General Question

quarkquarkquark's avatar

Do you accept the Lone Gunman theory? Why or why not?

Asked by quarkquarkquark (1695points) May 10th, 2009

JFK assassination, of course. Texas Book Depository, Jack Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald, the Grassy Knoll, Jackie O. on the back of the car, the Warren Commission… all of this.

I rail a lot against 9/11 conspiracy theories and sometimes find myself doing so simply because they are conspiracy theories. This is really not a valid objection. While I accept the Lone Gunman explanation for the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, I have my doubts. There were some questions raised on 11/22/63 that have never been answered. What do you folks think?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

23 Answers

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

Evidence promoting more than one gunman is pretty convincing… though it wouldn’t be impossible with just one either.

There is a lot to read about though if you really want to investigate. This has been a very frequently discussed topic.

oratio's avatar

I agree. There are some dubious aspects of it all, that could support a conspiracy. And there were powerful people who would like to have him out of the picture. But anyone can get shot. The shooting of Bobby and Reagan seems likely to have been a lone attacker. I don’t know what to think.

Our prime minister Olof Palme got shot -86. There were many suspicious events around that assassination, and a lot of people in the world who wanted him dead. The US wasn’t displeased, several terror organisations were quite happy, and there was quite a bunch of people who would gladly have done it. Most likely though, it was a another lone gunman, and no conspiracy.

Not sure about what you exactly mean by this though:
I rail a lot against 9/11 conspiracy theories and sometimes find myself doing so simply because they are conspiracy theories.

I might be wrong, and if so you have to excuse this assumption, but it seems you see a conspiracy theory as something made up and a crazy. A conspiracy theory is not equal to a nut job idea. We are asked to believe that Al Qaeda conspired against the US, which they probably did. That is a conspiracy theory. The murder of Julius Caesar was a conspiracy. They do exist apparently. What the question is sometimes is what conspiracy to believe in.

What it seems you are having doubts about with the Lone Gunman theory is that you suspect it might have been a conspiracy. If there was more than one shooter, they would have conspired together or with others.

kevbo's avatar

@oratio, see “RFK Must Die,” which I’m sure can be found

I disbelieve lone gunman stories, in general. I think it’s an easy way to sell an assassination attempt (or worse) to the public. Not that it’s never happened, but I take it as the explanation least likely to be truthful.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

The most compelling conspiracy theory I’ve heard is that Sam Giancana ordered the hit on JFK out of revenge for him, through his brother, A.G. Robert Kennedy, going after organized crime. As the theory goes, old Joe Kennedy had solicited help to get JFK elected through his old Prohibition-era buddies in the Mafia. They expected certain favors in return for their support, and had JFK killed when they didn’t get them. This is “supported” by Jack Ruby’s connections to the Mob. He was being the good soldier, silencing Oswald before he could spill the beans on how he was set up as a patsy.

Then there was that episode of The X-Files when Cancer Man, lamenting his career as a failed writer, is shown running the whole thing, as well as being the shooter, ostensibly for the CIA.

Other theories – the CIA acting in concert with the Mob. CIA pissed at Kennedy over the Bay of Pigs. Mob pissed at Kennedy for same reason, not happy being run out of Cuba by la revoluciĆ³n.

But do I accept the Lone Gunman theory? Might as well. The world has changed a lot since 1963. And I think Oliver Stone’s films suck.

Darbio16's avatar

The Federal Reserve had him killed, just the way the bankers did it to Lincoln. During the Civil war Lincoln began issuing currency called green backs. A short time after he began printing money he was killed. In june of 1963 JFK signed executive order 11110. This order granted the federal government permission to issue silver coins. This pissed the bankers off a bit and 5 months later he was dead.

Power in the world has many forms. The most exploited source of power being money. In America we use the dollar. On each dollar, you will also see the term “Federal Reserve Note”. It is important to note that the Federal Reserve is the source of our money. Meaning, they print our money. Under the Constitution, Congress has the only right to print and issue money. To clarify, the Federal Reserve is not the Congress. In fact, no one on the board of the Federal Reserve is even democratically elected. Nonetheless, Congress does not, as directed under the Constitution, print our money.

Instead, in 1913 under the Woodrow Wilson administration, Congress enacted the Federal Reserve Act. The act was voted on during Christmas break when most congressman were at home with their families. At the time of the enacting of this bill, American dollars displayed text reading “Redeemable for Gold”. As it were, America had been on a Gold Standard. The paper we all flaunt today, was then nothing more than a receipt for the real money…gold. Our money now states “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private”. We are no longer on a gold standard. The whole reason behind the idea of the Federal Reserve was to create stability in the markets and protect against inflation. How cunning though that an institution publicly stating the contrary would be the source of inflation. Inflation is a fancy term for the devaluing of the dollar. Did you ever wonder why your grandfather paid only a nickel for a candy bar while now you pay a dollar or more some places? The reason is simple.

The Federal Reserve, now in charge of printing and issuing our currency in place Congress, loans the money to the Treasury. As with most loans there is also interest on the loan. That is the very source of inflation. It creates a debt based society. Simply put, if you follow the flow of money, it get very depressing. First, the Federal Reserve prints the money. Then, with a hefty amount of interest attached upwards of over 30%, it is loaned to our nation. Say, for example, we are loaned 1 Trillion dollars. Unknown to most of the public, that interest must be paid back. 30% of a Trillion is approximately 3.33 Billion dollars. That is the amount that must be paid back on top of what has been borrowed. Totaling to 1.333 trillion dollars. Here is where is really messed with your mind. If there were only 1 Trillion printed, how could we possibly pay back 1.333 trillion, it just doesn’t exist. The answer is, you can’t pay it back, ever. When the loan is finally called in we are forced to pay all that we have and then borrow more to cover interest payment and living expenses.

To guarantee themselves interest payments, along side the Federal Reserve Act was the Income Tax law know as the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. Prior to 1913 there was no such thing as an income tax. The sole purpose of this tax was to make payments to the Federal Reserve to the issuance of our currency. But here is another real brain buster. The money that the Federal Reserve Loans us doesn’t even exist. They have a printer, not a stockroom of gold and cash. The money comes out of thin air. That style of banking is known as “fractional reserve lending”. Break down that statement and it becomes clear. Fractional Reserve lending is easy to understand. Let’s say you start a bank, and you have your self 10 million dollars that you could begin to loan out. Fractional reserve banking enables you to loan out more money than you actually have. I have 50 million in my bank, but under our current system I could loan out 400 million or more. Sounds ridiculous but it is more than true, its scary. The banking industry learned long ago that most people would not come to the bank and withdraw all of there money. The whole system would fall apart if even 10% of Americans would withdraw all money from all of their accounts. Evidence of this was during the Great Depression. When the stock market crashed, people began surging to their banks to withdraw their funds only to have the doors of the bank locked when they arrived. The reason the bank doors were locked was because the money doesn’t exist. Ever see the classic movie starring Jimmy Stewart. During the bank run scene, people were demanding their money but of course it wasn’t there. At the same time, businesses were desperately selling all they could to get money. In that movie “Potter” was the evil banker that sought to own all in the town. He began buying up all the towns financial institutions. That actually happened during the real great depression as well.

It was, in fact, the Federal Reserve that created the depression in the first place. For an institution like the Fed, its an easy feat. First they just made credit readily available. Once enough currency was in circulation, they cut off all credit, called in all old loans and refused new ones.

It makes alot of sense when you look at it from the point of view of the bankers. These days money transactions are not handled by exchanges of tangible money, but through computer transaction. This makes our current corruption possible. I can loan out way more money than I have and begin collecting interest payments on money that doesn’t even exist, let alone belong to me. Ever wonder why Congress has no problem spending all the money they want, with out regard. It is because you can fund anything you want when you have a money printing machine

I could go on all day about it, but to better explain the situation we are in, you should watch “America: Freedom To Fascism”. You can find it on youtube. This documentary will blow your mind. Hopefully it was also open up your mind to the possibility that all is not as it would seem.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

what, to you, would satisfy the condition that “congress must print our money?”

Darbio16's avatar

It doesn’t matter what i have to say, it’s in the constitution.

Read what the constitution says

quarkquarkquark's avatar

You’re not understanding my question. The constitution is understandably vague about this. The Federal Reserve operates under the mandate of Congress, and while I wouldn’t go so far as to say I don’t accept your characterization of the process as unconstitutional, I need to know what, in your interpretation, would satisfy the Constitution’s “requirement” (nowhere in this section does it say that only congress is responsible for “coin“ing money) that Congress be responsible for the production of currency.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

And I don’t understand what any of it has to do with the assassination of President Kennedy. The lecture you posted above reads like you just learned it in class.

Darbio16's avatar

There is a bill in congress now called hr. 1207. Its called the “audit the Fed” bill.
That is a scary sounding bill. The Federal reserve acts totally outside of government control. It has never been audited, funds are not kept track of. Now, after 80 years of this central bank ruining our country, we finally begin to start taking action to just audit it! Alan Greenspan was former chairman of the Fed. He said this when asked he relationship between the fed and congress.

“Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place, and there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don’t frankly matter.”

The president picks the chairman, but that’s it. The rest are handpicked by the banking industry. It’s not my job to interpret the constitution, but it say Congress shall “have” the right, not “give” the right to coin and issue money. The founders of this nation knew all to well about the suffocating bank of England. They did all they could while they were alive to keep at bay the onslaught of the banks. Once they died and Americans got comfortable, bankers claimed their place as masters of our money and lives.

Watch this video of a JFK speech, he was trying to warn the people about a faction within our government.

No, the lone gunman theory I believe is false. The only one that believed it is Sen. Arlen Specter who proposed that theory. The Warren Commission was as much a joke as the 9/11 commission.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

Okay. Explain to me how the Federal Reserve killed President Kennedy.

Darbio16's avatar

He went against their will. The fed is enjoying a monopoly on issuing our currency. He said “Fuck That” and told the treasury to start minting coins. Coins that did not belong to the federal reserve, so they couldn’t collect interest on it. He just had to be killed. If word got out that the national debt could be eliminated by abolishing the federal reserve the protests of the 60’s would have seemed like a church service compared to the public uprising over the nations money supply.

Darbio16's avatar

It’s easy to kill a man, Kennedy’s brains exploded in two different directions and there were 2 bullet holes in him. Just moments before the shots were fired, the secret service men following his car were ordered to stand down.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

I’m not standing by the lone gunman theory—I have my own doubts. Nevertheless, you should check your facts and understand that it is preposterous to say that the central bank of the United States had the President killed for destroying their “monopoly” on printing currency. You need a history lesson.

Darbio16's avatar

Perhaps i could say the same for you, but no matter. Everything written on this site is primarily opinion. If you had a multi trillion dollar industry, you would likely do all you could to protect it. Including kill one man in order that your entire family line would never know poverty and remain at the top of the “food chain” so to speak. Amazing that people believe in terrorism, warfare, wrong doings world wide but somehow America has a shroud of protection against evil entities.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

What we’re asking for here is evidence. Who in the Federal Reserve stood to gain by JFK’s death? If you can come up with a name, props to you, but the fact is that the number who stood to benefit is so small as to make a large-scale conspiracy (as is obviously necessary in this case) costly to those at the lower levels. Besides—who took the shot? Who gave the order for the Secret Service to stand down? Who falsified evidence? Let’s say I accept, as you say, that the Federal Reserve has an inordinate amount of power over the U.S economy, and perhaps by extension over the day-to-day workings of the country. This is a far cry from being in a position to orchestrate the assassination of the President of the United States.

Give us names.

Darbio16's avatar

Founders of the Federal Reserve Families like, the Rockefellers, Morgans, Aldrich, Rothschild, and the Warburgs just to name a few. These guys are the ones that reap the profits from this. The sad thing about fascism is that people just have to die. Your’e right, a very small group indeed is profiting from the labors of Americans. To cover it up is easy. The media always has been a puppet of the government so you won’t get any help there. Next, the supossed gun man , lee harvey oswald, was friggin shot before anyone could really probe him for answers. So who is left to back any story up other that a paid story teller, or in this case Sen, Arlen Specter. All we see in a the video is his head being blown to bits. We do notice the secret service stand down at the last minute, but if i knew just who gave the order i would pick a better place than fluther to do my whistleblowing.

Do yourself a favor and spend no less than 2 hours looking up all you can on the rockefellers and the rothschilds and you will not need to be guided through this experience anymore. Look at what they own, institutions they founded. Research they pay for. Programs they endorse. What boards to which corporations do they sit.

Then look at the limited ownership of just about every television station, radio station, magazine, newspaper or any other media outlet you can imagine. Once you see just how few hands are in total power, you can begin to chime in on the chorus of real reform, real revolution. Lay to rest the Demons that were not vanquished in the revolutionary war. We had won the military battle, but and intellectual and economic battle rages on today all around the world.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

What is your Fed fetish about?

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

That whacknoid Larouche used to talk about going back to the Gold Standard. You aren’t one of his, are you?

Bud123's avatar

The driver killed JFK. Look at a good copy of the film. His driver turns around and quickly shoots him. Thats why Jackie O was desperately trying to get out of the back of that car.

Smashley's avatar

I do accept the lone gunman theory, not because I instinctively disbelieve conspiracy theories, but because it is the only scenario that has hard evidence for it.

Oswald certainly fits the profile of a lone nut. He was unstable and may have attempted suicide. He could never hold down a job. He beat his wife. He was even implicated in the attempted assassination of General Edwin Walker seven months before the JFK assassination, in which the same type of gun was used.

The lone gunman theory is the simplest solution, and is only not accepted universally because of people’s unwillingness to believe so important a person could be killed by so insignificant of a man, and the massive amounts of misinformation thrown around by conspiracy theorists and unscrupulous entertainers (preview for this week’s ‘Bones’ showed this trend continuing).

Three bullets were fired, which was certainly possibly given the time frame and hardware involved. Eyewitness accounts support the location of the gunfire being from the book depository, and computer simulations bear this out.

The first shot missed and nicked a civilian. I think most people agree on this one.

The second “magic” bullet, struck both victims, creating wounds in both men consistent with a straight shot from a high elevated position to the rear. (The ridiculous diagram supported by the film “JFK” could only have been accurate if both men were seated at an equal height, which they were not, and in line, which they were not, sitting facing straight forward, which they were not, and if you determine the position of the entry wound on the President by the hole in his shirt, instead of the hole in his back).

The third shot struck the President in the back of the head and exited around the the right side, creating the large, right side exit wound seen in the Zapruder film, and causing the subsequent head movement.

If there is any room for conspiracy in the President’s assassination, it would be in who the shooter was and who might have been backing him, not in how the killing took place.
Still, the evidence points to Oswald being the shooter, and it seems unlikely that anyone would back such an unstable fellow with a history of having blurred allegiances. I don’t find it necessary to complicate the situation with “maybe’s” unless there is a tangible piece of evidence to support it.

The massive amount of works written on this subject by conspiracy theorists, and the so-called “unanswered questions” that exist, are not evidence of anything besides people’s willingness to find information to match predetermined conclusions. Show me a fact that can stand on its own, and maybe we can talk.

Pachy's avatar

I believe there was no conspiracy and always have.You should read this article.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther