2 readers online now  |  69 million page views

The accident theory of JFK's shooting

Reader comment on item: Still Blaming Conservatives for Lee Harvey Oswald

Submitted by James Guest (Australia), Nov 22, 2013 at 14:14

Daniel: we met when I drove you to dinner with C and MI V on one of your journeys in which you may have met Paul Monk, former spook and authority on China inter alia. He wrote an op-ed which was very dismissive of the idea recently resurrected in book and film that the bullet which killed JFK was accidentally fired from the gun held by a Secret Service driver who wasn't driving but standing in for hung over gun carrying Secret Service types in the car immediately behind JFK's. But the TV film I saw was very convincing if one believed the evidence about the nature of the bullets (Oswald's second passed straight through Kennedy and a bit of Connally whereas the one that hit his head was obviously a fragmenting type of bullet) and the loss/destruction/suppression of photographs and other material relating to the injuries. The fact that three bullet casings were found where Oswald had been was explained by saying the first was simply one which ensured that pulling the trigger wouldn't actually fire anything until the shooter was ready to fire live ammunition. It was ejected before the first fireable bullet was placed, by bolt action, into the breach.

This may all be nonsense but it made perfect sense, and, equally to the point, it made perfect sense of the very natural coverup by the Secret Service, maybe the FBI and CIA, maybe by Bobby Kennedy, certainly by the counsel to the Warren Commission, maybe by the Commission itself. After all there was no great public interest in having the real truth (if that was the truth) made public rather than the single shooter no conspiracy verdict of the Warren Commission. The Secret Service incompetence and ill-discipline, unfortunately believable, didn't need to be put on public display.

So, would you please give your opinion Daniel.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submitting....

Daniel Pipes replies:

I fail to see the need for complex, unlikely, and conspiratorial explanations like this, that a Secret Service agent unwittingly shot the president. Oswald had a motive, he was in the right place, he shot a policeman, and so forth. That convinces me and should lay to rest your search for an alternative murderer.

Submit a comment on this item

Reader comments (11) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
Cold War in action [78 words]PermReaderNov 26, 2013 11:46211819
The accident theory of JFK's shooting [309 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
James GuestNov 22, 2013 14:14211663
Look at it from another view point. [86 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Bertan AtalayNov 22, 2013 12:49211660
Watch the Zapruder film closely ... Oswald did NOT act alone [109 words]Mark ShaneNov 22, 2013 12:15211656
Tale of The Sudden Sweetness of The President [683 words]Allen TobiasNov 22, 2013 12:00211652
2The momment that derailled History [76 words]Michael Hanni MorcosNov 20, 2013 14:01211623
1Can you expand upon the subject of conspiracy thinking in American vs. in Muslim societies? [49 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
PezDispenserNov 20, 2013 10:52211618
1Consistency [120 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
J. Keen HollandNov 20, 2013 10:15211616
Lee Oswald neither conservative nor communist [207 words]Phil DragooNov 19, 2013 23:19211608
Well-known mystery [27 words]PermReaderNov 26, 2013 12:07211608
Not a conspiracy theory but a description of realpolitik [159 words]Phil DragooNov 27, 2013 03:40211608

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to The accident theory of JFK's shooting by James Guest

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

ADVERTISEMENTS

eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2019 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)