Hacker News Reader

Comment by _justinfunk | Hacker News Reader

"convince anyone" of what?

That the mainstream/official view (Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone) is correct, and that there is no conspiracy to hide that it was actually orchestrated by the CIA/KGB/Mafia/Illuminati/etc.

why repeat "Illuminati" when it happened in Texas among Oil and Army personnel. Isn't it equally obvious that some mystic intellectuals are being blamed by literal gun-wielders?

There is no mainstream/official view.

The House Subcomittee on Assassinations in the 1970's determined the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, they just didn't determine who did it.

I'm not sure what you consider mainstream of official, but I don't think there is a real mainstream or official view. I have read lots of Cold War histories and there isn't a clear historical consensus on who killed JFK. Certainly not on who actually pulled the trigger.

The question of who killed JFK is a historical question now. In the past it was a whodunit, or a murder mystery, but that this point it is definitely a question of history that will forever be debated by historians.

>> The House Subcomittee on Assassinations in the 1970's determined the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, they just didn't determine who did it.

Is there link to a good source on this. That's pretty much my understanding and it would be nice to have a good reference to counter the lone gunman idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Com...

> There is no mainstream/official view.

Bullshit. "Everyone knows" there was one shooter: Oswald, and he was killed.

That it wasn't the CIA, or the Russians, or the lizard people, or that JFK isn't secretly still alive in hiding. Take your pick, there are a lot, some more absurd than others. One or more might even be true, but they aren't going to release the proof of that.

I don't know why the mockery is required. There are some very weird "coincidences" with his assassination and the idea of a political ruler being assassinated in a conspiracy is something that has happened countless times. I think it's in bad faith to lump CIA based theories (they have killed countless people and overthrown so many governments) with shit like lizard people

No mockery; whichever theory someone subscribes to, no matter how plausible, nothing's going to prove a negative here. If you believe there's a secret about who did it being kept here in the docs, you believe they'll never release that specific document or documents.

Can you specify the coincidences? This conspiracy has been written about to death, and the mainstream theory that Oswald assassinated him is the only one that makes any sense.

One of the more mainstream/less out there ones is that the mafia supposedly had nothing to do with the assassination but a known member of the mafia just happened to kill Oswald before he could stand trial. The idea being that Oswald was hired by the mafia, and they had Jack Ruby kill Oswald to prevent him from revealing their involvement.

That's interesting, but Jack Ruby was a supporter of the president. He impulsively killed Oswald; he didn't know where Oswald was going to be until shortly before he left to kill him.

>Jack Ruby was a supporter of the president

So he claimed, yes.

I agree that Oswald shot kennedy, but it's really weird how a man who defected to russia and was a communist seemed to integrate so easily into republican social circles in texas. Connection to Mohrenschildt is a little sus as well. I'm not even saying I know what happened exactly, I just don't give people like HW Bush or other confirmed spooks the benefit of the doubt. Deception and assassination is literally their job. The only thing that would be unusual about CIA involvement in this would be that it's a US leader assassinated as opposed to leader of some other country

I agree it's weird. It's very possible that Oswald was involved in some shady (non-assassination related) business for the government, which in turn has made it more difficult to get documents declassified.

But the "benefit of the doubt" isn't necessary here. The theory that CIA recruited Oswald specifically to assassinate JFK has been conclusively proven wrong. The magic bullet theory has been conclusively proven wrong. That the USSR had evidence that the CIA assassinated JFK has been conclusively proven wrong. This has been studied in tedious amount of detail.

Do you have links to the conclusive details? I would like to read them.

oswald being assassinated before his trial and all notes regarding his interview by the police being gone is more than a little sus for a lone crazy gunner theory

Jack Ruby was a supporter of the president who impulsively killed Oswald. Given the timeline he would not have been able to plan it in advance. This is obviously one of those things that have been infinitely followed up on and done to death.

> Impulsively killed Oswald

A little too convenient, don't you think?

Ruby was not afraid of the consequences? He couldn't wait for the judicial system to pronounce the death sentence? (which was very likely if Oswald was indeed the killer). If he loved the president so much, didn't he want to know if there were others involved, so they could be punished as well?

I think it is very unlikely that Jack Ruby's actions were borne of impulsiveness.

> Jack Ruby was a supporter of the president who impulsively killed Oswald

Jack Ruby was once again let to die in a prison before he could testify in a proper court. So many convenient ends disappear...

I have to admit, it would take a lot to convince me the CIA wasn't involved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com