Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Experts Now Say JFK Bullet Analysis Was Wrong

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the just-ask-oliver-stone dept.

United States 550

Spy Handler writes "Researchers analyzing bullet fragments from the 1963 Kennedy assassination using new techniques say that the government's 1976 conclusion that the bullets came from only one gun (Oswald's) is wrong. 'Using new guidelines set forth by the National Academy of Sciences for proper bullet analysis, Tobin and his colleagues at Texas A&M re-analyzed the bullet evidence used by the 1976 House Select Committee on Assassinations, which concluded that only one shooter, Oswald, fired the shots that killed Kennedy in Dallas. The committee's finding was based in part on the research of now-deceased University of California at Irvine chemist Vincent P. Guinn. He used bullet lead analysis to conclude that the five bullet fragments recovered from the Kennedy assassination scene came from just two bullets, which were traced to the same batch of bullets Oswald owned.'"

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Finally (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167393)

It's about damn time. Maybe in another 44 years we'll also learn the truth about 9/11?

Re:Finally (4, Funny)

untaken_name (660789) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167437)

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

You'd be really blue after 44 years even if we did find out the truth then.

Not "wrong"... Just "not proven" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167705)

Misleading summary on Slashdot? Who would have thought? They didn't say it was wrong (meaning that there was more than one gunmen), they said the analysis was not correct. This means it could have been one gun, it could have been several - the analysis that supposedly proved one gunman actually did not. But, it didn't disprove one gunman either. Of course, "analysis not statistically significant" is a far cry from "multiple gunman proven", but which gets more clicks?

Re:Finally (5, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167863)

It wasn't done by the US, as much as people like you seem to believe/wish it were.

And yes, we've all seen the alleged "proof" (which is laughable at best).

A decent compendium debunking most of the more common little tidbits is here: []

(Yes, it's related to Loose Change, but since Loose Change is a collection of some of the more popular conspiracy theories/doubts/etc. about 9/11, it's a good place to start.)

There might be a lot of corrupt politicians, ulterior motives, and evil deeds in the world, but the US executing 9/11 on itself, and all that is implicit in that from technical, personnel, logistics, military, and numerous other perspectives, simply doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

You can say the US invited the attacks because of mideast policy. You can even say that some people might have not shed a tear in terms of the ability to then use 9/11 as a "Pearl Harbor"-type incident. But unfortunately, it was 19 mostly Saudi radical Islamic extremists - even if one believes they are monsters of the United States' own creation - that attacked the US on 9/11.

Not the US government or military itself. Not the shadow government. Not the Illuminati.

It's actually quite incredible what some conspiracy loons believe about 9/11. It simply does not stand up to any logic at all, or even common sense. Buildings weren't wired with explosives. It wasn't a drone or missile that hit the Pentagon. It wasn't remote control military aircraft that hit the towers. Voice changing technology wasn't used to make fake cell phone calls from Flight 93. Cell phones *do* work on planes (in various circumstances). The FCC/FAA cell phone "ban" isn't a trick so that people will "find out" that cell phones "don't work" under Flight 93-like conditions. Saying that something falls at "free fall speeds" (e.g., in reference to WTC 7) is meaningless and has no bearing on the discussion. Bringing up things like some NORAD exercise or Operation Northwoods or all kinds of tenuous, ridiculous, and (co)incidental information about some pilot who worked some particular place 25 years ago is irrelevant and meaningless. All/some of the planes weren't secretly landed safely at a military installation and then the occupants murdered. Hundreds/thousands of people haven't been "bought off" or "disappeared" to "cover up" the "truth" about 9/11.

I could go on and on and on and on. But ultimately, the people who want to believe 9/11 was an inside job will keep believing it, and any amount of proof otherwise won't sway them, and can indeed just be explained away as part of the conspiracy. Kind of like rabid Creationists, almost, frankly...

If you want to hate policy and a political view, go for it. But just realize that lunacy takes away any legitimacy from your debate, and getting other people to believe this tripe will eventually be the entire movement's undoing, or the end of *actual* truth (as opposed to your "truth") in any debate on this topic. And frankly, I think that may be what some people want.

Re:Finally (-1, Troll)

fredrated (639554) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168035)

Wow, you really freak out when someone suggests we don't know the truth about 9/11.

Re:Finally (2, Funny)

RockoTDF (1042780) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167995)

In addition, the US Military would not kill their own like that, or attack their own headquarters. To me that is what ultimately debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Get your tinfoil shelters out. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167395)

Time travllers came back and fired invisible bullets from the grassy knoll.

Re:Get your tinfoil shelters out. (1)

theJerk242 (778433) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167889)

I hear they brought their own weapons with a guy who has done it once before. They got paid when they returned.

Re:Get your tinfoil shelters out. (2, Funny)

throup (325558) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167983)

So you've been watching Red Dwarf [] recently too, have you?

Re:Get your tinfoil shelters out. (1)

elFarto the 2nd (709099) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168057)

Actually, I watched it yesterday...

Re:Get your tinfoil shelters out. (1)

Non-CleverNickName (1027234) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168095)

So THAT'S why John Titor [] came back!

That bastard!!

JFK, blown away. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167399)

What else do I have to say?

Re:JFK, blown away. (4, Funny)

DrDitto (962751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167625)

Moderating this as "Funny" is sick.

Re:JFK, blown away. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167687)

What, too soon?

You must not have heard.. (1)

Ahnteis (746045) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167711)

You must not have heard the song he's quoting from?

Re:You must not have heard.. (-1, Troll)

DrDitto (962751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167765)

I've heard the song. Does not justify the moderator implying that "JFK blown away" is Funny. Neither does Billy Joel.

Re:JFK, blown away. (1)

edflyerssn007 (897318) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167721)

It's from we didn't start the fire by Billy Joel.

That's why its funny. Listen to the song.


Re:JFK, blown away. (1)

BosstonesOwn (794949) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167961)

Yes , then this one will be worse. We can now clone Kennedy ! This one with a head.

seriously (3, Interesting)

Ace905 (163071) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167415)

Seriously, was there ever any doubt? Did _anybody_ believe the government over all of the eye witnesses, the drawn out court-case, the ridiculous implausible explanation required, or the pristine perfect bullet found OUTSIDE his body?

It's good somebody finally _proved_ they were lying, but we still don't know why they lied - and really, what moron ever thought the case was closed.

this moron []

Re:seriously (4, Funny)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167463)

In my defense, I rejected the official story on the grounds that the Freemasons had to be involved. So I'm immune from criticism.

Re:seriously (4, Insightful)

MankyD (567984) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167531)

It's good somebody finally _proved_ they were lying, but we still don't know why they lied...

It's worth noting that they did not prove that they were lying. Rather, they simply proved that they were wrong in their original analysis.

This reminds me of a particular xkcd comic [] .

Re:seriously (4, Informative)

Obyron (615547) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167533)

I saw a very fascinating Discovery documentary entitled "Beyond the Magic Bullet" wherein they replicated as closely as possible conditions of the day, and a shooter was able to fire a shot nearly perfectly recreating the wounds from the magic bullet, and resulting in a round that had equal deformity (which was very little) to that of the "Magic" bullet. It was very very startling to me, as a doubter of the probability of the theory, and forced me to reevaluate things. I'm still not sure if I believe that it's what happened, but those decrying the single shooter "magic bullet" theory as scientifically impossible are wrong.

Re:seriously (4, Funny)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167783)

Unless, of course, the Discovery documentary you watched was a propaganda piece carefully orchestrated by the FBI (or whomever) specifically designed to make you think that the magic bullet people are wrong so that you will dismiss their arguments and accept the official story!

You'll have to pardon me for that, the X Files movie is available On Demand on my cable system and I keep watching bits and pieces of it.

I second this (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167791)

This special was very illuminating. The main takeaway for me, besides the magic bullet, is that most analysis has Gov. Connolly in the wrong position vis a vis JFK.

Re:seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167847)

I watched that special also, and it examined up many other specials or movies that I have watched. It clearly shows that some of the conspiracy theorists manipulated or omitted key data. I think that after watching that special, most people will feel that there was very little chance of a conspiracy. If, after watching that special, one does feel that there was still a major conspiracy, then most likely there won't be anything that will ever change their mind.

Re:seriously (4, Interesting)

aminorex (141494) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167873)

I can tell you one thing that is impossible: That Oswald was the shooter. There's a nice photograph of the front of the TSRB as Kennedy rides by, published in Look magazine immediately after the assassination, which shows Oswald on the sidewalk, street-level, wearing the same shirt he was wearing when Jack Ruby killed him.

Re:seriously (1)

fezwang (781971) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167911)

Well that settles it. I mean if you saw it on TV it MUST be true!

Slow your horses there, cowboy. (3, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167645)

Based on common analysis at the time, it was reasonable conclusion.

This analysis is full of maybes

"If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald."

Or he fired another shot.
The guy who claims this has been afer the FBI for years, and what better way to get in the press then dragging this out. Lets see some other groups confirm his analysis.

Even though this post is clearly trollish in nature, and quite frankly doesn't belong on /. there is no reason to exsasorbate the issue with post like yours.

Was there more then one shooter? I don't know.
What I do know is this:
Any moment in time, looked at be enough people begin to show things that dno't make sense. Any event has thing that seem unexplainable 20+ years down the road.
I also watched a man hit a moving target at 1000 yards, repeatably.
I also no that if there was another shooter, that doesn't mean there is a cover up or conspiracy. Just a wrong conclusion based on faulty analysis.

What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167655)

Who madded that fucking idiot up? Why are you people so fucking stupid?

Re:seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167709)

stop jumping to conclusions. They didn't "prove" anything. Conspiracy nuts always latch on to evidence as proof. Stop it!

Why is it so hard to believe Oswald did it. Numerous recreations have done a wonderful job of demonstrating the feasibility. That doesn't mean it's settled, but you sure sound like an irrational person.

Re:seriously (4, Insightful)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167805)

Have you ever read or watched anything about the JFK assassination other than the movie JFK?

If you have watched or read any recent documentary you will know that the "magic bullet theory" isn't magical at all. You would also know that JFK being shot from anywhere besides the book depository is basically an impossibility.

This revelation is interesting only because there is a possibility of a second gunmen. Most of the places where people claim a second gunmen to be have been heavily debunked in recent documentaries. I would speculate that the bullets are from the same gun (and are actually two bullets). Just because the methodology of the test isn't correct doesn't mean that the results of the test were completely false.

There is no need for a second gunmen to prove that there was a conspiracy or that Lee acted alone, it is just the easiest way to do so. Lee had such a weird life and there are plenty of holes in his life, especially after he joined the Marines.

I really don't see any other tests coming up with anything other than the fragments are from two bullets that came from Lee's gun. It would be much more correct to say that "Experts Now Say JFK Bullet Analysis MIGHT Be Wrong." And it is still a very big MIGHT.

Re:seriously (2, Interesting)

hcmtnbiker (925661) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167937)

Seriously, was there ever any doubt? Did _anybody_ believe the government over all of the eye witnesses, the drawn out court-case, the ridiculous implausible explanation required, or the pristine perfect bullet found OUTSIDE his body?

  • Witnesses couldn't have seen anything the TIME tape didn't catch about the shootings. Sure talk about the grassy knoll all you want, but with all the people there(the "witnesses" you where talking about) I would expect at least a fair physical description of a suspect from there or something more then a "it looked like smoke came from there" response.
  • Oswald happened to get shot in the middle of it all, that might have messed up the court system maybe?
  • What explanation would you have considered plausible given the strange occurance of the entry vs exit wounds? Tell me why there was no bullet found that would have come from the opposite direction(the main conspiracy theory relies on a wound in JFKs back to be an exit wound, but that would mean there's a bullet lying around somewhere).
  • Last, what pristine bullet are you talking about? I know of one that ended up in 5 pieces inside JFK, and another that ended up in the car after passing through the original's entry/exit wounds and passing through his I believe right leg before embedding itself in the car(and not in prestine condition either).

Re:seriously (1)

Jaeph (710098) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167957)

They went from "these fragments come from one bullet" to "these fragments come from one or more bullets" based on *statistics* derived from firing similar bullets.

But please, by all means, let's state "case closed" and put forth all sorts of fun conspiracy theories. The evidence is certainly overwhelming now...


Re:seriously -- get a grip (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167999)

There a certain facts about JFK's assignation that will always make me conclude that Oswald was a lone gunman. 1. Oswald was nuts. He fits all the personality profiles of people that do this crazy shit. 2. He was an excellent marksman. 3. The book depository window was less than 200 feet from the limo. That is not very far for even a mildly skilled marksman. 4. His rifle was a Italian Carcano. [] One of the most accurate military firearms issued. My father had this gun, and he used to shoot muskrats at a 1/4 mile with iron sights -- much less 200 feet thru a scope for Oswald. 5. Carcano bullets can go thru tree stumps and come out undamaged -- I've seen it. 6. Bullets do weird things at high velocity.

Taken as a whole, it's much simpler and believable to see that one crazy man with skill and mental illness can shoot the president from less than 200 feet with a highly accurate rifle, rather than everyone from LBJ, Castro, the FBI, the CIA, and the KGB helping him.

wow (1)

Dretep (903366) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167425)

This is something the non-experts have known all along. Can't wait until the truth comes out either! That and the truth about the fake moon landing.

Case Closed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167439)

Gerald Posner's book nailed it anyways. Why is slashdot delving into conspiracy theories now? I hope they don't start getting Moon hoaxes or 9/11 conspiracy stories.

Re:Case Closed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167511)

cmdrdildo has to drum up hits from somewhere. legit tech and science articles aren't doing it anymore since the site has done a fine job of driving off people who wanted to come here to read "news for nerds, stuff that matters"

slashdot is well on it's way down the slippery slope we hear so much about.

At last! (1)

Gizmit (610399) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167443)

And they called me mad for espousing the Grassy Knoll theory. MAD! Maybe next I'll be vindicated on UFOs, Bigfoot, Watergate, Moon Landings, and the truth behind Mulder's sister's kidnapping.

Then who did it? (2, Funny)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167449)

Then who did it? CowboyNeal?

Zapruder film (1, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167453)

Uhh..I thought that the Zapruder film, the fact that bullet took an upward, not a downward trajectory, and eyewitness testimony have already trounced on the Warren Commission's findings that Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas that shot Kennedy.

But I guess this just adds one more piece of evidence for the federal government to completely ignore.

Re:Zapruder film (2, Funny)

techpawn (969834) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167585)

Back... and to the left... Back... and to the left...

Re:Zapruder film (3, Funny)

airen9 (970895) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167749)

"...back and to the left, back and to the left. Which, by the way, that action you see Kennedy's head go through in the Zapruder film - caused by a bullet... [points behind him] comin from up there, ha. Yes, I know it looks to the layman or someone who might dabble in physics... This action here would be caused by a bullet coming from... Well... [thinks] Up here, did you see that? Did everyone see that? Yeah, but no. What happened was Oswald's gun went off, causing an echo to echo through the buildings of Dealey Plaza and the echo went by the limo on the left up into the grassy knoll hitting some leaves causing dust to fly out which 56 witnesses testified was a gun shot, cos immediately... Kennedy's head went over. But the reason his head went over is cause the echo went by the motorcade on the left and he went "What was that?" "

Re:Zapruder film (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167799)

Wax On Wax Off?

Re:Zapruder film (1)

teh_chrizzle (963897) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167891)

the zapruder film was wrong. dan rather told all of america on CBS that kennedy's head went "forward, with considerable violence". dan says it was all oswald, and that should be good enough for you too.

Oh good grief (4, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167461)

He's dead - get over it. Marilyn Monroe: dead too. Elvis: him too.
Get over it.

Re:Oh good grief (1, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167573)

He's dead - get over it.

The only way in which I agree with you is that it is highly unlikely that we will uncover the other shooter. (Assuming there's only one other.) There was an eye witness to an individual on the grassy knoll, but too much time has passed.

If we could possibly uncover the identity of one or more additional shooters and gain some insight into who was behind the entire operation, that would be beautiful.

In closing, I will say just one thing about the whole affair - there is no proof that Harvey even shot JFK once, let alone twice. He was killed before we got to hear his testimony. But we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald. Make of that what you will.

Re:Oh good grief (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167695)

Even knowing the identity and motives of the "real" assassin would do nothing more than satisfy historical curiosity. It would be no different than finding out that Archduke Ferdinand was really killed by a Frenchman. You can't change history. (but you can re-write it.)

Re:Oh good grief (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167785)

Even knowing the identity and motives of the "real" assassin would do nothing more than satisfy historical curiosity. It would be no different than finding out that Archduke Ferdinand was really killed by a Frenchman. You can't change history. (but you can re-write it.)

Well, I don't give any particular credence to any of the individual theories (I'm not an expert on the subject, or any related subject) but some have speculated that it was a faction within our government that assassinated JFK, that Ruby would have suffered even worse had he not executed Harvey and so on. If it's true, then those people are probably still profiting from the assassination and they should be found and imprisoned, and their ill-gotten goods taken away. (Most would say they should be executed; for the record, I am anti-death penalty for any reason save if it is physically impossible to imprison someone who will otherwise do people harm. And I'm having a hard time imagining such a situation barring the fall of civilization or similar.)

It's not about changing history, it's about understanding history, and its implications for both the present and future.

Re:Oh good grief (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168015)

SO you ahve completly closed your mind, well done.

Here is a clue go to the repository.

Any trained marksman could make that shot. It would be follish and risky to have a second shooter on the grassy knoll. More exposed, harder shot.

Re:Oh good grief (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167719)

He's dead - get over it .... Elvis: him too.

Nah. I saw him Kalamazoo, MI [] ! I swear!

Re:Oh good grief (4, Funny)

niceone (992278) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167733)

Yeah, yeah, JFK and Monroe, sure. But not Elvis.

Re:Oh good grief (0)

Gryffin (86893) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167759)

He's dead - get over it.

Hell no.

A sitting US president is assassinated in public, a shoddy cover-up is hastily staged, and then for forty years, despite mounting evidence contrary to the oficial story, all three branches of the Federal government continue the cover-up. I damn sure want to know who, why, and how. And if you consider the United States to be a nation of laws, and morally superior to the sort of banana republics that change regimes at the point of a gun, you should too.

Re:Oh good grief (5, Insightful)

Gospodin (547743) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168033)

What I want to know is, if they're so good at maintaining the cover story for all these years, how come they're so frickin' incompetent at everything else?

Re:Oh good grief (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19168051)

as Bill Hicks once observed:

"If you don't want to talk about Kennedy, then don't bring up Jesus to me.

'You know Bill, Jesus died for your-'

'Yeah yeah, it was a long time ago. Get over it.'"

Does anyone really care anymore? (1, Insightful)

s.bots (1099921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167487)

Why are people still deeply researching this? JFK is dead, so is Princess Diana, so is Elvis; the world is still spinning and everyone else has moved on. I don't understand, why are people concerned with this?

Re:Does anyone really care anymore? (1)

Tobenisstinky (853306) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167527)


Re:Does anyone really care anymore? (2, Insightful)

tgd (2822) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167559)


People make a lot of money writing books.

Re:Does anyone really care anymore? (1)

ChrisMounce (1096567) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167649)

Because conspiracy stories appeal to people.

Re:Does anyone really care anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167681)

Because the people who killed him might be still alive and running the USA government today.

Re:Does anyone really care anymore? (2, Funny)

jcronen (325664) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167839)

I was going to make the same point, but then I saw that the next article down on the main page is entitled "Does Zelda Need an Overhaul?" and realized Slashdot is the wrong forum to decide what is useful and what isn't.

Re:Does anyone really care anymore? (4, Insightful)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167841)

"I don't understand, why are people concerned with this?"

You nailed by italicizing the "why." Mysteries always intrigue the human animal. We read books to find out what happens. Women chase men who are ... mysterious. "Who is he?" She wonders. We want what we can't have. What we do have, we want to get rid of. Why? We want something new, someone new, new experiences. Lewis called this true joy. Joy, true joy, he explained, is never in the having, but always in the desiring. Never is a thing more perfect than when we don't have it. Never is someone more lovely than when we lose them and can no longer have them. Psychologists tell us that people dumped in a relationship tend to only remember the good things about the one who dumped them. Even the dumper, in time, feels this way. Why? It rebuilds mystery. It rebuilds joy. It rebuilds the what, who and why of it all.

Why do people care about JFK's death? Because he was the president of the United States. He was mysteriously killed. A very important person dying a very mysterious death builds tons of who, what and why. Yes, in a sense, it builds that mechanism in us that craves knowing. How many of us wouldn't pay all our money to have a true, clear answer to a question that's pained us in our lives? We see that answer as something joyful, fulfilling. Some call it closure. Some call it joy....

Re:Does anyone really care anymore? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167849)

To wake the people so that they can truly know what the government is up to. Instead, the government distracts us with various issues that they won't solve on purpose to keep the average person's eyes away from the truth. They use the media to sensationalize these "Conspiracy nut cases" in a way that makes the people think that anyone who disagrees with the government is crazy, insane, or just plain weird. Since most people avoid being weird to better fit in, they essentially avoid questioning the government.

Hence, why the good conspiracy buffs are really trying to blow the lid off of a cover up in order to jar people's awareness. Why do you think the differences between democrats and republicans keeps spreading (more non-issues) and the people's votes keep getting closer to 50-50? They are turning people against each other so that they focus on "the other half" of the population instead of their government.

How many times did you hear republicans gripe at the democrats for voting Clinton in twice?
How many times did you hear democrats gripe at the republicans for voting Bush in twice?

Do people really want our troops to pull out of Iraq, or just want Bush to fail? (At the cost of hundreds of thousands or Iraqis and a new home for terrorists?)

Yet during all this, our government is most likely using this to cover things up. How about Katrina? That seems to be getting covered up. When is the last time you heard about it?

Re:Does anyone really care anymore? (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167853)

Some people are obviously overcompensating. "See! See! It *wasn't* the Government!". It might be a good story, but it's still a story.

Re:Does anyone really care anymore? (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168021)

I guess we should say the same about 9/11 and the WTC?

Who cares?

"Experts", huh? (1, Insightful)

The Warlock (701535) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167501)

So, unnamed, so-called "Experts" are here to stoke conspiracy theory bullshit and maybe sell a book. What else is new?

Re:"Experts", huh? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167823)

Yes, this guy seems legit, but considering the nature of this issue, I want several outside groups to confirm it.
ANd he does seem to have an axe to grind with the FBI.

Re:"Experts", huh? (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167845)

So, unnamed, so-called "Experts" are here to stoke conspiracy theory bullshit and maybe sell a book. What else is new?

What else is new. Well the new is that it was alien lizard monsters from outer space that killed JFK.

Re:"Experts", huh? (4, Informative)

swillden (191260) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167887)

So, unnamed, so-called "Experts" are here to stoke conspiracy theory bullshit and maybe sell a book. What else is new?

From the article, the main guy is William A. Tobin "the FBI lab's chief metallurgy expert for more than two decades". Sounds like an expert to me. He could be wrong, of course, but I would think his say-so would be enough to warrant another review of the evidence, with the improved techniques that he already got the FBI to adopt.

Re:"Experts", huh? (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167899)

If you bothered to RTFA, you would've noticed that the "Experts" were, in fact, named.

"Tobin was the FBI lab's chief metallurgy expert for more than two decades. He analyzed metal evidence in major cases that included the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 explosion of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island."

In other news (4, Funny)

niceone (992278) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167535)

The researchers believe that the chunk of "grassy knoll" they found among the fragments might also be significant.

I really wonder if this is just (-1, Troll)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167539)

a timely release of information to take the heat off of GWB and his pals dancing around the law in D.C.?

If people are busy worrying about the secrets surrounding the murder of JFK they will be too busy to notice the secrets that are currently being shoved under the carpet in the Whitehouse?

Re:I really wonder if this is just (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167639)

Whoa, it's a meta-conspiracy.

Re:I really wonder if this is just (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167901)

news bulletin! the world still turns even if you have a bug up your ass about who's in office.

just because you happen to dislike the president doesn't mean that everyone else has to stop their lives and take time to focus all of their energy on your target. people get on with their lives and don't spend every waking moment trying to find new ways to interject their political ideals into every conversation.

if anything i feel bad about the people who can't just get on with their own lives. it must suck to not have anything aside from newspaper headlines and slashdot.

Re:I really wonder if this is just (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168031)

Uhhh, hello, McFly! tap tap tap

That person in the Whitehouse currently, along with his pals, are trying harder than anyone in recent history to erode away and steal your personal freedoms. They are deserving of 'our' attention, even if you don't get the joke... meh

Re:I really wonder if this is just (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19168041)

No, that was the death of Falwell. He was "sacrificed" to take away from the Comey/Ashcroft scandal that broke the same morning about warrantless wiretapping. The last time Gonzales was on the hotseat, it was the Virginia Tech shooting that took all the coverage. This time it was Falwell.

Cmon Seriously? (4, Informative)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167555)

Obviously there was another shooter that the Gov didn't want you to know. If you look at Oswald's history he was all over the place...defecting to the Soviet Union when he was 19, just 3 days after being discharged from the Marines...that has CIA written all over it.

Re:Cmon Seriously? (1)

guacamole (24270) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168003)

If you look at Oswald's history he was all over the place...defecting to the Soviet Union when he was 19, just 3 days after being discharged from the Marines...that has CIA written all over it.

How does that disprove the lone gunman theory? After reading Oswald's biography, I am actually pretty much convinced that Oswald was a real nut and lunatic and very capable of being a lone maniac who shot the president.

I can hear it now (3, Funny)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167565)

I can hear it now ... somewhere Bill Hicks is giggling to himself.

Re:I can hear it now (4, Funny)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167893)

I was just down in Dallas, Texas. You know, you can go down there and to Dealey Plaza where Kennedy was assassinated. And you can actually go to the sixth floor of the Schoolbook Depository. It's a museum called ... "The Assassination Museum". I think they named it that after the assassination. I can't be too sure of the chronology here, but ... anyway, they have the window set up to look exactly like it did on that day. And it's really accurate, you know, 'cause Oswald's not in it.

- Bill Hicks

Back, and to the right. (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167567)

Back.....And to the right.

just to be clear (4, Insightful)

mzs (595629) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167569)

"They reached no conclusion about whether more than one gunman was involved"

They only have shown that it is not statistically certain that all bullet fragments were of similar make-up of to those of Oswald's.


ArcSecond (534786) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167739)

At least SOMEONE is paying attention to the semantics of this thing.

Why does everybody on Slashdot feel the need to jump to conclusions before RTFA?

Re:MOD PARENT UP (4, Funny)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167907)

Your statement implies that they were ever going to RTFA. I find that a rather bold and unwarranted conclusion.

We're Slashdot: we already know everything we need to know. We're just waiting for everybody else to find it out.

Re:just to be clear (4, Interesting)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167813)

They only have shown that it is not statistically certain that all bullet fragments were of similar make-up of to those of Oswald's.

That is not at all what the article says. What it says is that the previous investigation concluded that all bullet fragments came from only 2 bullets. This new study shows that it is possible that the fragments came from three or more bullets . So assuming that now people think that 3 or more bullets were fired, the question is - How many of those bullets could Oswald have fired? My understanding is that some people think he could have gotten off 3 shots within the time allowed. Others say that it would be almost impossible to fire more than 2. So until we seem to come to a conclusion that Oswald could only have fired 2 bullets and not 3, we haven't seen anyone rule out that Oswald could have fired 3 bullets himself.

I *knew* there was a coverup! (1)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167577)

We must find those responsible and bring them to justice! I call dibs on the big shovel.

Chuck Norris Killed JFK (3, Funny)

Skeetskeetskeet (906997) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167589)

Further analysis of the ballistics and stop-motion digitized frames of the famous Zapruder video clearly show that in the frames immediately before the supposed "bullet" that killed JFK Mr. Norris is seen diving into the view of the camera and stopping Oswald's bullet with his beard before it hit the President.

Subsequent analysis shows that JFK's head exploded in sheer amazement of Norris' ability to stop the bullet.

~Conspiracy, Still (2, Insightful)

Omestes (471991) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167633)

Wait, meaning he could have loaded his gun with bullets from different batches of rounds?

Am I misreading this? It just says that some of the fragments had different chemical profiles, meaning they come from different sources. So, why couldn't he have used different sources for his bullets? How does this make a conspiracy, still?

Not this again! (1)

ErnoWindt (301103) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167647)

There is absolutely no credible evidence that anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald was involved in the assasination of JFK. None. Zero. Instead of reading pro-conspiracy propaganda, read some factual, historical accounts, like Posner's magesterial "Case Closed." If, after that, you still believe it was a conspiracy, actually read the Warren Commission report. With all due respect to the analysts who did the research cited in Slashdot, their work is in some way flawed or inadvertently misleading.

This casts doubt how? (4, Informative)

Flababo (1103759) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167663)

This story makes it seem as though this new revelation casts doubt on the whole story. Simply because the lead analysis is wrong doesn't invalidate the highly compelling ballistics evidence and reliable eyewitness testimony. While the lead analysis may not preclude a second shooter, the other evidence certainly does. I would suggest reading Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK by Gerald Posner. It does a very convincing job of examining and supporting Oswald as the sole shooter. This new analysis is not a smoking gun and shame on the media for slanting it that way.

Re:This casts doubt how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19168069)

Analysis of one page of Posner's book: []

Was it Arlen Specter? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167673)

Dont have the time to read all the cofig theories. Let me know when the guy on the grassy knoll is proved to be Arlene Specter.

Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? (5, Insightful)

Syncerus (213609) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167715)

I used to believe a bunch of the conspiracy bs until I actually visited the site of the shooting in person. Once you've been to the Book Repository and seen the location in person, it becomes painfully obvious that it was almost trivially easy for Oswald to have done the shooting. Quite frankly, the conditions make it very easy (almost convenient) for Oswald to kill Kennedy.

In a nutshell, the location is **small**. Everything is very close together, distances are modest and the shooting was very, very easy from the window to the traveling automobile. The angle was just about ideal for Oswald. The "grassy knoll" is a joke, and the angle from the "knoll" was much less favorable for an assassination attempt.

Seriously folks, go visit the Book Repository yourself. All the conspiracy FUD is just anger and disappointment that something exciting and pretty was destroyed by something ugly and small.

Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? (1)

MontyApollo (849862) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167909)

The first time I was in Dealey Plaza I had the same reaction - it was much smaller and closed in than I expected.

Re:Every been to Dealey Plaza? In person? (0)

geek (5680) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168087)

My understanding is that it has a lot less to do with the angle and more to do with the time between shots. He was using a bolt action rifle and needed to pull the bolt back each time he fired. A lot of people feel that he would have to be superman to have fired as quickly as he did. Granted he was a trained marksman but even a lot of other trained marksmen believe it was just too fast for a single shooter.

This is the reason why (1)

Programmer_In_Traini (566499) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167835)

This is exactly why people do random acts of shooting, it is glorified.

This is where it starts. Oswald took the role of the bad guy with an opinion. He kills the president and we transform it into a national event!

Now, we have people spending their entire day breaking their brains trying to understand whether Oswald was alone or not, or if he shot once or twice...or ... whatever.

So the message we're really sending to all these lunatic and despaired people is that a good way to be heard is to kill people. They will lose their life (which they dont seem to care about) then a ton of people will give them attention by trying to understand them. They will be seen on the internet, the TV, the radio.

I really wish we'd give less attention to that kind of event, so that in the end, its stops being the "in" thing to do if you are despaired.

Heck, maybe they'd even start blaming rock n roll again for violence and leave the gamers alone :)

To quote the late, great Bill Hicks (2, Insightful)

loafula (1080631) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167921)

"I have this feeling that whoever's elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what promises you make on the campaign trail - blah, blah, blah - when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down... and it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll.... And then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, 'Any questions?'"

The accidental assassin (5, Interesting)

steveha (103154) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167931)

One interesting theory I heard: there were two shooters, but the second shooter might not have intended to shoot.

There were various Secret Service people around, armed with various weapons. If you are well trained, you carry a weapon with the safety applied, and with your finger off the trigger, and the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. But sometimes people do screw up.

So, according to this theory, Oswald starts shooting at JFK, and someone screws up and fires off an accidental shot from an AR-15 or something. Then the person who screwed up never admitted it, because if you fatally shot the man you were trying to protect, would you be in a hurry to admit it?

The accidental shot could have been while taking the safety off in a hurry with a finger on the trigger, for example. (One of Cooper's famous three laws of firearm safety: keep your finger outside the trigger guard until you have the sights lined up on a target you are willing to shoot.) otated.asp []

I heard this theory from Massad Ayoob years ago during a lecture on safety. He felt that JFK's head wound was consistent with the small, fast bullet fired by an AR-15, while JFK's other wounds were consistent with a big, heavy, slow bullet fired by the Carcano rifle used by Oswald. []

I have not researched this enough to have an opinion on how likely it is, but I do find it interesting.


I'm no conspiracy theorist... (5, Interesting)

TheBearBear (1103771) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167955)

But when I came across this wiki article [] , I said "HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, I wonder"

From Wiki Article on JFK Assassination

"The FBI has received added scrutiny by Kennedy assassination researchers due to the actions of FBI agent James Hosty. Hosty appeared in Oswald's address book. The FBI provided to the Warren Commission a typewritten transcription of Oswald's address book, in which Hosty's name and phone number were omitted. Two days before the assassination, Oswald went to the FBI office in Dallas to meet with Hosty, and when he found that Hosty was not in the office at the time, Oswald left an envelope for Hosty with a letter inside. After Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby, Hosty's supervisor ordered Hosty to destroy the letter, and he did so by tearing the letter up and flushing it down the toilet. Months later, when Hosty testified before the Warren Commission, he did not disclose this connection with Oswald. This information became public later and was investigated by the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations.[57]"

This is Great News! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167959)

Coast to coast AM has been pretty boring lately. Can you believe they actually had a climate scientist on talking about global warming recently? WTF!!!

Really, if they want to talk about real shit, I'll just stick with the newspapers.

At one in the morning, when I'm falling asleep, I want to hear about ghosts, chupacabras, aliens, ufos, secret cities on the moon, bigfoot, etc...

This is great news, because there is likely to be a good handfull of 'experts' who will lull me to sleep with stories of 'I told ya so!' on the JFK conspiracies now.

E Howard Hunt (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19168055)

On his deathbed recently confessed to the conspiracy.. 407deathbedconfession.htm []

The motives were there in spades too.

Yeah Yeah, knock the messenger (prisonplanet), but read it first.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>