"JFK was not killed by Oswald"?

[Hus]

A retired FBI Agent from Summit County is making claims regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy that go beyond conspiracy theories.

 

Don Adams speaks clearly and concisely when describing the events of November 22, 1963, the day President Kennedy was killed, and he doesn't waiver from his position that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill President John F. Kennedy in Dallas.

 

"It is a fact," says Adams, and he says he has the FBI documents to prove it.

 

http://www.kwgn.com/...0,3644102.story

 

I have always believed the same, not because of films or the many feverish websites that are knee-jerk reactions to wider fantasies, etc, but by reasoned thought as an intelligent individual (which is impossible for anyone who deviates from official 'fact' apparently?). But what do you think?

Edited April 23, 2011 by Hus

[Melvadius]

I feel there are several inconsistencies in the written article about this if you consider the following extract:

 

"It is a fact," says Adams, and he says he has the FBI documents to prove it.

 

At his home in Akron, Ohio, Adams is surrounded by thousands of reports and records from the National Archives and Records Administration. His name appears on many of the papers, but he says other reports have been doctored, or are missing, "Everything I had done is gone. It's all gone," Adams said.

 

Either the documents exist or they don't.

 

I suppose the files he has surrounded himself with are those he has obtained through the US Freedom of Information legislation but if they are not then it does call into question why he has them or indeed if they are originals or copies obtained from somewhere else.

 

Personally I don't subscribe wholeheartedly to the conspiracy theories for one simple reason. I remember the joys of working with paper records and how long it took to compile and distribute even simple information in a massive organisation in the late-70's which were still in the days pre-mass computing power. Even if the security agencies may have had cutting edge-machines by the 70's they were still somewhat cumbersome devices to use and operate.

 

A lot of the 'reasoning' behind the conspiracy theories stems from a basic misunderstanding of how easy or otherwise it was in the period to write up and transmit full reports around America and act on them when received. There also is a basic failure to understand how rife infighting was (and still is) within the competing security apparatus of the States.

 

As far as I can remember there have been several attempts to work out how many shots could have been fired by someone skilled with a bolt action weapon against those whcih could be confirmed as fired on the basis of film soundtracks, sighting lines and the type of weapon apparently used. In my view the arguments for as many as 11 shots being fired (possibly from several marksmen) have never stacked up due in no small part to who else would have been hit in such a fusilade from differing angles.

 

On that basis I remain skeptical but will reserve judgement until I see the quality of 'proof' which is claimed to 'now' exist.

 

Edit - in the context of the preceeding this site has some interesting views on the 'strong' evidence in the case and looking at it I would say that it continues to point to 'Oswald' as the only reasonable suspect in the case.

 

While this site lists some of the contradictory information from the original medical and other reports which conspiracy theorists have pounced on as evidence of a cover-up.

 

My own view: yes it was confusing and several statements were contradictory but in the circumstances I can well understand that - everyone was in shock that the 'Golden Boy' President had been assassinated the press were demanding statements and hounding everyone they could think of for an opinion while the presidential guards/ police didn't know where the shots had come from initially and several went haring off all over the place including a certain grassy knoll. Conspiracy? The only conspiracy was confusion aided and abetted by a rampant press corp and in later years compounded by pseudo-documentaries like Oliver Stone's film.

[Ursus]

I remember after the Iron Curtain fell, a retired KGB officer was interviewed who said the Russians had proof that it was a conspiracy. But, tellingly, he didn't offer any details....

 

There are things for me that don't add up about the official reports. But like Melvadius I reserve judgement.

 

The most widely held theory that JFK was killed by the military-industrial complex to escalate involvement in Vietnam just doesn't stack up, as Kennedy was a committed Cold Warrior and might have taken that route anyway.

[Viggen]

The whole topic has been so eloquently described by Seinfeld, what a crazy good show it was...