This is a response to VC 23 Larry 4 ("Thirty year old debate")...
Your forgot one other "fact" - that the Kennedy and Lincoln's Vice-Presidents were both named Johnson. Like you, Larry, I find those "facts" to be very interesting coincidences, but I'd be very surprised if Oswald was aware of all of them, or if the idea that the "fact" that Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy and vice-versa made him think, "Hey, let's shoot this guy!"
I think the "more-that-one-shooter" idea is very compelling. What was the exact nature of the conspiracy, I don't know. I don't believe Oliver Stone thinks he knows either (maybe Roger does, and I'd be glad to hear it over the Chinese egg roll hor d'eourve's at John and Betsy's wedding).
But what really bothers me enough to respond to you in a voice card, Larry, is your blase attitude about not wanting to know the historical truth. Implied in your answer to Roger is that history is not important.
History is terribly important. Without data (i.e., knowledge of history) how can we proceed intelligently into the present and future as a country or a people; if we forget our mistakes, we are much more likely, it seems to me, to commit them again.
From Larry's attitude about not being "too terribly concerned" if there was a conspiracy as to who killed Kennedy, it's not a "terribly" far leap to the attitude of those who deny that the Holocaust ever happened. History shapes who we are and who we've become as a people - the good and the bad parts of us. If you forget history, you lay yourself open to a much more likely being duped by those who would manipulate the historical facts for their own, often self-serving and evil" ends. History has shown us this.
This ignorance of history - I will have none of it.