The story is by ex-AP's John Solomon who is famous for jumping to conclusions.

Maybe Teddy will start advancing the theory that there was a second driver that evening in Chappaquiddick. Oh wait, he'll never get asked about it.

Oswald was a nutcase. It was his rifle found at the book depository, they did a roll-call of all employees after the shooting who had clocked-in that morning, and only Oswald was missing. I've never worked for a commercial ammunition maker, but I'm sure lot numbers on boxes in 1963 were hardly reliable. We didn't have bar codes then.

Back in college my Intro to Historical Methods class focused on the Kennedy assassination. I think that most of us finished the semester more confused about what had happened than we had been before we began, but there were two pieces of evidence that had me wondering: first, testing (during the House Select Committee examination, I think) showed that it was not possible to fire Oswald's rifle as quickly as it needed to be fired to replicate the shooting as shown in the Zapruder film; second, the unscathed bullet that purportedly fell out of Kennedy onto the stretcher at the hospital.

Neither, of course, is conclusive of anything, but they were the biggest pieces of the puzzle that I couldn't fit in anywhere.

Also: let's remember that there are, in fact, conspiracies in the world. This may not be one of them, but questioning The Received Wisdom doesn't of necessity make one a nut.

Discovery channel did a show where they duplicated everything Oswald did that many people claimed was impossible. They timed the shooting with someone actually walking those same steps. They timed his walk home. And they even duplicated his shot nearly exactly. The only difference is in their shot the bullet hit two ribs instead of one and didn't have enough energy to penetrate the leg. Otherwise the bullet took the exact same, extremely unlikely patch that it would have during the assassination. Of course, this doesn't rule out a conspiracy, and someone else could have been involved, but him being the lone gunman is entirely plausible.

Get ready for Rosie to declare that human bone has never fragmented bullets.

I've never understood why people have no problems accepting that Squeaky Fromme and Hinckley were nutcases, nothing more, while they construct elaborate conspiracy theories around Oswald.

He was just a nutcase who happened to not miss. Squeaky and Hinckley missed. Could have gone the other way for any of these situations.

Check out the book "Mortal Error" by the gentleman that demonstrated that a shooter could get off 3 rounds accurately within the span of time that Oswald had.

Ironically the writer comes to the conclusion that the 3rd shot that blew off the back of President Kennedy's head most likely was accidental round from a member of the Secret Service detail who was standing in the moving limousine which followed the vehicle that carried the president.

The scenario: The driver of the president's vehicle speed up when he realized that they had come under fire and then the driver of the trailing limo accelerated to keep up. This caused the Secret Serviceman to fall back & squeeze off an accidental round motorcade. So there is possibl ity of a 2nd gunman without a conspiracy.

This cockroach-like conspiracy theory has been allowed to fester for 40-odd years and we wonder why Rosie and friends can get a mind numbingly high percentage of the American people to believe their crap!
The beauty of conspiracy theories is that anything that tends to disprove the theory automatically becomes part of the conspiracy. It's the same childish magical thinking that pervades the Middle East with stories of x-ray glasses on our soldier and force fields on our tanks.
Americans like to think we are pretty sophisticated but too many are living in the intellectual equivalent of mud huts by the Euphrates.

Sorry, guys, but believing that the Warren Commission conclusion is wrong is not at all the same as trutherism -- far, from from it. I am a litigating lawyer with 30 years experience who, among other things, deals with evidence in my profession. After reading a lot about the JFK assassination and watching the Zapruder film, I concluded that it was not Lee Harvey Oswald shooting from the Texas Book Depository Building. The Warren Commission conclusion does not work -- too many impossibilities (e.g., the "magic bullet," the "neuromuscular reaction" supposedly causing JFK's head to snap back duplicating what would happen if he were shot from grassy knoll), too much in the way of contradictory evidence (eyewitness accounts of seeing what appeared to be a shots from the grassy knoll), statements by the attending Parkland medical people who based on the wounds, placed the shots as coming from the front, and autopsy evidence that appears contaminated. As for what did really happened on November 22, 1963, I think that it is not something that we will likely ever know. Based on everything, I think that there was some kind of conspiracy or perhaps a series of conspiracies. What it or they were, one can't tell.

To moon6: it is not a matter of resisting the idea that Oswald might have been a nut case. It is a matter of the evidence of what happened on November 22, 1963 in Dallas that does not square with the Warren Commission conclusion about Oswald but that does square with Oswald being what he said he was -- a patsy. By the way, he was, according to the Marine records, a terrible shot.

To n2sooners: the Discovery Channel program was clever, but it did not establish much of anything. What counts are: that you had to be able to shoot 3 shots from the unsighted rifle that Oswald supposedly used, be in the first floor cafeteria 90 seconds later drinking a coke with no one having seen you traverse down from the sixth floor and later in the police station test nagative for rifle discharge residue; that the "magic bullet" take the trajectory it supposedly did causing as much damage as it supposedly did and come out pristine; that the JFK head snap backward, seen on the Zapruder film, could not have been caused by a neuromuscular reaction (too fast and too pronounced) and thus had to be caused by a shot from the front where 50 witnesses thought was where the shots came from; and that the Parkland medical statements about the wounds placed the sots coming from the front (grassy knoll was in the front and the Texas Book Depository Building was in the rear).