6 ms·
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 ther
by PrimeMcFly 3y ago
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.
- morby 3y agoIt’s an amazing bit of history. Leaders of major powers have regularly been assassinated in history. Here the leader of a globally hegemonic nation was assassinated on camera.
- neom 3y agoGoogle tells me the number of leaders/former leaders assassinations in recent history that have been caught on camera is indeed very low. Kennedy, Gaddafi, Shinzo Abe, Benazir Bhutto, Yitzhak Rabin, Rajiv Gandhi, Anwar Sadat.
- gordian-not 3y agoRabin assassination has a pretty weird conspiracy theory though
- rightbyte 3y agoThese ones? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin_assassination_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin_assassination_co... The bullet points seem to be mostly confusion at the scene and shitty police work afterwards. What is the conspiracy. That he was not killed at that spot, but later by the secret service? Like "that guy fired blanks at him, lets kill the PM and frame him"?
- gordian-not 3y agoI never really understood the logic because it is deeply oxymoronic. People that generally wanted him dead (ultra right) think that he was killed by the secret service (presumably left) and Yigal Amir (ultra right) was framed. But it is something about putting blank bullets in order to gather support with a fake assassination and then he was really killed by the Shabak on order of Shimon Peres (but can’t say that’s verbatim) It always seemed even less internally consistent than most JFK theories
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rightbyte 3y agoI mean, that would be like a secret service sniper shooting JFK when Oswald missed, or something. Surely is is reasonable to believe that the risk of a secrete service assassination increases during a assassination attempt. But, there is not really anything that would indicate that. During the 1WW the death rate of officers was about twice that of privates for a sample. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X22001125 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X2... I believe that there is a risk of opportunity murder when bullets are flying. Using the confusion as cover. But, as I said, only speculative.
- gordian-not 3y agoIt’s similar to holocaust denial, it doesn’t make sense and the people who support the assassination also support the conspiracy
- mongol 3y agoSo Kennedy was the first one even
- neom 3y agoNo, there were a few (iirc 2) prior but I started at Kennedy because the thread is about him, hence recent history.
- toyg 3y agoThere are more, if you include the failed assassinations. Reagan, Pope JPII...
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago> It’s an amazing bit of history. Sure, it's the obsessing over conspiracy theories that I don't get. There's no way to verify the various speculations, so what's the point?
- diogenes4 3y agoThere's no way (for most of us with finite resources) to verify the vast majority of history, even recent history, even history that happened today. To me this is like saying "who cares what may or may not have happened in the past". This particular conspiracy theory is interesting because the assumed enemy here—the Soviet Union—was ostensibly (and seeming authentically) unhappy to see this happen. So who wanted JFK dead and why?
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago> There's no way (for most of us with finite resources) to verify the vast majority of history, even recent history, even history that happened today. That's an entirely different issue. > So who wanted JFK dead and why? Again, Occam says Oswald.
- diogenes4 3y ago[dead]
- JPws_Prntr_Fngr 3y agoFair enough, as long as you leave the thinking and decision-making to people who have even a modicum of historical curiosity.
- rusk 3y ago> Occam's Razor says it was Oswald I think it doesn’t. That’s why the story has never come to rest, there’s simply too many question marks about the whole thing
- bluGill 3y agoWhat open questions? He clearly had access to the place where the shots were fired, and knew how to use a gun. The shot was not particularly difficult.
- gordian-not 3y agoI completely agree with you that it was Oswald but the weird parts of this story are: 1. Oswald defection from the army and time in the Soviet Union 2. Oswald going to the Cuban and Soviet embassies before the murder (possibly starting a third world war) 3. The subsequent assassination of Oswald This can be mostly explained by a mental disorder but it is still a messed up story
- rusk 3y ago> This can be mostly explained by a mental disorder Kinda like the Reichstag fire huh
- gordian-not 3y agoI look at it like the crazy general in Dr Strangelove that is trying to start a world war I highly doubt that a secret in the caliber of “let’s kill the President” can be kept by so many people for such a long time. In my experience large organizations of people just don’t work that way
- rusk 3y ago> large organizations I don’t think large organisations can act in such a coordinated manner at all but they can be manipulated. Cartels with a lot to lose can take their secrets to the grave, in particular if their constituents have a lot to lose. Everyone else has “unfortunate accidents”.
- kikokikokiko 3y agoOccam's Razor says that the guy framed to be the fall guy on this literal world changing event was killed mere ours after the fact on live television, "ending the story". It's amazing that people in 2023 can be just as accepting of the mainstream narrative as the average joes in the 60s, that were subjected to a top down narrative decided by the powers that be using 3 TV channels and 2 newspapers.
- becquerel 3y agoHow did killing Oswald end the story? You bringing it up proves that it only inflamed the issue and made it more attractive to conspiratorial readings!
- kikokikokiko 3y ago"How did killing Oswald end the story?" Exactly. We don't know since "the killer is dead, nothing to see here, keep moving". I give up.
- 2Gkashmiri 3y agoIn my town, there are "sudden killings" of let's say a particular person. No reason why they would be killed or they were a particular target, but everyone is saying " there is no reason to kill this person". The authorities, in the coming weeks, months do a "shootout" where another person is killed and they declare "in an operation today, we killed the perpetrator of the previous killing. Case closed". No one is arrested, no suspect is made public before the second shooting and no one asks why no due process was followed. Its like clockwork and we can count out such instances in more than 2 dozen in the past 20 years if not less.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoBecause he couldn't be questioned.
- gonzo41 3y agoIt removed the ability for there to be a different narrative. Either Oswald was a lone gunman, or you're a crazy person and believe in conspiracy's. Read up on Allen Dulles.
- bluGill 3y agoOswald was a marine sharpshooter, and it took him 3 shots with a scoped rifle (probably at point blank range, though I don't know the ballistics of that gun). That suggests it wasn't Oswald. Though even then Oswald clearly would have been standing next to the unknown shooter urging him to do it.
- dcormier 3y agoThe shots were at 175, 240, and 270 feet[1]. It had a 4x scope[2]. [1] https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0145a.htm https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/h... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20110724214814/http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0188b.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20110724214814/http://www.aarcli...
- fullspectrumdev 3y agoIn metric: 53.34m, 73.15m, 82.29m. All sub-100 meter shots, easily achievable with a scoped rifle with 4x magnification and a bit of practice.
- JackFr 3y agoTIL what “point blank” actually means. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-blank_range https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-blank_range
- kelnos 3y agoSame; I always thought it essentially just meant "shot at such a close range that you can't miss". (Though I expect most people do actually use it that way, even if it's incorrect.)
- thinkharderdev 3y agoHa, I had always assumed it meant something on the order of inches.
- Quekid5 3y ago
- jdthedisciple 3y agoYea let's also convict people using Occam's Razor. "What's all the fuzz about? The dude was near the murder site at the time, it's obvious it was him, duh"
- matthewmacleod 3y agoWhat point do you think you are making here? Nobody suggested doing that.
- jdthedisciple 3y agoPoint being why should we shove the whole thing under the rug with a lazy conclusion when it's still clearly possible that something more nefarious was going on back then than we may know?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nprateem 3y agoI heard if you ever want to get out of jury service, just make a comment to the foreman/judge that you just think there's no smoke without fire.
- gregoriol 3y agoIf one person talks it could help others to talk.
- JohnBooty 3y agoIf 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.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- croes 3y agoAnd they shoot at the same time?
- JohnBooty 3y agoThe shots occurred in a span of several seconds, not simultaneously. I don't see anything implausible about a second shooter having Kennedy in his sights, waiting for the initial shots to be fired, and pulling the trigger once he heard the initial shot. There are a lot of implausible aspects to all of this, but that... doesn't seem like one.
- croes 3y agoBut that needs a bigger conspiracy than just kill JFK. Either there are two shooters working together from the beginning, or one knows about the other and the other does not.
- JohnBooty 3y agoBut that needs a bigger conspiracy than just kill JFK. I don't feel like "two dudes who both want to kill the president in a country where it's really easy to get a rifle and there are ~16mil WWII veterans and millions more who know how to use them" is a really big or implausible conspiracy. What about that seems implausible to you? As for coordinating their fire, what about that seems implausible? "I'll shoot first, once JFK reaches point XYZ. When you hear my shot that's your signal to shoot. Be ready and have your finger on the trigger, because obviously Secret Service is going to floor the gas and GFTO ASAP as soon as the first shot is fired" That seems entirely within the realm of plans two dudes could come up with. I don't think it necessarily points to some larger conspiracy.
- croes 3y agoOccam's razor is a tool not a proof.
- PrimeMcFly 3y agoYup.
- mannyv 3y ago[flagged]
- throw10902023 3y agoDefine conspiracy theory. The Deep State involving every government man at the time? Most likely no. A few people? Possibly. Not just Oswald? Probably. Oswald not involved at all? Unlikely, but possible. There are degrees of probability and likelyhood.