Skip to content

Chipper Jones does not think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone

Nov 15, 2012, 8:50 AM EDT

If Chipper Jones‘ retirement means that we’re gonna get late night JFK conspiracy twitter rants and the like, consider me much happier about Chipper Jones’ retirement than I previously was:

The Braves pitching coach for the past few years has been Roger McDowell. How much you wanna bet that Mr. Magic Loogie and Chipper discussed this at length on team flights?

Also: why do I laugh uncontrollably when I picture Chipper Jones, sitting in front of his locker in, say, Shea Stadium in 1997, reading the Warren Commission Report? I picture Maddux walking away from him whenever Jones tries to make a point but, like, Ryan Klesko nodding his head and asking Jones to tell him more.

  1. stex52 - Nov 15, 2012 at 8:56 AM

    Lyndon Johnson agreed with Chipper. They never found a connection to others, but he thought it was there. I got nothing, but circumstantially the idea of Lee Harvey all by himself comes off as absurd. Just back from Russia by way of Cuba? What a coincidence!

    • shynessismyelguapo - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:04 AM

      Do you have a link for this? I’m a huge LBJ nerd (damn you Robert Caro!) and have never heard anything about his thinking it was a conspiracy. I’d be interested in reading what he thought about it.

      • stex52 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:32 AM

        Unfortunately, no at present. I will look back. Several reporters years back hinted at this, and one account was interesting. If you know the history of the times, you know that the CIA was maintaining close contact with various mobs and right wing groups to arrange convenient assassinations in Central America. The goal being to assure no other successful communist revolutions like in Cuba. Then there was the Bay of Pigs invasion. Johnson is supposed to have commented to some of his inner circle something to the effect of, …”he (Kennedy) was running a kind of Murder Incorporated down there and those guys came back on him.”

        All very sketchy and difficult to verify. Probably not convincing without more evidence. But circumstantially, there is a lot of stickiness about everything to do with the Kennedy assassination.

      • skids003 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:56 AM

        The History Channel had a very good documentary on this. While I think he had help setting up the whole thing, the documentary showed that the shots did probably come only from the book depository, and they could account for all 3 shots and their angles, etc. It was actually a well thought out documentary. After watching it, I think Oswald was the only shooter.

      • cur68 - Nov 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

        I saw the same docco. I happen to agree, too. Using the correct car, adjusting for angle, elevation, physiology and Kennedy’s back brace everything captured by Zapruder likely reflects a lone gunman in the repository.

      • skids003 - Nov 15, 2012 at 3:40 PM

        cur68, maybe there is hope for us. We actually agree on something.

      • bradmoss1 - Nov 17, 2012 at 7:14 AM

        Passage of Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Vol. IV – Robert Caro (release date: May 7, 2013)

        From this article about the book:

        Johnson’s theory turned less cosmological over the years as he learned more about the Kennedy White House’s use of the Mafia to stalk Castro. “We were running a damned Murder Incorporated down there in the Caribbean,” Johnson said later. “Kennedy was trying to get Castro, but Castro got him first.”

    • stex52 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM

      Only shooter could well be. I never was as much into the forensics as the reasons why it occurred.

    • jeffa43 - Nov 15, 2012 at 2:47 PM

      I believe Lee Harvey acted alone, I believe in good scotch, high fiber, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self indulged in over rated crap, I believe there should be a constitutional amendment outlawing astroturf and the dsignated hitter, I believe opening your presents Christmas eve instead of Christmas day, and I believe in long, deep, slow, wet kisses that last 3 days.

      Good night…

  2. xmatt0926x - Nov 15, 2012 at 8:59 AM

    Lee Harvey Oswald? Maybe my history is fuzzy, but I’m pretty sure Arlen Spector concluded that it was Hank Steinbrenner who fired the real kill shot. Besides….the governement would never lie to us! Never!!

  3. xmatt0926x - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM

    **specter….. Damn it.

  4. dl3mk3 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:03 AM

    the movie JFK is far from being an accurate depiction of history.

    • shynessismyelguapo - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:07 AM

      What, you mean deifying a man who ruthlessly abused his power may have not been the correct tone for the movie?

      JFK is an inexcusable turd of a film. The only proper way to pay tribute to Jim Garrison would to have a 90 minute film of a monkey shitting on his face.

    • Jeremiah Graves - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:07 AM

      …are you implying Kevin Costner wasn’t really there?! That sounds like a load of bologna to me. Costner is everywhere, man. Everywhere.

      • kiwicricket - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:22 AM

        In the top 5 of worst actors ever. Samuel L, Travolta and Nick Cage will not be trumped in my lifetime.

      • indaburg - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:27 AM

        But Kevin Costner was a perfect Crash Davis. All his other acting sins are forgiven for that one role.

      • kiwicricket - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:34 AM

        I tend to agree, but for every ‘John Dunbar’ there is a Waterworld. His WAR is basically neutral over 25yrs.

      • Francisco (FC) - Nov 15, 2012 at 10:10 AM

        Now THERE’s an interesting concept… WAR for Movie Stars…

      • kiwicricket - Nov 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM

        To clarify…Travolta, Jackson and Cage are in the top 5 WORST alltime

      • deathmonkey41 - Nov 15, 2012 at 11:41 AM

        Are we forgetting about Keanu Reeves? How are you mentioning a 5 five worst actor list without his name being at the head of the pack?

      • kiwicricket - Nov 15, 2012 at 12:35 PM

        Ding ding ding….we have a winner! My apologies.

  5. chill1184 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM

    Too many questions surround the shooting to actually believe the official state story. Chipper is right

    • voteforno6 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:10 AM

      No, he’s not. Vincent Bugliosi wrote a conclusive volume (“Reclaiming History”) on the assassination, and he pretty much destroyed every conspiracy theory out there. It’s worth checking out if you’re curious, but it’s also very long.

    • shynessismyelguapo - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM

      The whole JFK assissination is what makes me worry about 9/11 30 years down the road. At some point, people collectively decided that it was impossible for a trainer marine to shoot JFK (BTW Chipper, the exit would *will* cause your head to go the direction of the bullet’s origin. Getting shot isn’t like getting punched). Because there were some areas people didn’t understand, it sprouted an entire crop of conspiracy theories, some downright insane. Now, ask the person on the street, and you’ll find out that JFK was killed by Oswald, LBJ, the Mob, Khrushchev, the CIA, Castro…basically there is a theory implicating everyone who lived in that time.

      What is missing in all this is that it is entirely plausible that Oswald did it and acted alone. The *evidence* that he couldn’t get off three shots in 6 seconds is nonsense ( and if anyone could hit a moving target, it would be a trained Marine.

      A vast majority of these theories exist by misrepresenting the existing evidence to fit a pre-conceived narrative. Sadly, the same thing has been happening with 9/11 10 years now. Virtually any article you read about it, you’ll see a barrage of comments about building 7, about how no skyscraper ever feel due to fire (because we have tons of examples of 110 story skyscrapers hit by jumbo jets), that a missile hit the Pentagon (why use a missile for the Pentagon is “they” used a plane for everything else? That makes zero sense). I fear that in 30 years, everyone is just gonna said Lyndon Johnson and Castro were responsible for that one too

      • forsch31 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:31 AM

        “… that a missile hit the Pentagon (why use a missile for the Pentagon is “they” used a plane for everything else? That makes zero sense).”

        I worked down the road from the Pentagon on 9/11. I saw the plane fly by before it hit. Any conspiracy theorist who harps on 9/11 can kindly go straight to hell.

      • stex52 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:38 AM

        Well, brace yourself, forsch. That’s the way of the world with such narratives. There were “truthers” right after it happened, and as the direct memories fade there will be more revisionists.

        You can count on it.

      • shynessismyelguapo - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:45 AM

        This is an article Matt Taibbi wrote in Rolling Stone in criticism from “Truthers” (or as I shall call them, “History Deniers”). In it, Tabbi imagines Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld how it would have had to go down:

        BUSH: So, what’s the plan again?

        CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we’ve decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they’re real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we’ll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

        RUMSFELD: Right! And we’ll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we’ll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

        CHENEY: No, we won’t.

        RUMSFELD: We won’t?

        CHENEY: No, that’s too obvious. We’ll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

        RUMSFELD: But if we’re just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam’s fingerprints on the attack?

        CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we’re not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

        BUSH: I’m a total idiot who can barely read, so I’ll buy that. But I’ve got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don’t we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

        RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don’t understand. It’s much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

        CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism — and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

        RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

        CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash — we’ll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it’ll really be a cruise missile.

        BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

        CHENEY: Because it’s much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It’s not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

        BUSH: But aren’t we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

        CHENEY: Mr. President, you’re missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

        BUSH: Right, but I’m saying, why don’t we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We’ll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

        CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

        RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it’s sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we’ll be doing just that in New York.

        BUSH: Oh, OK.

        RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It’s always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure — you can’t pull off any good conspiracy without them.

        BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there’s one thing about Americans — they won’t let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they’d never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

        CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

        RUMSFELD: Well, I’m sold on the idea. Let’s call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we’ll need to pull this off. There isn’t a moment to lose!

        BUSH: Don’t forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They’ll be thrilled to know that we’ll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we’re going to make martyrs — why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn’t the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

        RUMSFELD: Oh, they’ll get a refurbishing, all right!

        ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

      • stex52 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:50 AM

        I laughed all the way through. That’s not good. People are buying this stuff as we speak. I should be very upset. But it captures the logic.

      • kopy - Nov 15, 2012 at 10:04 AM

        I still get a kick out of that South Park episode where, although Al-Qaeda is responsible for 9/11, the US government is actually behind the conspiracy movement because they don’t want its citizens to believe they’re vulnerable and that an outside source could attack them.

      • anxovies - Nov 15, 2012 at 11:59 AM

        I was a trained Marine in a rifle company and I never saw anybody go backward when they were hit from behind with a .30 cal. round. We are talking about a bullet weighing over an ounce hitting somebody’s head which is perched on top of a neck at something like 2600 – 2800 feet per second depending upon the load and barrel. I am not a physicist but f=mv tells you that there is a lot of energy being transferred on impact and the head, with the skull and brain mass as resistance, is going to move with the force, not against it. I have never heard a rational explanation for the claim that Kennedy’s head moving back is evidence that he was hit from the back. Maybe somebody can enlighten me. Until then, for me at least Chipper has a point.

      • shynessismyelguapo - Nov 15, 2012 at 12:01 PM


        Please see this video link which explains it

        Plus, it’s from Penn and Teller, so there will be a lot of comedy and libertarian ideology mixed in.

  6. voteforno6 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:08 AM

    So, Chipper Jones came to this conclusion after watching a movie? Maybe he thinks that Abraham Lincoln really did hut vampires.

    • kiwicricket - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:28 AM

      But he had wooden teeth though, right?

      • doubleogator - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:36 AM

        That was G Washington…brush up on your history…

      • stex52 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:40 AM

        In fairness, where Kiwi grew up I don’t think they required a lot of American History in school.

        He’s probably a lot better at our national history than we would be at his.

      • kiwicricket - Nov 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM

        A sprinkling of ‘Avatar’ over ‘Lord of the Rings’, with ‘Zulu’ as the base concept. Viola. NZ history.
        Or this series…

      • cur68 - Nov 15, 2012 at 11:07 AM

        My Dog, that was brilliant. Kiwi, your people are the best.

      • kiwicricket - Nov 15, 2012 at 11:16 AM

        We tend not to take our mighty nation too seriously.
        (sorry for the big screen…I was hoping for just a link)

      • stlouis1baseball - Nov 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM

        Just for the record…
        In my opinion your list of worst movie actors of all time is dead on (with Keanu Reeves of course).
        Why you received the all the thumbs downs is beyond me. I am guessing Pulp Fiction fans.

    • albertmn - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:33 AM

      What do you mean? Are you trying to imply that Lincoln did not, in fact, hunt vampires?

      Okay, but the book and movie were kind of fun.

      • anxovies - Nov 15, 2012 at 12:07 PM

        Wow! Kiwi, what are the immigration policies like? Where do i get the forms?

  7. dexterismyhero - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:11 AM

    Dew Brees wants an explanation……………………..Oh sorry, wrong forum…. :)

    • doubleogator - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:37 AM

      Is this the only thing you ever post? the Brees wants an explanation is getting very stale….

      • Gamera the Brave - Nov 15, 2012 at 11:08 AM

        Dude, great idea!
        Let’s all change our HBT handles to some variation of Old Gator:
        Gator the Brave
        Gator 5
        and, of course, randygnyc

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 15, 2012 at 2:11 PM

        It’d take me a millennium of reading to get the vocabulary mastery to be churchoftheperpetualgator

      • umrguy42 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:20 PM

        Gamera, I’m not sure I could live up to being gatorguy42…

  8. runyetirun - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:12 AM

    I’d love to hear Chipper’s take on the theory that the secret service agent in the car behind Kennedy hit him with an accidental discharge when the car accelerated after Oswald’s first shot.

  9. deathmonkey41 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM

    Wait, I thought Roger McDowell was involved?

  10. Jonny 5 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:17 AM

    First President to not wear a hat. The hat making industry is obviously to blame here.

  11. Glenn - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:18 AM

    Bill James has an interesting blurb on the JFK assassination that is highly recommended.

    My own two cents – every other presidential assassination or attempt was by a lone, crazy assassin. Snipers always act alone (with the rare exception of the Atlanta snipers a while back). No conspiracy theory ever works out and is based on poking holes in the very solid “Oswald acted alone” evidence. There are way more holes in any other conspiracy theory and a heckof a lot less compelling evidence.

    • stex52 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:34 AM

      John Wilkes Booth was part of a conspiracy. Not a very bright group, but a conspiracy.

      • Glenn - Nov 15, 2012 at 11:43 AM

        A few dumb followers are not the same as say, Russia, Cuba, the Mob, etc. Would they really team up with a complete and unstable nut as Oswald or might they have access to someone a little more competent?

      • stex52 - Nov 15, 2012 at 1:15 PM

        I said the whole thing is sticky. I am absolutely convinced that much was going on beneath the surface that we didn’t know about. I was 11 when Kennedy was shot. It was a searing national experience. For years, I didn’t believe in any kind of plot at all. Now, the circumstances surrounding it bother me a great deal. The guy below is right, there would have been a nuclear war if Khruschev had been implicated. Things were that crazy.

        As to other hired killers, I don’t know. I don’t think stability is a criterion. I would have worried that the shooter would talk. But we had Jack Ruby for that, didn’t we?

    • albertmn - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:36 AM

      And, the DC sniper (for not acting alone). But, otherwise yes they always work alone. Although, don’t military snipers work in teams, with one acting as spotter while the other shoots?

      • Glenn - Nov 15, 2012 at 11:41 AM

        I’m talking about illegal snipers commiting murder, not military.

    • Professor Longnose - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:42 AM

      In his book Popular Crime, Bill James says he’s convinced that one of the books on the Kennedy assassination has it right. There was no conspiracy,:Oswald fired at Kennedy, and hit him but didn’t kill him. One of the Secret Service agents then drew his gun, and it accidentally went off and killed Kennedy. I haven’t directly read the book about the theory that James says is right, but he made it sound plausible.

      • Glenn - Nov 15, 2012 at 11:47 AM

        He didn’t say that he was convinced that it was right, only that is was a well-written and plausible book. I have not read it. The other book that he recommended was excellent and well worth the read – “Case Closed” by Gerald Posner.

      • Professor Longnose - Nov 15, 2012 at 3:48 PM

        Glenn (for some reason, I can’t reply to you, only to myself), here’s exactly what James said:

        “Later, however, after reading Posner’s book, after watching a couple of documentaries which include copies of the Zapruder film, I returned to the analysis, and my reaction was different: not that Donahue could be right, but that he was.”


        “I’m not an investigative reporter; I’m just a guy who reads lots of crime books. To me, Mortal Error remains the most persuasive account of the tragedy in Dallas.”

        The book is Mortal Error,” by Bonar Meninger, based on the work of Howard Donahue.

    • largebill - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:50 AM

      Atlanta snipers? Though they operated in several cities, I thought we’ve collectively decided to call them the DC snipers. Alex, can we get a ruling during the next commercial break.

  12. kiwicricket - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:18 AM

    Chipper is going to poop himself when he gets hold of a fake moon landing doco!!

    • stex52 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:43 AM

      Now you are hitting close to home for me. That fake moon landing crap really gets me going.

      • kopy - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:56 AM

        It’s been determined that it would have taken more technology to fake the moon landing to such the extent of the claims than it would have taken to just go there. If it was faked, it’s more of a compliment to our government. Between that and being able to actually see flags on the moon with telescopes, I don’t really care what the conspiracy theorists have to say.

      • nothanksimdriving123 - Nov 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM

        If it gets you riled up, imagine what it does to the blood pressure of the now elderly gents who actually went there. Especially a feisty fellow like Buzz Aldrin! I’ll bet he’d like to go a round or two with one or more Apollo-deniers. As for JFK, the forensics have clearly shown that the lone shooter was in the TSD window, and Oswald is the likeliest one to have been there and was quite qualified to pull it off. The JFK movie presents a fictitious theory. If you really believe in numerous government conspiracies and cover-ups, think “secret” Cambodia bombing and Watergate for examples of how well they manage cover-ups.

      • kopy - Nov 15, 2012 at 3:28 PM

        nothanksimdriving123, You alluded to the fact that Buzz Aldrin would punch a moon landing conspiracy theorist without acknowledging that it actually happened! Love this guy.

  13. 1943mrmojorisin1971 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 AM

    @shynessismyelguapo: LBJ was in on it. Jackie Kennedy said so. Cui bono?

    • shynessismyelguapo - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:39 AM

      Not true good sir. There was a rumor that Jackie Kennedy tapes contained such a claim. Then they were released and it turned out they didn’t.

      Also, should we really believe that Jackie Kennedy and Robert Kennedy (who haaaaaaaaated LBJ) would have kept mum about John being murdered by the sitting President?!?!

      • stex52 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:45 AM

        Agreed on that one. RFK would have done anything to destroy LBJ. And he did love his brother. Jackie just thought that LBJ was ruthless and manipulative. Guilty as charged.

      • 1943mrmojorisin1971 - Nov 15, 2012 at 12:18 PM

        Ah, that’s what I get for not reading past the headlines my Google search spat out. The LBJ theory is infinitely less interesting now.

  14. sdelmonte - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:35 AM

    In his wonderful book 11/22/63, Red Sox fan Stephen King argues that Oswald did it alone. King trumps OIiver Stone, who as far as I know isn’t even a baseball fan. Case closed.

    • pjmitch - Nov 15, 2012 at 10:08 AM

      I just started this book and I’m about half way thru it. Thanks for ruining the ending

      • kellyb9 - Nov 15, 2012 at 11:50 AM

        I remember it being pretty apparent halfway through that Oswald was guilty. Keep reading… the book isn’t really about that.

    • shelbydawkins - Nov 15, 2012 at 1:01 PM

      This reminds me of the time in 2004 when the Sox were heading into the bottom of the ninth inning vs the Yankees and all appeared lost for them. There was a reporter from the network in the stands there at Fenway and he found Steven King and asked him something like “What would you like to see happen now?”. And Mr. King, kind of sighed and said something like “well I’d like to see us rally to win this game and then go on to win the ALCS and then win the World Series” And that is exactly what happened. I always thought that was really strange. Does anyone else remember this?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM

        No because the Sox destroyed the yanks in game seven of 2004 to complete the comeback. Hence why plenty of yanks fans have an irrational hatred of javier Vazquez.

  15. chaseutley - Nov 15, 2012 at 10:07 AM

    “Chipper Jones is on to us. He must be eliminated.”
    The CIA

  16. koufaxmitzvah - Nov 15, 2012 at 10:46 AM

    Anyone interested should read “Libra” by Don Delillo. Whether you believe the conspiracy theories or not, it’s a highly entertaining book.

  17. foreverbuddha - Nov 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM

    JFK got killed because he signed the papers to closed down the Federal Reserve. There are powerful people out there who will do whatever to keep the Federal Reserve from ever being shut down.

    • stex52 - Nov 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM


    • shynessismyelguapo - Nov 15, 2012 at 1:08 PM


  18. thereisaparty - Nov 15, 2012 at 11:29 AM

    Since this is a baseball site, I feel it is pertinent to point out that Bill James tackles the conspiracies (through talking about books on the subject) in his book Popular Crime. But he does advance the hypothesis, culled the book Mortal Error by Bonar Menniger, that Kennedy was accidentally killed by Secret Service agent George Hickey. James states, “if there’s a flaw in his argument, I don’t see it.”

  19. fawnliebowitz - Nov 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM

    I hope Chipper realizes that “JFK” is a movie, not a documentary. It’s an entertaining movie but still…not entirely factual. A lot of it is supposition. I think there was a conspiracy involved in the JFK assassination but not how the Hollywood movie portrayed it.

  20. Uncle Charlie - Nov 15, 2012 at 12:17 PM

    Wait until Chipper finally gets to Apollo 13 in another five years, then the gloves will really come off.

  21. williegy - Nov 15, 2012 at 12:22 PM

    The question of what REALLY happened in Dallas on Nov.22,1963 has been the subject of endless fascination (and endless speculation) for nearly half a century now.The debate over who actually killed JFK will, I suspect, still be raging 100 years from today.But, I don’t think it likely that the general public will ever know a lot more about this than we do right now.There are any number of suspects (including the Soviet Union, Castro, the mob, and racists-just to name a few) who may have been involved in the Kennedy assassination. But ,there’s simply no hard evidence available to the general public that implicates anyone besides Oswald in this crime.I don’t think much doubt exists that Oswald was involved in the murder of JFK. But was he a lone wolf assassin or a patsy set up to take the fall?I don’t think we’ll ever know. High level officials in the U.S. government may have more info than the public on what happened, but I doubt we’ll ever have access to such info if it ever existed. I agree that it’s likely that the Warren Commission was initially given a conclusion(that Oswald acted alone) & told to come up with a report to make this conclusion plausible. There may have been any number of reasons this was done, & not all of them are sinister. For example, U.S. leaders may have learned (or were afraid they would learn) that the Soviets or Cuba were responsible for the assassination.Had that been proven (and released to the public) the American people would have settled for nothing less than all out war against any country responsible for this. And, a war with either the USSR or Cuba at that time would have been a nuclear war that would have destroyed the human race.So, if our leaders at the time did learn this is what happened, their only responsible recourse would have been to cover it up.But, lacking any proof of this, the public debate over the JFK assassination can never amount to much more than idle speculation.The one thing I do know about all this is that the movie “JFK” isn’t a good place to look for these answers.It may be an entertaining yarn, but the conclusions it reaches don’t square with the known facts.

    • eightysixisback - Nov 15, 2012 at 1:37 PM

      i agree that we may never know more than we already do about what actually happened. I definitely agree that the movie is not a good place to look for answers. That movie is entertaining and i have watched it a few times and enjoyed it but it is not real. There are parts of that movie that are blatantly made up. In scanning through the posts above the one thing i did not see mentioned that makes me think that oswald was not alone is jack ruby. He had mob ties without a doubt. The warren commision stated that there was no evidence of this but didn’t even actually take the time to examine his phone records which showed a lot of calls with mobsters in chicago in the months prior to the assassination. I am not a big conspiracy person and i am not claiming to know who else was involved or why but why would jack ruby walk into a police station and kill oswald when he knew he would be caught. There were police and media everywhere. He had to know going in that he was not going to get away with killing oswald. Why would he sacrifice his freedom unless he had something to hide. Just a thought.

  22. salmen76 - Nov 15, 2012 at 12:26 PM

    Chipper is right. Oswald did not act alone. On Nov 22, 1963 John Fitzgerald Kennedy was killed by a “Time Traveler”! And the Time Traveler shot him from the grassy knoll then suddenly returned to his place in ‘Time’. Which explains the lack of evidence.

    • tcostant - Nov 15, 2012 at 1:42 PM

      You think Doctor Who killed JFK?

      • nothanksimdriving123 - Nov 15, 2012 at 2:00 PM

        Uh uh. It was Dr. No, before Bond killed him.

      • umrguy42 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:26 PM

        Nope, it was JFK himself, from an alternate future where he hadn’t been shot, but had been brought down over a sex scandal…

  23. sisqsage - Nov 15, 2012 at 2:00 PM

    Sooomebody here didn’t care for Pulp Fiction.
    You gotta admit though, nobody plays a drunk better than Nic Cage in Leaving Las Vegas. He also did Lizzy Drew. That’s a plus.
    When did this site turn into a Roger Ebert Envy-Fest anyway?

    Stone’s JFK could have been a great film, but he wrongly chose to glorify Garrison, who was discredited 20 years earlier by the facts.
    But that’s the kind of thing Stone does. He’s always said publicly that he thinks the offical American History version of things in textbooks is b.s, which is a little over the top.

    Let’s add a baseball version: isn’t there a conspiracy theory in Beantown as to how Buckner muffed that grounder to first in the “86 WS? The Magical Mookie ball?

    • tcostant - Nov 15, 2012 at 3:16 PM


      A agree with a lot of that, Garrison was not the person the movie showned. He was circus clown looking for attention. Moreover, Stone said many thinks wrong; stuck as misrepresentimg the amount of time to fire three shoot.

      As for Mookie, I still do this day thinks he beats that play at first base if Buckner fields that cleanly. Next time you see that play – watch were Buckner is and how close Mokie is to first.

  24. bobferrett - Nov 15, 2012 at 7:23 PM

    Does anyone really care what Chipper Jones thinks?

  25. umrguy42 - Nov 15, 2012 at 9:36 PM

    Various documentaries have been mentioned above, and I’ve seen several, which I think do a nice job indicating that yes, there was ONE gunman. YMMV on whether that was in fact Oswald, and/or whether he was doing it on his own or at others’ behest (IMO, yes, and on his own – one of those documentaries points out he tried to kill a general in New Orleans a few months before, on the idea that it would make him a somebody).

    Long story short from the various documentaries:
    – “magic bullet” didn’t have to be, and rather neatly lines up with School Book Depository
    – the audio analysis that claims a fourth shot appears to be flawed
    – of the other mentioned possible shooting positions, several have virtually no shot at JFK, and the grassy knoll a) doesn’t produce the right exit wounds/brain spatter in the car, and b) likely kills Jackie too
    – JFK’s head movement corresponds to a hit from behind and above.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (2768)
  2. C. Correa (2616)
  3. Y. Puig (2612)
  4. G. Springer (2571)
  5. H. Ramirez (2493)
  1. B. Crawford (2488)
  2. H. Pence (2394)
  3. M. Teixeira (2320)
  4. J. Hamilton (2283)
  5. J. Baez (2266)