Who does the American public currently believe to be the shooter? Is there consensus for some theory?
According to Wikipedia, what you may be thinking of is a 2007 discovery of an previously unknown film of that day taken over a minute before the shooting.
That exactly three shots were fired is fairly well-established by the available evidence. That a single shot went through Kennedy's back and throat into Connally is incredibly well-established. This ends up meaning that theories with a second shooter create even larger holes than they're trying to close with the second shooter, sort of like 9/11 controlled demolition theories.
> Who does the American public currently believe to be the shooter? Is there consensus for some theory?
I believe the majority of Americans believe Oswald to be the sole shooter. While a majority do believe in some conspiracy theory, I think the bulk of the conspiracy theory tends to be that Oswald was the shooter for some nebulous conspiratorial group.
What does this have to do with anything? Reality isn't a democracy.
It's absolutely possible the shot came from Oswald. Tastelessness aside, try playing JFK Reloaded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded). Claiming the ballistics don't make sense is as debunked as claiming jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
Just note: Jet Fuel probably can't melt steel beams, because steel has a significantly higher melting point than the temperature of jet fuel.
Of course, Steel Beams are about as strong as a wet-noodle at Jet-fuel temperatures: https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA?t=1m55s
Which of course, would cause the towers to collapse.
But seriously, Jet Fuel doesn't "melt" steel beams. It just weakens them tot he point where they break easily. You can't make ANY mistakes when talking to a conspiracy theorist. They are right about the melting point of steel, but that doesn't help their argument at all.
We tried the (UL approved) office debris theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw (yt may axe that chan)
For example:
> Also there were documented hotspots that were in excess of steel melting temperature.
This will be evidence for the Thermite that the "Big Bad Government" planted in the towers to make it an inside job.
--------
When talking to a conspiracy theorist, do NOT challenge them to a facts battle. You take their facts that they tell you, and you debunk what they're saying individually. The vast majority of 9/11 Truthers believe in "Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams", so you must FOCUS on this argument.
A conspiracy theorist will always, always, ALWAYS "out fact" you. Because their community is making up bull----, they have way more "facts" than you ever will have. You can't win by "breadth" of argument, you can only win with "depth" of argument.
NEVER broaden an argument against a conspiracy theorist. That's how they win.
But I didn't say that "The steel didn't melt". All that I said was "Jet Fuel probably can't melt steel beams".
This has two effects:
1. It makes the Conspiracy Theorist more willing to listen to you because you agree to their premise. You have to learn to "pick your battles" so to speak, and "giving your opponent a bone" so that they continue the discussion is rather important.
2. If higher temperatures WERE documented, that doesn't disprove the premise: that the Towers _could_ have collapsed under lower temperatures.
That was one of the best videos I've ever watched. Thanks for reminding me about it.
Most people are actually quite intelligent and generally rational. If a large number of people finding something unconvincing is very often an indication that it warrants further investigation. Sometimes it turns out that all those people are wrong, but also, sometimes it doesn't.
If you ever go to Dallas visit the Sixth Floor (jfk.org). A 30min - 2 hour visit. Stand near where oswald stood. Talk to employee/volunteers about jfk the movie and other theories.
It's moving and if you were alive in '63 a place you recognize