Why does major media continue to refer to John F. Kennedy's assassin as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Question

There have never been any convincing studies that have established that such an assasination could have physically been performed by Oswald. Further, testimony of witnesses and other persuasive evidence has established that there was more than one gunman shooting at the President. Finally, there have been many analyses showing that the official story has so many holes in it that you could drive a Boeing 757 through it without being touched. As a result of the overwhelmiung evidence that Oswald could not have been the assassin, and the lack of any evidence that he could have been the assassin, polls of Americans have repeatedly shown that most Americans do not believe the official story. And outside of America, polls show that an even larger precentage of people don't believe the official story. Does this mean that the media is tacitly going along with the conspiracy, or are the people in the media who keep saying the false statements about Oswald merely stupid?

Answer 1

You're obviously not paying much attention. President Kennedy's assassination is probably the most analyzed event in history. Discovery Channel did an exaustive study of all aspects of the assassination a couple of years ago, including timing of the firing of the rifle, movement from the 5th floor to the 2nd floor of the Book Depository in the known timeframe, specialized audio and video analysis of the police radio recordings from the day, the timing of LHO's movements up until he shot Officer Tibbets and a wealth of other issues. Their conclusion? It is almost certain that LHO did shoot Kennedy and there is NO evidence of any other shooters anywhere near Dealy Plaza on that day.

The truth is, there is NO persuasive evidence of any other events on that day than what has been reported.

Personally, I lump the conspiracy theorists in with the Tax Kooks who claim that there is no law that says you must pay income tax. They argue their point in the face of incontrovertable proof otherwise.

Answer 2

Ive read a few books on this,it was Oswald no doubt about it.the most modern test available have been performed to determine if one shooter could have done it,they showed it could be done easily.your wrong when you say that why phrase your beliefs as fact ,its very annoying when people do that.the fact is the test prove one person could do it period....I dont know how many people where present but studies do show that even with only a few witnesses,stories can differ a lot,thats why there are "holes "in the story.i would bet that there were at least a hundred witnesses on the scene that accounts for the different eyewitness accounts.Its hard for me to swallow the argument the our government would hide the fact that more people were involved,do you realize how many people would have to be involved in the cover up?I think that alone makes it impossible.Americans love conspiracies thats why some dont believe the official story

Answer 3

David Ferrie was was acquainted with Oswald (even know Ferrie denied it)

Oswald knew how to shoot from a young age and at least once Oswald and Ferrie went together to a Cuban exile training camp near New Orleans for rifle practice + they BOTH were members of the same nonprofit military organization.

As the agents investigated Ferrie's life they found plenty of links between Ferrie and Oswald. David Ferrie was close with Carlos Marcello (mobster & hater of Robert Kennedy.). Ferrie was basically one screwed up guy.

Before David Ferrie killed himself, he left a note saying, "when you read this I will be quite dead and no answer will be possible."

There are plenty of facts of suspicious criminal activities going on here.
The media gets things wrong and the government most likely did not give everyone the full true story of what happened.

You have to find and understand the facts, research the facts so you have a solid ground of understanding of what went on, and do not get them confused with the conspiracies.

I can go on and on about this, but I'm going to stop.

Answer 4

i changed into 9 years previous and contained in the third grade. In my college district, we were despatched domicile for lunch from eleven:30 am to at least a million:00 pm and had basically again. basically earlier 2:00 pm our imperative; a marginally large and older female (and that i do recommend large), got here into the lecture room and informed us that the President were shot and changed into useless. I bear in concepts the instructor began crying and then a group of the little ones began crying inclusive of her. Me, I figured that on condition that i did not comprehend him for my section, it turned right into a tragic get jointly yet no longer one to cry about. i do not bear in concepts a lot about what occurred in college after that yet I do bear in mind that it changed into no longer very centred and diverse my fellow students were nonetheless torn up over the shape. I do bear in concepts going domicile and gazing the data insurance which changed into all that the three US broadcast channels and the a million Canadian station were televising (I grew up in Detroit so we had CK LW basically in the course of the river). A extra brilliant reminiscence is of Lee Harvey Oswald getting shot. We were gazing it on the television and that i fantastically bear in concepts listening to a shot and the announcer say something like "Oswald has been shot. little question about it, Lee Harvey Oswald has been shot." yet another reminiscence is of the funeral, really the funeral caisson being pulled alongside the Washington roads on its thanks to Arlington.

Answer 5

Because his assassin WAS Lee Harvey Oswald. Don't you think the conspiracy theories have been overplayed?

Answer 6

Contrary to what most of you conspiracy buffs love to think, it's been pretty well established that Oswald killed Kennedy. The only credible conspiracy theory is that someone put him up to it. But he definitley shot Kennedy.

Answer 7

The guy above says the "Discovery Channel" says Oswald did it all by his lonesome. Wow, I guess that wraps things up. He posts a lot of nonsense that he picked up from some website, but he didn't answer the question. He merely quoted another example of one major media outlet's conjob, which presents a tautology, essentially concluding that Oswald did the crime because a major media outlet says so.

Of course, your premise is correct that the story about Oswald was a complete lie and was actually a very transparent cover story for anyone who cared to look into the facts, as many have done. But to answer your question, the media most certainly is not stupid. But as former CIA Director William Colby once said--"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." And Colby ought to know. He died a very strange death himself, ending up drowned while fishing without a life jacket, even though he had always worn one before according to all who knew him. But don't expect the media to tell you about the Colby story either. They believe in the Hitlerian big lie theory: "The bigger the lie [and the more it is repeated], the more it will be believed." 'Nuff said.

Answer 8

so who did?

Answer 9

They are all in on it, and they are watching you!!!