I have just one thing to say to the Oswald-Alone-Single-Bullet-Theory Group and their response to those who criticize their reasoning: STOP TREATING US LIKE BABIES!!!
They use the term “conspiracy theorists” like others might say “juvenile delinquents.” They are condescending, smug, arrogant, and rude in the extreme. Talk about paternalistic sneering: good God, give us a break!
Stop this infantile second-guessing and psychological armchair speculation that has no basis in fact. This dispute has nothing to do with paranoia, obsession, or a predisposition to want to believe in such a theory: all of that is complete hogwash.
They want to take the failings of their explanation and blame it on us? That’s nonsense!
Speaking personally, as well as for many others who doubt Oswald was the one gunman, I can say this: I have no predisposition for or against a single gunman theory. If there were a clean, tidy, and airtight case against Oswald, I would accept it without hesitation.
However, I—along with millions of other Americans—have enough native intelligence to think matters through for ourselves: to review all the critical pieces of evidence being presented and to draw our own conclusions, even if it means not accepting the official findings of the Warren Commission.
It seems absolutely impossible to believe that a truly airtight case against Oswald could possibly have produced such an endless amount of problems as this case has done; the discrepancies appear limitless.
The point is, I (along with so many others) listen, watch, and weigh all the facts being presented before we decide. I am not a conspiracy theorist per se; I have no special interest in wanting to find a conspiracy.
If a single man killed JFK, so be it; I can live with that conclusion if it is the truth . . .
On the other hand, I have no special desire to suspend all my critical thinking faculties just to please the Oswaldians by echoing their belief in the lone gunman theory.
Perhaps it is they–the single gunman theorists–who are the ones who are truly paranoid, immature, and psychologically distraught, misinformed, misled, and obsessed?
Have they ever considered that possibility, eh?
As one who lived through that horrific day, I’ve watched the handling (and mishandling) of this case from Day One: Nov. 22, 1963. Some 50 years later, I went on line to see what was available in the way of websites and videos concerning the assassination.
There are now copies of the Zapruder tape available to watch and I found websites dealing with the eyewitness testimony of Gov. Connally and his wife. For those who may have forgotten who they are, they were in the same car with JFK and Jackie, sitting in the seats directly in front of the president and his wife . . .
Both were absolutely convinced that the bullet that hit Kennedy (where he grips his throat) did not hit Gov. Connally; both know exactly what they heard and saw. Their beliefs are validated by the Zapruder film; Gov. Connally saw that film enlarged frame by frame and it confirmed for him what he and his wife have always believed.
Approximately eleven or twelve frames pass from the time Kennedy is clutching his throat to when Gov. Connally’s change of facial expression shows that he has been hit, or about half a second of elapsed time. The film convinced him that he was right in his views and he said would not change his opinion until the day he died, and neither he nor his wife ever did.
From her perspective, Mrs. Connally had turned to see JFK with his hands “gripping” his throat, and was looking directly at her husband when Gov. Connally was hit by a different bullet; of this sequence of events she was absolutely sure.
One must keep in mind that the number of shots fired was at first widely disputed, with some witnesses saying they heard 4-6 shots. With four shots, one can almost make the case for Oswald alone (no need for a magic two-for-one bullet) but then the Zapruder film surfaced and spoiled everything by providing analysts the ability to time the shots from first to last.
Given the nature of Oswald’s bolt-action rifle, that reduced what he could physically do in the time span made visible by the Zapruder film to only three shots; that is what led to the concerted effort to prove that the bullet that hit JFK at shoulder and neck level must also have been the one—“the magic bullet”—that hit Gov. Connally.
Yet both he and his wife always vigorously disputed this claim, and the visual evidence lends considerable credence to the view that they were right and the “magic bullet” theorists wrong.
As I continued to watch the TV coverage of the 50th anniversary of this tragic day, many of the shows dealt with the “who did it?” question; several took the traditional pathway of concluding it was Oswald alone and dismissed contrary theories either in a condescending manner or with supposedly good rebuttal forensics. I noticed, though, how nearly all omitted the testimony of Gov. Connally and his wife!*
Why? Isn’t the eyewitness testimony of two of the persons closest to JFK worth anything? Luckily, there were also several shows that presented a critical analysis of the one-gunman theory, either by reviewing the latest books on the topic or by presenting their own visual and investigative accounts of what might have happened.
As it turns out, science has not stood still in the same way the “lone gunman theory” has and there is a considerable body of evidence now available to cast serious doubt on the Warren Commission’s findings.
It may well be that it is this group (of one-lone-gunman Oswaldians) that truly has the psychological need to believe in a simple neat solution that does not require them to consider the larger picture, or dare question what other parties might have taken their ideological grudge against Kennedy to a lethal level.
Nonetheless, I do not want to appear as arrogant, biased, and one-dimensional as the Oswaldians sometimes do, so I will merely add that I am not claiming to be 100% sure one way or the other. In brief, I am not 100% sure it was Oswald by himself any more than I am 100% sure that there was a second gunman involved.
All I wish to note at this point is that I am quite offended by the condescending attitude of the “lone gunman” theorists when they are so patronizing in dismissing any and all criticism.
Topnotch journalists, investigators, writers, lawyers, and forensic scientists have weighed in on this matter, many with serious doubts about whether we have yet discovered what really happened—to say nothing of the doubts, uncertainties, and disagreement from millions of ordinary Americans.
Do not sneer at your fellow compatriots, you Oswaldians, for there is a subtle genius among Americans for instinctively knowing whether they have been told the whole truth or whether they need to keep searching.
You would think that the sheer number of books written criticizing your viewpoint would give you pause; that an oppositional criticism of this amazing size and strength can never be traced solely to some kind of quasi-Freudian psychological predisposition!
We don’t question the findings of the lone gunman theorists because we are “obsessed”, “traumatized”, or anything else of that nature.
We question the viewpoint of the lone gunman theorists because they have always been unable to present a clear and irrefutable case; there is such an abundance of discrepancies that their single shooter theory leaves holes big enough for a jumbo jet with a blindfolded pilot to fly right through it.
As for my views on Oswald, I allow for all three main possibilities:
- he was the lone assassin;
- he was involved in the assassination but he was not the only shooter that day;
- he was not a shooter but a patsy who was set up and framed for the crime.
What I am saying here is that I am not particularly “predisposed” to believing any one of these theories more than another, but try to remain as open-minded and fact-oriented as possible and go wherever the evidence leads.
I, like many others of my fellow countrymen, have concluded that there are serious grounds for doubting #1, above, and that #2 must be given its due weight and consideration.
Nonetheless, I am not arguing here for one particular point of view so much as asking the one-lone-gunman theorists to stop treating everyone else who disagrees with them as though they are all a bunch of incoherent babbling buffoons.
When you have shown conclusively why Mr. and Mrs. Connally are wrong in believing that Gov. Connally was hit by a different bullet than the one that hit President Kennedy in his upper shoulder and neck area, come on back and we will talk.
I am telling you now, though–both as advice and warning—we will talk as equals and nothing less! The day you have the right to bamboozle and bulldoze others by sheer force is over.
The day you have the right to abrogate my right as an American—our rights as Americans—of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience to think and believe however we choose about the Kennedy assassination and investigation, is the day that a Great Big Storm will be seen rising up on the horizon!
STOP YOUR EXTREMELY CONDESCENDING AND BELITTLING WAYS AND TAKE YOUR MEDICINE LIKE A MAN!!
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT ABOUT TO LET YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE DICTATE TO US WHAT WE CAN OR CANNOT BELIEVE!!
WE CAN THINK FOR OURSELVES,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!
* Of passing interest: in two of the 50th anniversary reports defending the “Oswald alone” theory, both presented scripts which argued that it was just this one bullet that hit both men . . . but they both did so from two different points of view, or separate evidentiary angles, if you would. Yes, they disagreed with one another!
The first theory insisted that the trajectory was such that one bullet fired from Oswald on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository would have hit both men just as they were seated.
It was not necessary to investigate the way Gov. Connally moved just at this critical moment; if he had been facing straight ahead, his body position would have been properly in place to be wounded by the same bullet that struck President Kennedy.
The second theory argued just the opposite, that such a trajectory was impossible! The seating position of the two men did not allow a straight line (such as a bullet’s trajectory would follow) to be tracked from one man to the other; the seats within the car are not so aligned but placed at an off-angle in relationship to one another: an astute observation.
Instead, they created yet another alternative hypothesis; the straight-line trajectory from Book Depository window to both Kennedy and Connally wouldn’t work except when you include Gov. Connally turning to the right in order to try and see what was happening to the president. In doing so, he then presented his shoulder in such a way that one bullet could hit both men.
The Oswaldians can’t even agree among themselves on a single explanation of this pivotal moment!
I find it somewhat amusing, regarding the second theory, to observe how narrow-minded and one-tracked some Oswaldians have become. Why? Follow their line of reasoning carefully if you will:
Gov. Connally stated he heard the firing of a rifle from behind and then turned to his right to try and get a look at the president; he could not see him sufficiently well so he started to turn back the other way before a bullet hit him.
Now this second theory desperately needs Gov. Connally to be already turned (and remaining in that position) so this twisting bodily motion will place his right shoulder nearer the continuing trajectory of the bullet that hit Kennedy. Of course if that single bullet had truly hit both JFK and Gov. Connally, it would have happened virtually simultaneously inasmuch as a high-powered rifle shot can travel at 2,800 feet/second.
In short, there would have been insufficient time for Gov. Connally to have heard the shot and turn his body so he could be hit by the same bullet that hit President Kennedy! And yet this investigator reported on that possibility as the most likely way to add credence to the single bullet theory. And this is to say nothing of the fact that in such an instance, the infamous bullet would have been moving faster than the speed of sound. By the time Gov. Connally heard the shot—the report of the rifle itself–the bullet would already have arrived.
To think he still would have had enough time to turn to his right and then back to his left before being hit by that bullet–the sound of which he was responding to in the first instance–is a crazy piece of physics and convoluted reasoning that simply does not make sense.
The Connallys were there; they were both participant and witness. Both understood that the bullet that hit Kennedy, causing him to raise his hands to his throat, was not the bullet that hit Gov. Connally. And how do the Oswaldians deal with the eyewitness testimony of the Connallys? They omit their testimony entirely.
And the Oswaldians wonder why there are so many Americans who still have a whole lot of trouble digesting one or another of their “magic bullet” theories!
