Did Oswald Act Alone?

Navigation

User login

Online users

jlw
rolandovich

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

Lisa P
GRuB
ktcoxster
making a differ...
johnmac

Did Oswald Act Alone?

Submitted by stevenl on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 2:51pm.

This topic is in danger of hijacking Rob R's excellent "What have you changed your mind about?"

So, I'm giving y'all an opportunity to change venues. Against my better nature I might add. So rather than make this a debate, let's work together to solve a mystery. I'll even give it a small local spin to justify it.

I remember when JFK was murdered. At the time I was attending Roosevelt School and living on Eastside Street. The 9/11 experience was close in terms of how the nation was feeling. One memory I have very clearly was during the brief time Oswald was still alive in Parkland Hospital after being the victim of getting whacked by gangland figure Jack Ruby. We were watching all the live news coverage on our black and white Motorola when the words, "Lee Harvey Oswald has just died in Parkland Hospital" scrolled across the bottom of the screen.

My Mother gasped and said, "Now we'll never know the truth." Even as a kid I thought, "Hmm. Something is fishy here."

And I still think so. I hope I live long enough to get a definitive answer. I'm in the "I do not think Oswald acted alone" camp, by the way.

stevenl's blog
Login or register to post comments

I listened to the news on Armed Forces Radio

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 3:06pm.

in Fulda, Germany. The Post was on allert and I remember my sister feeding my dad spoonfuls of instant coffee; he had tied one on at the NCO club but needed to head out to man positions between Fulda and the East German border. Was a pretty sad time and exciting watching the tanks bug out the gates.

To me the question is "is there evidence that anyone else was involved?" Most conspiracy theories rely quite heavily on a foundation of mystery to "prove" themselves. I'm a positivist and prefer getting hit in the head with a 2X4 before accepting the exceptional.

Can we agree that Oswald's background was unusual?

Submitted by Mike on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 7:16am.

Here is some info from this website:

The unusual bits: his interest in things Russian, including language, a defection to Russia, marriage to a Russian woman, subsequent return to the US after the defection, his military connection to the U2 flights.

The motorcade route through Dallas was announced in Sept 1963 and in Oct 1963, Oswald gets a job working for minimum wage in a building on the motorcade route of the president. A guy that had defected to Russia and then returned, both events well-known to the US security agencies, why would they be tracking him or notice that he has gotten a job in a building on the motorcade route?

To quote Agent K from Men in Black: does any of that seem unusual to you?

Could this background fit with someone working as an intelligence agent or double agent? Would the spy agencies provide records to verify his employment categorically if we made a FOIA request? or might they try to cover their tracks and provide a lot of smoke to obscure what otherwise might become apparent.

We can trust our own intelligence and spy agencies, can't we?

(removed info posted from linked website)

Why not make an FOIA request

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 9:10am.

No matter what happens, your theory will be "proven." If they say he was a spy...he was a spy! If they say they nknow nothing...they're covering it up! that's how it all works. There is no end to it. Ever.

Well, I grew up in Texas and I can tell you

Submitted by Mike on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 3:20pm.

for certain that the law enforcement and justice system is the best that money can buy, so despite some slipups in the Kennedy homicide investigation, I trust the Dallas PD as much today as I ever did.

What happened in the basement in Dallas could have happened anywhere, after all, who would have thought that extraordinary security meausures might be needed to transport Oswald around in the aftermath of the JFK assassination?

One thing I am pretty sure about in the JFK thing is that Ruby shot and killed Oswald and that he was the only shooter in that event. I think Ruby may have had ties to the entertainment industry and that can be pretty nefarious. I don't think Ruby ever fired a shot at JFK.

Should we start with the null hyptheses? I don't think that Jim Garrison was involved in the shootings of JKF or Oswald, but I am not sure about Arlen Specter, his whereabouts have not been accounted for.

All kidding aside, I am not sure I can be rational about the JFK assassination. It turned out the lights on an administration that I was enthralled with and it seemed like we plunged into LBJ and Nixon's Vietnam war after, the cities burst into flames, MLK and RFK got assassinated. It's all just so terrible to remember that I continue to completely overwhelmed with the "what if" scenario. How would the 60s have turned out if JFK was not assassinated? But one thing I believe about his death is that he was a marked man. He was going to be killed after the Bay of Pigs. The details were fungible, but the deal was done.

Summary of House Committee 1977-1978

Submitted by stevenl on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 3:36pm.

Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives,

summary can be found at:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html

Yes, the desire for meaning is quite strong.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 4:24pm.

. . . if you put the murdered President of the United States on one side of a scale and that wretched waif Oswald on the other side, it doesn't balance. You want to add something weightier to Oswald. It would invest the President's death with meaning, endowing him with martyrdom. He would have died for something. . . . A conspiracy would, of course, do the job nicely.
— William Manchester.

No question that the desire for meaning is strong

Submitted by Mike on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 7:24pm.

but that is not evidence one way or the other, it's simply desire.

A proposal.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 4:44pm.

I propose that for this debate Guglielmo and Mike argue the opposite point of view. Gug, you present evidence that Oswald did not act alone, and Mike presents evidence that he did. If neither of you want to, I understand, but what better way to really learn about the other side of the issue?

But Rob,

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 4:57pm.

there isn't any evidence that "Oswald did not act alone." Not a single bullet casing or a memo. While I certainly appreciate your proposal, it's also kind of like asking two guys to run a drag race to prove who has the slowest car. They just kind of sit at the starting line looking at each other.

well,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 5:44pm.

How many assumptions does one have to make in order to believe he did act alone? First, is there proof that Oswald himself was talented enough with that rifle to fire as quickly and accurately as he would have had to that day? I'm happy for the guy in the video, he's incredibly talented, but his skill level doesn't prove a thing.

"How many assumptions does one have to make

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 11:24pm.

in order to believe he did act alone?" None acutally. It's evidence based. As for the guy in the video...he demonstrates that something conspiracy theorists insist is impossible is actually possible.

Right,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 11:28pm.

I agree with you that so far, the questions raised by JFK Truthers have been answered and the answers all point to Oswald acting alone, I still think it's fun to imagine all of the possible conspiracies. If we didn't entertain them a little, then the people that take the time to make the documentaries would be doing it for nothing.

I agree.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 11:31pm.

It's one thing to think something is worth investigating. But another to claim knowledge of the truth.

I claim no knowledge of the truth of this matter

Submitted by Mike on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 7:39am.

I just think when I break down and look at the pictures of JFK's head exploding, it seems pretty clear that the shot came from the front and to the right of the limo. I don't think anyone has argued that Oswald ran down there to take another shot. Then I look at the trajectory of the bullets, the number of wounds, the apparent misses, the bystander Tague who was slightly injured by one of the shots, the testimony of Connolly and his wife that he was hit after JFK not simultaneously, and I come to believe that one person couldn't make this many wounds with three shots, at least one miss, unless we rely on the magic bullet theories.

It ceratinly may seem pretty clear

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 9:25am.

that the shot came from another direction, but what you see in the film is not inconsistant with a shot from the library (especailly the foward spray of blood and fine particles). The backward motion you are referring to is consistant with a rebound or spasm. The direction that matters here is the direction of reasoning. If one starts with the premiss that there were multiple shooters, it becomes rather simple to piece together "evidence" to support that hypothesis. If you work in the other direction, not so. And what is it about the "magic bulet" theory that people don't like? Is it as impossible as seven shots from a the Mannlicher-Caraco in less than seven seconds?

1978 House Committee found evidence of conspiracy

Submitted by Mike on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 7:19am.

As StevenL linked above and pasted below, the scientific acoustical evidence indicates two shooters. There is also the issue of the bullet that missed everything, hit the curb near the railroad overpass. A piece of that bullet then struck a man standing in front of the overpass as he waited to get pictures. Since he was in the line of fire, I am inclined to think he was not one of the shooters, he was also out in the open, not the best position.

but the acoustical evidence first. Here is a link.

Government position

Submitted by stevenl on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 6:00pm.

I find it interesting that the House Assassination Committee included the following in their conclusions, which I would consider as close to an official position from the government as we'll find:

I. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Tex., November 22, 1963

Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
1. President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired from behind him.
2. The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind him were fired from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository building.
3. Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle that was used to fire the shots from the sixth floor window of the southeast comer of the Texas School Book Depository building.
4. Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the assassination, had access to and was present on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.
5. Lee Harvey Oswald's other actions tend to support the conclusion that he assassinated President Kennedy.
Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
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.
1. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
2. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
4. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
5. The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

From the BBC

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 7:02pm.

If you haven't seen this, you should watch it.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 9:11pm.

I think it's fun to argue about conspiracies, I like to examine all of the different plots and usually the docs are good entertainment, but when it comes down to it, most of the time there's nothing there. As much as we want to believe that only a vast far-reaching conspiracy could bring down a great man like Kennedy, unfortunately it was just sad, pathetic, attention-starved Oswald.

Who is claiming to know the truth?

Submitted by Mike on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 7:54am.

As much as we want to believe that only a vast far-reaching conspiracy could bring down a great man like Kennedy, unfortunately it was just sad, pathetic, attention-starved Oswald.

The assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK and others are not fun to argue about for me. I was alive at the time, these folks carried the banner for the possibility of a peaceful revolution, something like a Solidarity moment in the US in the 1960s and they were all gunned down. to paraphrase Townes: The dust they bit left a bad taste in my mouth.

I have never figured out what part Oswald had in the assassination or who he actually was. I have come to believe he was part of the conspiracy and may have fired the shots from the 6th floor, but I am not certain about that. It fits with the picture of Oswald as attention-starved, as does his apparent assassination attempt on Walker, and then JFK. The politic meaning of his targets is bizarre as is his defection to the SU and his subsequent return to the US.

In this matter, as in the ethics of eating low on the food chain, it may be that your mind is not open to further consideration or questions?

Watch the video I posted,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 10:31am.

it'll answer most of your questions. It even explains the "magic bullet" theory.

Maybe since I wasn't alive at the time, it's not my place to say this, but I think putting the Kennedy's in the same category as MLK is huge stretch of the imagination. They were politicians from a rich political family, some say Kennedy's dad stole the election for him. Who knows? I know that they came from money and power and people who come from those backgrounds don't usually involve themselves in any kind of revolution.

There's the rub

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 11:23am.

These aren't people, they are symbols renamed by the initials of the humans that once occupied the bodies. We then assign them to leagues. Whether JFK, MLK, or RFK played in the same league is a matter of opinion, which makes talking about them a rather subjective and touchy enterprize. What is not a matter of opinion is that many people see those deaths as linked and as a deeply meaningful pivot point in the American experience. One could dismantle that narrative (I asked Chomsky to send me something by Friday), but as they say, the toothpaste is out of the tube.

On a related note, Umberto Eco wrote this great story called Foucault's Pendulum. It is a smart novel about three guys who (for fun) create a conspiracy theory that unifies just about every other conspiracy theory. If you can get past the first 80 pages or so, it is a really good and illuminating read. It does a particularly fine job detailing the finer points of conspiracy thinking.

Let me know what Chomsky says.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 5:40pm.

Sorry...

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 7:51pm.

...I really hated the end of that book. :(

I seldom watch video on the computer,

Submitted by Mike on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 7:59am.

Not sure why. I am a fan of the written word I guess. I may break down and watch, but can't promise. I am working too many hours again and have to take care of myself by taking the free time I have for things I like to do.

Like, Stevenl I remember where I was on Nov 22 1963. I was in recess, playing and running around elementary school when the school principal broadcast over the PA system that President Kennedy had been killed in Dallas. I sat right down on the ground and felt sick. I was ten years old, the guy was a hero to me, ten year olds like heroes and this ten year old took it badly that one of his heroes was assassinated. Haven't gotten over that one yet. Still working on it. Might have been easier to get over without the subsequent assassinations and the sinking sense that there was a "killer instinct" to the political far right that the left could not match unless we could make ourselves bullet-proof.

40 plus years later and I still can't enjoy the conspiracy theory component of this awful crime. No entertainment value to me.

I started to watch.

Submitted by Mike on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 8:44am.

You are correct, the guy has lovely accent. It's just too long for me to watch. Sorry. I did watch several minutes, enough to see Kennedy's head knocked back and to the driver's side of the vehicle. As always, when I watch this, with a little shooting and hunting experience, I come to the conclusion that he was hit from a shot from the front right, not from back right, the oswald position.

Be that as it may, and if you can look at the layout of the motorcade route and see that headshot and believe it came from behind the limo, I don't know what else to say except ask the hunters here, have they ever shot a large animal (elk, deer, horse, mule) in the head and ever seen the head move any direction except in the direction of the bullet's trajectory. But that aside, since you have watched this video, does it also explain the bullet that hit the curb and slightly wounded James Tague?

I think that what really exists here is a theory of a lone gunman that is pretty questionable. I think the evidence indicates multiple shooters and the only potential shooter who was held in custody (We can talk about the "tramps" who were detained and released if you want?) for the event was inexplicably murdered while in police custody. Damn the luck.

well

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 10:37am.

The problem with this is that there is photographic evidence and an autopsy report that show where the bullet entered and exited. The bullet struck the top right of the back of his head and his head jerk to the left to escape the pain, physics didn't have anything to do with it. If he had been shot from the grassy knoll. Also, if there was a person on the grassy knoll with a rifle, don't you think someone would have seen that? It would be pretty hard to escape after having shot JFK, I would think a mob would have chased the person down and he'd be lucky not to be torn to shreds.

Tague said he heard a bullet from his left. The book depository was also on his left and the way sound travels I can imagine there was an illusion of sound coming out of those trees as it traveled through. I don't see what his evidence proves, except that there was indeed a shooter in the book depository.

James Tague isn't mentioned in the video, while

Read Lee Bowers Warren Commission testimony

Submitted by Mike on Thu, 01/31/2008 - 8:00am.

and keep in mind that 20 witnesses on the scene (working from memory here) said they heard shots from the grassy knoll.

Lee Bowers testified that he saw people in that area and a commotion in that area just after the shooting. If you are really interested and your mind is open on this matter, read Lee Bowers Warren Commission testimony from page 285 to 289 describing the activity around the area of the picket fence. Read Bowers' descriptions of the vehicles that entered the parking area and how they moved around as well as his testimony about the activity of people near the picket fence at the top of the grassy knoll.

Open minds, closed perception...

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 01/31/2008 - 9:33am.

Here's a remarkable demonstration of the "reliability" of human perception from the Visual Cognition Lab.

Oh God.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 8:53am.

Oly Stone. He makes movies. But he is hip to the food chain thing. Hmmm. What are the odds of that?

I Don't Know If There Was A Conspiracy Theory

Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Thu, 01/31/2008 - 11:44am.

or not but I found the BBC video riveting. I don't normally watch videos on my computer, especially ones that are an hour and a half long but I couldn't stop watching this one.

Thanks Rob!

I am a wobbly at heart. Always have been. Think I always will be. - Olyblogger "Mike"

Second piece of evidence of multiple gunmen:

Submitted by Mike on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 7:23am.

The bullet that struck the curb and subsequently slightly injured bystander James Tague:

Here is the link. (text removed, link inserted)

A little more analysis of the shooting

Submitted by Mike on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 7:26am.

To no avail, I asked this guy to keep it brief:

A Philadelphia Lawyer Analyzes
the Shots, Trajectories, and Wounds

by Vincent J. Salandria

Here is the link.

(text removed, link added)

This one's hosted by James Earl Jones,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 9:04pm.

so you KNOW it's got to be true.

I can't watch this again.

Submitted by Mike on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 8:03am.

but I also like James Earl Jones.

Rob, I would like to discuss the science, the acoustics, the ballistics evidence, timelines with Gug who demonstrates some commitment to process, but your participation so far has been dismissive, not respectful.

Please consider dropping out of this thread if you don't want to conform to Stevenl's suggestion that this be approached as a mystery. A mystery requires an open mind.

The thing is for me Mike,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 10:33am.

I'm not trying to be dismissive. I feel that most of the stuff in your list has been pretty conclusively dismissed scientifically. Watch the BBC video, it's informative, and the guy's got a great accent.

I love conspiracies as everyone knows.

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 9:45pm.

If 'acted alone' turns out to be true, my next line of thought leads to:

Did anyone else know of his plans? Did he have help? Was he working for someone? Did someone make sure he wasn't stopped?

I read that Ford, as part of the Warren Commission, "raised the bullet hole" on the President's coat to make all the facts jive. Who knows?

I remember after President Carter's innaguaration, Jimmy and Rosalyn walked the parade route. The media maded a big deal of that, in light of JFK.

Hoy smokes. You got me Mikey.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 8:09am.

I am denying the obvious truth bcause I just can't give up my Texas-grown beef. That sounds like another thread though... think.

Elucidate please.

Submitted by Mike on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 7:47am.

What I believe (don't know) is that there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza. 20 witnesses at Dealey Plaza testified they heard shot(s) from the direction of the Grassy Knoll. The Bowers testimony from the parking lot behind the GK places several men in the location and Bowers testified to some kind of activity in that area right after the shooting.

Secret Service agents on the scene testified to a flurry of shots, "bang-bang, bang." This testimony came at questioning from Specter at Warren Commission. Even if you can fire 7 shots in 7 seconds with a bolt action, you can't make a bolt action rifle fire a flurry, or two shots almost simultaneously.

The problems with the magic bullet are manifest. The necessary trajectory of the bullet defies physics and ballistics, and after ostensibly traveling through two men, shattering bones on the way, this magic bullet lodges in Connolly's thigh, but when Connolly is treated at Parkland, the bullet backs itself out of his thigh in almost pristine condition, good enough condition to be matched to Oswald's rifle. That's some bullet.

I can't tell if you have opened your mind to the possibility of multiple shooters or you are being sarcastic above. Probably doesn't matter to me. Reliving the politics and aftermath of the linked assassinations of JFK, MLK, RJK, and the others has depressed the hell out of me.

I think about the futility of real progress toward justice and compassion when I hear young "progressives" misunderstand what happened in the 60s, fail to understand how JFK and MLK were linked. (JFK sent federal troops to the south for school integration, he was deeply hated by the KKK types for his affrontery in that regard.)

That decade could have turned out very differently if key people who were committed to progressive change or were positioned to implement progressive change had not been efficiently and brutally taken out.

I think we didn't have to live through a decade of the Weathermen bombings, the race riots and cities burning, millions of deaths in the Vietnam war, all culminating in the two elections of Richard Nixon as potus. In the aftermath, we have the two terms of Nixon, two terms of Reagan, a term of Bush the elder and two of Bush the lesser. God, what an aftermath. But lots of money made by that figment of Eisenhower's imagination: the military industrial complex.

"had not been efficiently and brutally taken out?

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 9:15am.

By "efficiently" are you suggesting a master plan to kill all three?

No, I am not suggesting a master plan

Submitted by Mike on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 5:49pm.

I think that it is clear from the gun discussions here that the right wing folks are generally more likely than the progressives to have weapons and I think that firearms are generally more efficient way of killing folks than some other means, like claw hammer, rock, paper cut etc. An assassination that relied on claw hammer is less efficient.

So, because of the distribution of efficient killing machines (firearms) in the hands and homes of more right wing folks than left wing folks, if a person decides it has become politically imperative that they kill a political opponent, then right wing folks are likely to be more efficient about it.

I think the brutal efficiency of social darwinists (and that is generally a right wing draw) does not require a master plan.

Look at the efforts that those most radical left-wingers, the weathermen, put out to avoid setting off a bomb in a federal building except when the building was likely to be empty and then look at the bombing of the Murrah Building in OK. One is more brutally efficient in my mind than the other.

Gotcha

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 8:31am.

perfect sense...sadly. Makes me worry about Obama

I think you may understand my pov!

Submitted by Mike on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 8:53am.

Think about TFI's expressions here regarding his desire that this country conduct "total war" if we are going to square off with someone. Think about JT's jumping back and forth between contradictory intellectual positions for what I can only explain as brutally efficient and pragmatic political desire. When folks know they are right, the means they use to further their "right" political views become entirely without moral consequence.

I think Obama is mainstream enough to be safe. I think that could clearly not be said regarding Paul Wellstone or a guy like Dennis Kucinich. Luckily, Kucinich is out of the race now because I really like the guy. Edwards also might want to be careful, he seems to have some populist sensibilities.

Thanks guys

Submitted by stevenl on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 6:02am.

Mike's "What I believe (don't know)" can apply to both sides, I think. But all this discussion has made me step back and realize I should attempt to approach this subject with new eyes. I happen to agree with the U.S. House Committee that there is enough circumstantial evidence to prevent us from concluding beyond a reasonable doubt Oswald acted alone, 2nd gunman or no. In light of this, to say with confidence he acted entirely alone seems to me to be just as much a leap of faith as saying it was a full blown conspiracy, and coming from the same desire to have the ambiguity disappear.

We also forget Oswald was never tried and convicted. As such, he will forever remain the "alleged" gunman. We will probably just have to let it remain a great mystery.

I appreciate the contributions to this discussion. My brain is played out and needs to absorb this massive data dose before I can offer any more observations here. And I will attempt to be as open-minded as I can when I take it all in. So I bid you adieu. Discuss among yourselves if you wish, I'm going outside to have a cigar for breakfast.

You're right Steve

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 10:38am.

To say with certainty that Oswald acted alone, is an act of faith. But that is a valid statement for any murder. The only productive enterpirse is to find evidence that someone else was involved, rather that to "prove" Oswald acted alone. I like a good cigar...but in the morning? Well, hope you enjoyed it. Sorry if I was dismissive.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: