennedy.


Kennedy was killed by the CIA. Because he wanted to end the military-industrial complex, end the war in Vietnam, abolish the Federal Reserve, and make peace with Russia, and there are too many powerful people that don't want any of that to happen.



This isn't rocket science either. You can go to google for a map of dealey plaza, find the book depository and the grassy knoll, and see for yourself there's no way Kennedy was killed by shots fired from the school book depository.

Answer 5

Most comments regarding JFK's death may simply be, "off the wall" comments by the well meaning but unenlightened.
You will not find answers to this in dialogs. You will find it in digging for facts.
Evaluate the known facts, and you'll confidently have and you'll hold, the answer.
I suggest you approach your Project this way, and…its never been done before ever to the best of my knowledge. But you CAN do it! And it’s all yours now!

Examine the question, "Did Lee Oswald kill officer Tippit?" Use logic and math. Be objective and impartial. Dig into the details until you convince yourself, you know the exact answer on this. This is the way to help answer the question, "Did Oswald kill JFK."
9 witnesses either saw or heard the ‘Lee-Tippit shooting incident,’ and were called by the Warren Commission (W/C) to testify. The W/C then concluded in part:
W/C>>> These nine eyewitnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man they saw. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination.<<<
The odds are 512 to 1 then, that Lee killed Tippit, if they were only 50/50 guessing. But one man, Benavides, was some 5 steps away when he SAW the incident. IMO, that’s a 90/10 that his testimony is correct. The 10 others must be at least 70/30 on the side of being correct. This new data logically changes Oswald’s appearance of guiltto read a ratio closer to 16,000 to 1. You must do the Exact math Exactly! Exactitude convinces.

I’ll do one witness with you; Benivedes, a 90/10 correct component, and his documentations.
1. His at the scene report was not at all like his Short testimony.
2.Although 5 steps from the shooting, he was not taken to the lineup to identify.
3.He testified that the hair cut, color, and texture he saw was different than the accused.
4.His twin brother was shot dead in February.
5.His dead brother’s father-in-law, actively searching for the killers of his brother, was shot at in March.
6.Then on April 2nd 1964, he testified.

Let your project be to examine, without favor, but with true measure on validity, the rightful weight to be given to these 9 witnesses as well as to the W/C proclamation that, “These nine eyewitnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man they saw.”
Answer using the simple science of math, not dialog.

If after deeper study into witness Benivides, you decide his testimony has the merit to positively convict, or to preponderantly convict, equate that.
If you think the above stresses and/or influences should diminish Benivede's words. Equate that. If you equate his testimony as totally unworthy of having been admissible, you’ve reduced the odds of Oswald’s guilt from some 16,000 to only 8,000 to 1 culpable.

There should not be one, no not one, of the remaining witnesses who should be diminished. We all know the respect and truth we expect from our courts, especially I think, in this case. Weather its diligence or dereliction, equate it. The answer is in the logic of the sum.

Good luck, good grade, and trust that when you finish this alone, you’ll know the truth.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm

Answer 6

Watch the Oliver Stone movie, JFK.

It's not completely historically accurate, but it brings up some interesting points. For example, how could Oswald have fired off three accurate shots when the best government riflemen couldn't make the same shots as quickly nor as accurately?

Why did so many people swear they saw suspicious activity and gunshots from the grassy knoll area? Even more suspicious is how many of those people died from unusual circumstances, (perhaps to keep them from testifying?)

Some people think it was the mafia, because he and his brother were vigorously prosecuting the mafia, and trying to make it impossible for them to continue as a crime syndicate.

Some people think Castro ordered the hit.

Other people believe that a secret cadre inside the U.S. government did it, because they believed that, after the Bay of Pigs, JFK could not be trusted in military matters.

Recently (I mean, within the last month or so) a completely new audio tape was discovered. You should research this, and see if they have analyzed it yet. (see website below)

A lot of people act like you're a nut if you talk about conspiracy, but the U.S. House of Representatives Assassination Committee concluded that:

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy." (see last link below)

So, yes, I believe it was a massive cover up, and not too subtle considering the number of witnesses who died under mysterious circumstances.

Answer 7

Most comments regarding JFK's death may simply be, "off the wall" comments by the well meaning but unenlightened.
You will not find answers to this in dialogs. You will find it in digging for facts.
Evaluate the known facts, and you'll confidently have and you'll hold, the answer.
I suggest you approach your Project this way, and…its never been done before to the best of my knowledge. But you CAN do it! And it’s all yours now!

Examine the question, "Did Lee Oswald kill officer Tippit?" Use logic and math. Be objective and impartial. Dig into the details until you convince yourself, you know the exact answer on this. This is the way to help answer the question, "Did Oswald kill JFK."
9 witnesses saw or heard the ‘Lee-Tippit incident’ and were called by the Warren Commission (W/C) to testify. The W/C then concluded in part:
W/C>>> These nine eyewitnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man they saw. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination.<<<
The odds are 512 to 1 that Lee killed Tippit, if they were only 50/50 guessing. But one man, Benavides, was some 5 steps away when he SAW the incident. IMO, that’s a 90/10 that his testimony is correct. The 10 others must be at least 70/30 on the side of being correct. This new data logically changes Oswald’s appearance of guilt ratio to read closer to 16,000 to 1. You do, the Exact math Exactly! Exactitude convinces.

I’ll do one witness with you; Benivedes, at 90/10 correct, and his documentations.
1. His at the scene report was not at all like his Short testimony.
2. Although 5 steps from the shooting, he was not taken to the lineup to identify.
3. He testified that the hair cut, color, and texture was different than the accused.
4. His twin brother was shot dead in February.
5. His dead brother’s father-in-law, actively searching for the killers of his brother, was shot at in March.
6. Then on April 2nd 1964, he testified.

Let your project be to examine without favor, but with true measure on validity, the rightful weight to be given to these 9 witnesses as well as to the W/C proclamation that, “These nine eyewitnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man they saw.”
Answer using the simple science of math, not dialog.

If after a deeper study into Benvides, you decide his testimony has the merit to positively convict, or to preponderantly convict, equate that.
If you think the above stresses and/or influences should diminish his words. Equate that. If you equate his testimony as totally unworthy of having been admissible, you’ve reduced the odds of Oswald’s guilt from some 16,000 to only 8,000 to 1 culpable.

There should not be one, no not one, of the remaining witnesses who should be diminished. We all know the respect and truth we expect from our courts, especially I think in this case. Weather its diligence or dereliction, equate it. The answer is in the logic of the sum.

Good luck, good grade, and trust that when you finish this alone, you’ll know the truth.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm

Answer 8

I think oswald was setup;but was about to tell the truth when ruby was sent in to silence him.
I think jfk had the soulution to ending the war in vietnam & either our own" Intelligence forces"or big buisness was making too much money to allow that to happen.I was watching the shooting live as it happened;on tv I saw his head go violently to the rear of the car which indicated to me and the police that the shots came from the knoll area (tront right side)
if oswald was the shooter the head would have been hit from the rear and gone forward.
I doubt we'll ever know because jfk's killer was a pro and had lots of help. and ! more thing the original tape at the timie of the shooting hasn't been shown since the time it happen.

Answer 9

I read a theory that Kennedy was fooling around with Carlos Marcello's wife or girlfriend. Marcello, the mob boss of New Orleans, then hired Oswald, who already tried assassinating a general, to kill Kennedy. When the assassination occurred Oswald was caught by police after assassinating a Dallas cop and went to the Texas Theater and the mob hired Ruby to kill him two days later. I think Oswald didn't hide the gun better for two reasons:
1. He wanted to get caught for attention to promote communism
2. He wouldn't have had the time as Dallas police were already in the building
I think it is possible for multiple shooters, but not probable. I think Oswald had his own plans for assassinating Kennedy I just think he acted when Marcello contacted him.

Answer 10

As controversial as this example can oftentimes be i am going to nonetheless say i do no longer believe that Oswald acted on my own or on his personal. I'ce continuously believed that even as he ought to have had a component in the assassination he wasn't the shooter who fired that deadly shot. Oswald replaced into only a normal mark that someone more advantageous up ought to really sway. Oswald replaced into led to believe he replaced into appearing in the right plan of action even as in truth he replaced into in simple terms getting used as a scapegoat so the actual killer or killers ought to get away no longer said in the mayhem. As for why each of the records networks nonetheless deny information of the conspiracy, it really is likely for an same reason they did again in the unique days. concern of being close up, close down and in simple terms undeniable concern. They likely believe fairly some the thoughts yet for his or her personal reputations or for concern of something occurring they flow alongside with the similar old opinion or the first rate stance on that day in Dallas.

Answer 11

If Oswald acted alone...then why did the Cubans seek him out , ? Because they knew he was a loser that would shoot another human being. He proved that he was willing to assasinate. Why did they execute Oswald? They wanted to keep him quite. Oswald did not act alone... he had associated with people that had something to gain by Kennedys death. HE may not have even pulled the trigger...just been the fall guy.