6 ms·

I strongly recommend the book "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi. It took me over a year to read on and off. It's a national treasure and I wish it could

by jayess 9y ago

I strongly recommend the book "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi. It took me over a year to read on and off. It's a national treasure and I wish it could be made freely available online. It's over a thousand pages and includes a CD with thousands more pages in footnotes and endnotes. I was a die hard conspiracy believer because I grew up in a household where my mom lived through the assassination and she had nearly every conspiracy book available around the house. After reading Bugliosi's book I am absolutely now convinced that Oswald did it alone. Bugliosi's book absolutely devastates all of the conspiracy theories. I can confidently say that these files will uncover nothing to "prove" otherwise. There is no evidence that anyone other than Oswald killed the president. Full stop. If you search around for interviews online with Bugliosi, you can get a feel for the breadth and depth of his work.

arkitaip 9y ago
Thanks for the recommendation. I found this clip that summarizes Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History [0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhA54xrPTOE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhA54xrPTOE EDIT: I love how conspiracy theorists are downvoting my comment for simply linking to a video clip. Seems like this post has flushed out every nutjob on HN.
- jayess 9y ago
  Thank you, that sums up a small part of the story very well. One thing I've learned is that the conspiracy folks lie and frequently take statements out of context. I insist on primary sources. There is so much BS out there in favor of a conspiracy that it's almost hopeless to counter it all. Bugliosi basically does, but it's a shame that few people will read his book. Another bit of compelling evidence that the president was shot from behind (BTW, ALL of the ballistic trajectories match perfectly with the Oswald window of the school book depository), is this stabilized zapruder film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc
  - mhneu 9y ago
    Bugliosi also wrote a good book on the OJ case that similarly cuts through the fluff and lays out the most plausible theory (that OJ did it).
- jMyles 9y ago
  I didn't downvote you, but I think that people are probably downvoting you because this video is cheesy, silly, melodramatic, and uninformative. It obviously cherry-picks facts, literally cutting people off right before they make exculpatory remarks. The rapid cuts, background music, and clips of dramatization make it difficult to take seriously. If this video is the best support for the "lone nut" theory that can fit into 30 minutes, I think that the conspiracy theory looks pretty darn strong by contrast.
Cozumel 9y ago
>I can confidently say that these files will uncover nothing to "prove" otherwise. Apart from their assessment that at least two people were involved in the shooting?[0] Why would you not take time to read the actual documents before dismissing them out of hand? [0]http://oi64.tinypic.com/22ump.jpg http://oi64.tinypic.com/22ump.jpg
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mhneu 9y ago
Totally agree- Oswald acted alone. The question is now how Oswald got radicalized and whether any organizations were involved. He spent time in Russia and had some contact with Cuba, it seems likely he had some association with Russian or Cuban intelligence. Then the question is whether he had any contact with the CIA. It seems also plausible that the CIA might have known about him visiting with the Russians and covered up that knowledge to avoid embarrassment.
- jayess 9y ago
  Of course they knew about him visiting the Russians. There are intercepts from the embassies in Mexico City where the Russians were talking about Oswald. He went to Mexico City to try and get a visa to go to Cuba, which they denied, so he went to the Soviet Embassy to try and get them to convince the Cubans to let him in, since he had previously defected to the Soviet Union. They all saw him as a nut and basically laughed him out. It's a long story, but basically Oswald "defected" to the Soviet union, realized that they were going to take no interest in him (they put him to work in a radio factory and surveilled him thoroughly), and he got out. He was disillusioned with Soviet communism and later saw Cuba as a "truer" form of communist revolution, so he tried to go there instead. They didn't want him either. I suspect one reason many files were withheld is that the Mexican government assisted the CIA in tapping the communications of foreign embassies in Mexico City.
  - mhneu 9y ago
    Your guess is also reasonable - the US would have an incentive to keep such 'sources and methods' stuff quiet. But my point was not about Oswald having ties to Russia - he lived there for three years. But imagine the CIA had a letter that said "Oswald talked about killing the president" or "the KGB told Oswald he should get a gun and shoot people in America". The CIA probably would have thought that Oswald was crazy and harmless, and that's why they didn't do anything about him. But disclosure of such a letter now would be embarrassing for them.
    - jayess 9y ago
jMyles 9y ago
I respect Bugliosi's incredible undertaking, but I don't find the work as convincing as you do. There are a number of crucial items which go unrebutted: * The disconnect between Silvia Odio's account of being with Oswald when he was supposedly in Mexico City * The fact that video shows that Oswald wasn't in the window just five seconds before the shooting began * The matter of why, if the 6th floor TSBD shooter acted alone, they didn't fire while the motorcade was on Houston (yes, Bugliosi addresses this, but convincingly?) * Connally's testimony that he was not hit by the same bullet as Kennedy (which he maintained until his death) There are many more. I think that it's imperative on any Oswald-acted-alone theory to prove that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (ie, to convict him in a US court as if he were alive). If it can't do that, then there's still searching to do. I can't imagine convicting Oswald based on the available evidence.
- jayess 9y ago
  The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them. There is at least one eyewitness that saw Oswald in the window from the ground below. Firing on the motorcade where he did was an easier shot -- the car was moving away from him and at an angle that made his necessary movement much less than if the motorcade was coming at him. Connally's testimony, frankly, doesn't matter. The ballistics of the bullet entering Kennedy's upper back, exiting his throat, then entering connally's back and then out his chest lines up perfectly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA As I state above, there is no evidence that anyone other than Oswald killed the president. Conversely, 100% of the physical evidence tells us Oswald did it.
  - jMyles 9y ago
    > There is at least one eyewitness that saw Oswald in the window from the ground below. This kind of statement is what makes the "lone nut" theory seem shaky to me. People say this over and over again, as if to make it true, and it relies on the audience not really knowing the facts very tightly. Here's the reality: lots of people reporting seeing someone in the window. Only one, Howard Brennan, provided a description that matched Oswald's profile (which, after all, was just white male near the median height). He said he saw Oswald there minutes before the shooting, when Oswald was seen by several people on the first-floor. Brennan's account was also quite strange: he said that the shooter was standing and that he was able to see the shooter's pants, both of which are obviously impossible. He claimed that he heard the first shot and then looked over at the TSBD, seeing the rifleman, but the Zapruder film clearly shows him doing what everyone else did: looking over at the grassy knoll at the sound of the first shot (be reminded that the vast majority of witnesses claimed that the shots came from that direction). He failed to pick Oswald out of a lineup. Here's a great summary of the Oswald / Dealy Plaza eyewitness evidence: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-... > Firing on the motorcade where he did was an easier shot -- the car was moving away from him and at an angle that made his necessary movement much less than if the motorcade was coming at him. I just... I want to understand this position, but it's just absolutely crazy to me. It's like saying that position 4 on a skeet range is easier than position 1. Have you ever played JFK Reloaded? Does that not show you how much easier the shot on Houston is? > The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them. It's certainly possible that somebody fired a weapon from the 6th floor. I don't think there's particularly strong evidence that it was Oswald. I also think that it's likely that it was a talented, trained, experienced long-range specialist, capable of setting up and firing in under 5 seconds. > Connally's testimony, frankly, doesn't matter. Brother / Sister: Don't you see how brashly you are casting aside evidence? This is the person who was literally closest to the murdered President. An experienced hunter. Former military man. How can you just brush off his testimony? I mean, this is the crux of the case. Connally was not hit by the same bullet, and it's really, really clear. He said so. His wife said so. The motorcycle office right next to him said so. The video shows him almost a full second after the first shot, still holding his hat (with the hand that was shattered by a bullet (I believe a fraction of a second later)) and pretty clearly unwounded. I just... it feels like you're ignoring all of the most important evidence. I mean, what say you about these things? Don't you think that Bugliosi does some pretty serious backflips to get around this stuff? > The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them. I'm not sure what relevance their color or that they testified "over and over" has. OK, so it's completely possible that somebody was firing from the 6th floor. Indeed several witnesses said so. But was it Oswald? Or was it somebody far more talented? Somebody with the proper training and experience to be able to set up and fire in 5 seconds, hitting a moving target at 80 yards? Look: I can respect your position that there is no physical evidence that any person other than Oswald was involved. I even acknowledge that there is some inculpatory evidence against Oswald. But I think it's a bridge too far to suggest that it's a certainly. My assessment is that Oswald was not the shooter. If he had a fair trial today, I have to believe that he'd be acquitted.
Tech-Noir 9y ago
> I strongly recommend the book "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi. I haven't read the book, and have no opinion either way on it, but if anyone is interested, Bugliosi was apparently inspired to write it after taking part as prosecutor in this TV trial of Oswald, broadcast in 1986: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojkf48Tmi1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojkf48Tmi1g > I can confidently say that these files will uncover nothing to "prove" otherwise. Governments would never release files that support, never mind prove, conspiracies of this magnitude, whether the conspiracy occurred or not.
runjake 9y ago
Awesome comment, thanks. I think most sane people aren't curious because of the conspiracy angle, but rather if any dots connect between the assassination and the US government's covert anti-communists, for example. That would be rather interesting to know, although I'm dubious whether it's useful to know, at this point.
- jMyles 9y ago
  > I think most sane people aren't curious because of the conspiracy angle, This seems like a mean-spirited thing to say. I don't know how large a percentage of the country you regard as "sane", but the "lone not" theory has never really enjoyed much support. More than 60% of people surveyed believe that there was a conspiracy. I think of myself as quite sane, reasonable, rational, etc. And I think it's plainly obvious that a group, rather than an individual, committed this crime.

by jayess 9y ago

arkitaip 9y ago

Thanks for the recommendation. I found this clip that summarizes Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History [0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhA54xrPTOE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhA54xrPTOE EDIT: I love how conspiracy theorists are downvoting my comment for simply linking to a video clip. Seems like this post has flushed out every nutjob on HN.

jayess 9y ago
Thank you, that sums up a small part of the story very well. One thing I've learned is that the conspiracy folks lie and frequently take statements out of context. I insist on primary sources. There is so much BS out there in favor of a conspiracy that it's almost hopeless to counter it all. Bugliosi basically does, but it's a shame that few people will read his book. Another bit of compelling evidence that the president was shot from behind (BTW, ALL of the ballistic trajectories match perfectly with the Oswald window of the school book depository), is this stabilized zapruder film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc
- mhneu 9y ago
  Bugliosi also wrote a good book on the OJ case that similarly cuts through the fluff and lays out the most plausible theory (that OJ did it).
jMyles 9y ago
I didn't downvote you, but I think that people are probably downvoting you because this video is cheesy, silly, melodramatic, and uninformative. It obviously cherry-picks facts, literally cutting people off right before they make exculpatory remarks. The rapid cuts, background music, and clips of dramatization make it difficult to take seriously. If this video is the best support for the "lone nut" theory that can fit into 30 minutes, I think that the conspiracy theory looks pretty darn strong by contrast.

Cozumel 9y ago

>I can confidently say that these files will uncover nothing to "prove" otherwise. Apart from their assessment that at least two people were involved in the shooting?[0] Why would you not take time to read the actual documents before dismissing them out of hand? [0]http://oi64.tinypic.com/22ump.jpg http://oi64.tinypic.com/22ump.jpg

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mhneu 9y ago

Totally agree- Oswald acted alone. The question is now how Oswald got radicalized and whether any organizations were involved. He spent time in Russia and had some contact with Cuba, it seems likely he had some association with Russian or Cuban intelligence. Then the question is whether he had any contact with the CIA. It seems also plausible that the CIA might have known about him visiting with the Russians and covered up that knowledge to avoid embarrassment.

jayess 9y ago
Of course they knew about him visiting the Russians. There are intercepts from the embassies in Mexico City where the Russians were talking about Oswald. He went to Mexico City to try and get a visa to go to Cuba, which they denied, so he went to the Soviet Embassy to try and get them to convince the Cubans to let him in, since he had previously defected to the Soviet Union. They all saw him as a nut and basically laughed him out. It's a long story, but basically Oswald "defected" to the Soviet union, realized that they were going to take no interest in him (they put him to work in a radio factory and surveilled him thoroughly), and he got out. He was disillusioned with Soviet communism and later saw Cuba as a "truer" form of communist revolution, so he tried to go there instead. They didn't want him either. I suspect one reason many files were withheld is that the Mexican government assisted the CIA in tapping the communications of foreign embassies in Mexico City.
- mhneu 9y ago
  Your guess is also reasonable - the US would have an incentive to keep such 'sources and methods' stuff quiet. But my point was not about Oswald having ties to Russia - he lived there for three years. But imagine the CIA had a letter that said "Oswald talked about killing the president" or "the KGB told Oswald he should get a gun and shoot people in America". The CIA probably would have thought that Oswald was crazy and harmless, and that's why they didn't do anything about him. But disclosure of such a letter now would be embarrassing for them.
  - jayess 9y ago

jMyles 9y ago

I respect Bugliosi's incredible undertaking, but I don't find the work as convincing as you do. There are a number of crucial items which go unrebutted: * The disconnect between Silvia Odio's account of being with Oswald when he was supposedly in Mexico City * The fact that video shows that Oswald wasn't in the window just five seconds before the shooting began * The matter of why, if the 6th floor TSBD shooter acted alone, they didn't fire while the motorcade was on Houston (yes, Bugliosi addresses this, but convincingly?) * Connally's testimony that he was not hit by the same bullet as Kennedy (which he maintained until his death) There are many more. I think that it's imperative on any Oswald-acted-alone theory to prove that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (ie, to convict him in a US court as if he were alive). If it can't do that, then there's still searching to do. I can't imagine convicting Oswald based on the available evidence.

jayess 9y ago
The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them. There is at least one eyewitness that saw Oswald in the window from the ground below. Firing on the motorcade where he did was an easier shot -- the car was moving away from him and at an angle that made his necessary movement much less than if the motorcade was coming at him. Connally's testimony, frankly, doesn't matter. The ballistics of the bullet entering Kennedy's upper back, exiting his throat, then entering connally's back and then out his chest lines up perfectly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA As I state above, there is no evidence that anyone other than Oswald killed the president. Conversely, 100% of the physical evidence tells us Oswald did it.
- jMyles 9y ago
  > There is at least one eyewitness that saw Oswald in the window from the ground below. This kind of statement is what makes the "lone nut" theory seem shaky to me. People say this over and over again, as if to make it true, and it relies on the audience not really knowing the facts very tightly. Here's the reality: lots of people reporting seeing someone in the window. Only one, Howard Brennan, provided a description that matched Oswald's profile (which, after all, was just white male near the median height). He said he saw Oswald there minutes before the shooting, when Oswald was seen by several people on the first-floor. Brennan's account was also quite strange: he said that the shooter was standing and that he was able to see the shooter's pants, both of which are obviously impossible. He claimed that he heard the first shot and then looked over at the TSBD, seeing the rifleman, but the Zapruder film clearly shows him doing what everyone else did: looking over at the grassy knoll at the sound of the first shot (be reminded that the vast majority of witnesses claimed that the shots came from that direction). He failed to pick Oswald out of a lineup. Here's a great summary of the Oswald / Dealy Plaza eyewitness evidence: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-... > Firing on the motorcade where he did was an easier shot -- the car was moving away from him and at an angle that made his necessary movement much less than if the motorcade was coming at him. I just... I want to understand this position, but it's just absolutely crazy to me. It's like saying that position 4 on a skeet range is easier than position 1. Have you ever played JFK Reloaded? Does that not show you how much easier the shot on Houston is? > The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them. It's certainly possible that somebody fired a weapon from the 6th floor. I don't think there's particularly strong evidence that it was Oswald. I also think that it's likely that it was a talented, trained, experienced long-range specialist, capable of setting up and firing in under 5 seconds. > Connally's testimony, frankly, doesn't matter. Brother / Sister: Don't you see how brashly you are casting aside evidence? This is the person who was literally closest to the murdered President. An experienced hunter. Former military man. How can you just brush off his testimony? I mean, this is the crux of the case. Connally was not hit by the same bullet, and it's really, really clear. He said so. His wife said so. The motorcycle office right next to him said so. The video shows him almost a full second after the first shot, still holding his hat (with the hand that was shattered by a bullet (I believe a fraction of a second later)) and pretty clearly unwounded. I just... it feels like you're ignoring all of the most important evidence. I mean, what say you about these things? Don't you think that Bugliosi does some pretty serious backflips to get around this stuff? > The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them. I'm not sure what relevance their color or that they testified "over and over" has. OK, so it's completely possible that somebody was firing from the 6th floor. Indeed several witnesses said so. But was it Oswald? Or was it somebody far more talented? Somebody with the proper training and experience to be able to set up and fire in 5 seconds, hitting a moving target at 80 yards? Look: I can respect your position that there is no physical evidence that any person other than Oswald was involved. I even acknowledge that there is some inculpatory evidence against Oswald. But I think it's a bridge too far to suggest that it's a certainly. My assessment is that Oswald was not the shooter. If he had a fair trial today, I have to believe that he'd be acquitted.

Tech-Noir 9y ago

> I strongly recommend the book "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi. I haven't read the book, and have no opinion either way on it, but if anyone is interested, Bugliosi was apparently inspired to write it after taking part as prosecutor in this TV trial of Oswald, broadcast in 1986: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojkf48Tmi1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojkf48Tmi1g > I can confidently say that these files will uncover nothing to "prove" otherwise. Governments would never release files that support, never mind prove, conspiracies of this magnitude, whether the conspiracy occurred or not.

runjake 9y ago

Awesome comment, thanks. I think most sane people aren't curious because of the conspiracy angle, but rather if any dots connect between the assassination and the US government's covert anti-communists, for example. That would be rather interesting to know, although I'm dubious whether it's useful to know, at this point.

jMyles 9y ago
> I think most sane people aren't curious because of the conspiracy angle, This seems like a mean-spirited thing to say. I don't know how large a percentage of the country you regard as "sane", but the "lone not" theory has never really enjoyed much support. More than 60% of people surveyed believe that there was a conspiracy. I think of myself as quite sane, reasonable, rational, etc. And I think it's plainly obvious that a group, rather than an individual, committed this crime.