Who shot JFK?

redwraith33 said:
Has anyone read the "Hidden Kings" pdf by Miles Mathis, where he speculates that the whole JFK assassination was a staged show, where video editing techniques were not as refined as they are now and errors in video and photography were more easily detected?


Some of the pictures he points out really make you wonder. These photographs that he presents are all supposed to be from the same day, but when you look at some of the "official" pictures taken that day, for example, you'll see that there are two different presidential cars (mirrors and window designs are different) and certain key people are wearing different types of clothing across different photos.... yet these were all supposed to be from the same day. It's kinda fascinating and apologies if it has already been posted, I didn't read the whole thread.

Hi redwraith33,

Just in case you might have missed it, there has been a recent discussion about the approach of Miles Mathis in this topic: Stephen Hawking Replaced with Double?

General conclusion:

Laura said:
alkhemst said:
The moral of the story for me is I should approach what Miles Mathis claims with a very high degree of skepticism.

Amen. Much ado about nothing.

May be helpful for the current topic as well ? ;)
I don't want to say a great deal since I've only read the first 3 of the 6 pages of comments so I don't want to repeat ideas that have already been explored if I can help it.

I've seen several of the popular theories and they all seem to have in common a methodology of taking known facts and inserting them in such a was as to support their particular theory. Not that I'm knocking it but it seems the same facts are being used to support multiple theories.

Being that the incident was televised, that provides at least one piece of valuable evidence that potentially remains the same all these years later. It seems to me like angle and trajectory should be able to show conclusively the position of the shooter. In conjunction with the evidence of the footage, it should've already been solved.

Participants in a conspiracy aren't usually "all on the same page" - some are merely involved for the sake of some personal reward or benefit without knowing the intended outcome of the "master plan".

I don't see any benefit to Jackie in the assassination of her husband. And if the utter terror she expressed was fake I'd say she would have to be one expert actress.

Forgive me if someone has already brought up this point but it seems I recall one of the facts in the case was about a bullet that pierced the front seat of the limo - thought that might interest someone who is considering the theory of jfk being shot by the co-driver.

ARC said:
I don't want to say a great deal since I've only read the first 3 of the 6 pages of comments so I don't want to repeat ideas that have already been explored if I can help it.

Laura has an excellent series of articles dating from 2006 here, and it is also highly recommended, if you have not already seen it, to catch the video documentary Evidence of Revision - the hyperlink is to a SoTT article of the same name with a link to the documentary itself.
voyageur -

I've seen/heard/read most of this. As for the tapes being revised - that pretty much renders them useless unless there is some way to regain the original footage.

However, if it can be proven that original footage has been revised and/or other evidence tampered with, it should at least be enough to prove the existence of a conspiracy, which in turn points to whoever had access to the evidence, which points back to whoever ordered the tampering, which eventually points back to whoever stood to gain from it - Mrs K? Johnson? Organized crime bosses? Russians?

If it's just some kook with a high-powered rifle there shouldn't be any evidence of a conspiracy.

Top Bottom