Crazy Rob Anderson vs. the Single Bullet Theory, Chapter # ??? – 48 Years of Conspiracy Theories

I don’t know where people get the idea that we’re entitled to a perfect F.B.I., but some seem to have that notion.

So, because the F.B.I. didn’t do everything perfectly in the investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, then that means there had to be a massive conspiracy?

Does that make sense?

Oh look, Wikipedia, for one, got it right:

“Location: Dallas, Texas
Date: November 22, 1963
Time: 12:30 p.m. (Central Time)
Target: John F. Kennedy
Attack type: Sniper rifle
Death(s): 1 killed (President Kennedy)
Injured: 2 wounded (Governor Connally and James Tague)
Perpetrator(s): Lee Harvey Oswald”

Oswald, the former Marine Corps marksman, was a gun nut who liked shooting military and paramilitary authority figures – it was his thing. For example, before he shot and killed Commander-in-Chief JFK, he shot retired U.S. Army General Edwin Walker (with the rifle Oswald bought mail-order, the very same one he used to kill JFK). And then, after he shot and killed JFK, he shot and killed Dallas Police Department Officer J.D. Tippet and then he attempted to shoot Dallas Police Department Officer N.M. McDonald.

He was a shooty person back in ’63 – what can you do?

Is it so impossible to believe that there are random assassins out there, people who act on their own, people like Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray and Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme and Sara Jane Moore and John Hinckley Jr. and Mark David Chapman and Jared Loughner?


Oh well.

See you next year.

P.S. It was a regular bullet what killed JFK, not a “magic bullet.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

15 Responses to “Crazy Rob Anderson vs. the Single Bullet Theory, Chapter # ??? – 48 Years of Conspiracy Theories”

  1. Rob Anderson says:

    Still haven’t read my book review of “Case Closed”? Do you really think I’m the only one who will notice that you’re faking it? Of course I don’t insist that Oswald was innocent. My review knocked the mainstream media’s spinelessness and intellectual dishonesty—kind of like you!—and focused on the “magic” bullet theory, formulated by the same guy who bullied Anita Hill on national TV. It was dubbed “magic,” because it would have had to change direction a couple of times to do what the Warren Commission says it did.

    The FBI did not do the investigation of the assassination; the Warren Commission did, and it rushed its report to get it out in time for the ’64 election, as per LBJ’s request.

    You fail to come to grips with what I actually wrote, probably because you didn’t read it.

    And once again you anonymously call me “crazy.” Still like to hear a plausible explanation of why you think that’s okay.

  2. sfcitizen says:

    Why should I read your book review?

    I’m faking what?

    I think most of the conspiracy theories have Oswald as a patsy – I’m aware of that.

    And the 9/11 conspiracy theorists say I’m dishonest and lazy as well. What can I do about that?

    Spectre(sp) and Anita Hill don’t matter.

    And modern tests under similar circumstances produce similar wounds and a similarly “pristine” bullet. It got deflected, of course, but that’s not magic, that’s Newtonian physics.

    You had an FBI photo up and you were complaining about it.

    Didn’t read all of it, that’s true.

    People around town called you Crazy Rob Anderson but you refuse to believe that so what can I do?

  3. Rob Anderson says:

    You can start by putting your name on your blog, particularly when you insult someone.

    You’re a faker because you’re pretending knowledge of the JFK assassination when you have none. “Newtonian physics”! More fakery.

    Specter’s defaming Anita Hill is of a piece with his invention of the Single Bullet Theory—and a long career as a stooge for the country’s ruling class.

    “FBI photo-op”? That photo shows the official account of the path of the bullet, with the entrance wound six inches lower than the exit wound. Yes, I’m so picky to complain about it.

  4. sfcitizen says:

    Suggestion noted. Cite a case or law that requires me to behave as you wish.

    Oswald acted alone – that’s “knowledge” of the JFK assassination.

    Classical or traditional physics if you will. Same meaning,

    Maybe Specter also kicked a dog at some point – not relevant.

    FBI photo, that’s what I was referring to. The official account need not be 100% accurate at all times. You expect too much from your government…

  5. Rob Anderson says:

    You can of course legally behave this way, but I suspect most people would agree that it’s morally questionable to insult someone anonymously.

    You admit that you haven’t even read my review of Posner’s book—not to mention the other books I cite in the review—but you can still make pronouncements on JFK’s assassination. Again, you of course have a legal right to do that, but you just look like a phony and rather silly. What makes you think you should have an opinion on something you admit you know nothing about? Why does this issue bother you?

    Lining up the bullet holes with the alleged direction of the shots in the crime of the century is setting the bar too high for the Warren Commission? Evidently you’re right about that.

  6. sfcitizen says:

    Does anybody care what you think most people think?

    Why should I read your review of some book? Or other books? Why don’t I read 9/11 Truther books instead? The burden is on you. Like, “I know that Oswald didn’t act alone because…” Because why, JFK’s head went the “wrong” way? Because Oliver Stone doesn’t know about jump seats on a `63 Continental or whatever that car was?

    I didn’t read your review, therefore Oswald couldn’t have acted alone 48 years ago?

    I suppose you could say this whole blog is about things that bother me, I suppose. All right. It’s human nature to see conspiracies everywhere…

    Attacking the Warren Commission doesn’t prove that Oswald didn’t act alone.

  7. Rob Anderson says:

    Of course you don’t care what I think, and I in turn find you intellectually vacuous. But I find your intellectual pathology almost interesting.

    When it comes to dogma—and belief systems in general—the burden of proof is always on the believer. The Warren Commission in this instance is peddling an implausible interpretation of how JFK was killed. I’m not surprised that you find that explanation adequate, since millions of our simpleminded fellow countrymen share your opinion. Even though you admit you know nothing about the subject, you go out of your way to insult someone who does. Doesn’t that strike you as a little odd? Why do you feel obligated to have an opinion on a subject about which you admittedly know nothing?

    I suspect you resent that I find your bike fetish infantile and the Bicycle Plan foolish public policy. Come on, Jim, admit it. You’re just a bike nut who tried to use the JFK assassination as an excuse to take a whack at me. It should be clear even to you by now that the opportunity has backfired due to your innate stupidity.

  8. sfcitizen says:

    Things happen for no rhyme nor reason. Jackie O couldn’t believe that, Bobby couldn’t believe that, you can’t believe that, but i can.

    What does the Warren Commission have to do with what happened? Forget about it.

    Millions of simpleminded people share _your_ opinion. So what.

    The subject I know little about is what your opinion is, and what the other conspiracy theorists’ are.

    Maybe you should turn off the internet if you are so easily offended?

    Bike fetish?

  9. Rob Anderson says:

    You’re the one who seems to be easily offended, since you responded to my book review with another anonymous insult. The Warren Commission did the so-called investigation that you’re defending. You’re the one with the bike fetish, since you told us last year that you own four bikes.

    OMG, Jim. When are you going to throw down? Oh well.

  10. sfcitizen says:

    I’m not like you, I’m not a famous NIMBY activist, I don’t aspire to become the next Supervisor of D5, I don’t want somebody spending hours and hours to make my stipple(sp) image for page one of the WSJ. I’m leaving all the limelight to you.

    I look at the facts, you look at the Warren Commission. You expect the WC to be perfect, I don’t. Look to Oswald, the shooter – he’s the key.

    I said I had four bikes in the hallway. One’s a tandem, one’s a city bike, another one’s a smaller city bike for a special lady friend and one was an electric bike I was testing out for one of those major manufacturers. They are/were all safe and sound in an otherwise-useless, relatively-wide shotgun hallway.

    I also take the bus sometimes. Does that mean I have a MUNI festish? I also have a 5600 pound Toyota. Does that mean I have a car fetish?

  11. Rob Anderson says:

    “I look at the facts”! You provide no facts on the JFK assassination, whereas I did a long book review on the subject that referenced a number of other books and magazine articles on the subject.

    “Look to Oswald, the shooter—he’s the key.” Thanks for the tip, Jim. I wonder why no one ever thought of that?

    “I’m leaving the limelight to you.” Fine. But don’t you carry it to far by not putting your name on your blog? What exactly are you afraid of?

    Yes, “four bikes in the hallway” qualifies you as a bike fetishist.

  12. sfcitizen says:

    And yet I still don’t know why _you_ think impossible that a lonely crank acted alone. I’ve prompted you to say something like JFK was shot from the front because his head went back, but either you don’t believe that or you’re too smart to say you believe that.

    You think that that Hastings grad guy who wrote a book focuses too much on Oswald and I don’t. Fair enough.

    Why don’t you paint your house red, Rob? You really ought to. I’ll tell you to do this every chance I get for the rest of my life…

    Oh and you have no car and no bike so I’ll call you a MUNI fetishist. And on it goes…

  13. Rob Anderson says:

    You took your post on Mary Jung down? What are you afraid of? She’s the one who should worry about her attempt to bully you.

    “You think that that Hastings grad guy who wrote a book focuses too much on Oswald and I don’t. Fair enough.”

    But you admit that you haven’t even read the book. Why even have an opinion on a book you haven’t read?

    What is the painting-my-house-red about? Seems kind of goofy, Jim.

    I would qualify as “a Muni fetishist” if I collected Muni memorabilia or other related objects. As it is I’m only a regular Muni passenger. Owning four bikes suggests that you think bikes are pretty important, if not a fetish in the clinical sense.

  14. Anonymous says:

    I took a PG&E post down but the two MJ posts remain.

    I read the Hastings grad guy’s book. Might still have it somewhere… I haven’t read any conspiratist’s book.

    You had advice for me that I’m not going to follow, so I had advice for you that you’re not going to follow…

    Didn’t say I own them all. Now there’s a fridge in the hall, which I’ll agree is not normal…

  15. EEG636 says:

    Oswald was killed as soon as they could get to him . Or silence him !

Leave a Reply