No one would have ever made me believe that Oswald acted alone. And I've questioned whether or not he even fired a shot. Until now.
This is the first thing that I've watched that really made me seriously question my conspiracy leaning stance. These guys are the real deal, they are not flakes, and they are not looking to make a fast buck. Their memories have not faded.
If they say the shots came over their right shoulders, then I have a real hard time believing anything different.
Jason
Indeed. My current thinking from the piles I've read about all aspects of this, both in support of and against a conspiracy, is that the shots could well have all come from the Book Depository. Whether Oswald was responsible for all of them or any of them still remains to be proved.
If he'd gone to trial, there's no doubt the defence would've called a number of witnesses who would've testified to seeing a bald, dark-skinned man with a rifle in a window at the Oswald end of the Depository and another pair, including a guy in a suit, with a gun at another window further down.
I do have a big problem with the second shot and the delay between Kennedy's and Connolly's injuries as seen in Zapruder and in both the testimony of Connally and his wife. Everyone agrees that for Oswald to have been responsible for these injuries requires that there was no such delay, that they were caused in the same instant by the same shot. However, Connally and his wife insisted he was hit well after Kennedy, Connally having time to turn round, look at Kennedy's wound, exclaim, 'my god, they're going to kill us all', and turn back, before receiving his injury- and the film certainly seems to support them - which would place a second gunman on the scene, as of course the HSCA concluded in 1978.
I think it's interesting that Oswald, in the film of him under arrest that day, protests, 'I was the patsy.' I think if he'd acted alone perhaps he'd've been more likely to say, 'you got the wrong man' or some such. 'Patsy' is odd... it implies a plot; now if it's BS where is that going to get you at your trial? If you were a lone assassin, it would be much simpler to blame some other random unknown lunatic, rather than blame a non-existent conspiracy which you'd have to call evidence for in your defence. Seems to me it would work against Oswald for him to hint at a conspiracy if there wasn't one.
