RSN April 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Weissman writes: "In short, who done it? Who exactly do we indict? As the rascally defense attorney Johnny Cochrane might have put it, if we can't name the names, we can't fix the blame."

President John F. Kennedy is seen riding in motorcade approximately one minute before he was shot in Dallas, Tx., on Nov. 22, 1963. In the car riding with Kennedy are Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy, right, Nellie Connally, left, and her husband, Gov. John Connally of Texas. (photo: AP)
President John F. Kennedy is seen riding in motorcade approximately one minute before he was shot in Dallas, Tx., on Nov. 22, 1963. In the car riding with Kennedy are Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy, right, Nellie Connally, left, and her husband, Gov. John Connally of Texas. (photo: AP)


The Killing of JFK: So Who Done It?

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

01 December 13

 

arl Gibson got it absolutely right, affirming for a new generation of change-hungry activists what ordinary Americans, according to repeated polls, have suspected for half a century about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. "The official evidence is bullshit." The Warren Commission Report just doesn't wash, as President Gerald Ford, a member of the commission, later admitted to his French counterpart Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. "It wasn't a lone assassin," said Ford, as the ancient Giscard now recalls. "It was a plot. We knew for sure it was a plot. But we didn't find who was behind it."

But hold on. Not even the best bullshit detector can establish what Carl calls "overwhelming evidence" about "who really killed JFK." Nor does theologian James Douglass's "JFK and the Unspeakable," the fascinating but ultimately misleading book that Carl credits as his primary source. Douglass assembles "mind-blowing facts" about the CIA, other U.S. intelligence agencies, top military officials, and corporate entities, any and all of whom might well have wanted Kennedy dead. But like so many Kennedy assassination truthers, Douglass puts the cart before the horse, telling us why Kennedy died and why it matters without knowing who among the usual suspects actually conspired to do the deed.

Did the conspirators include Allen Dulles, the former head of the CIA whom Kennedy sacked over the Bay of Pigs? Or General Lyman Lemnitzer, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, whom Kennedy rebuffed and refused to reappoint over Operation Northwoods, a plan to stage a provocation to build support for an invasion of Cuba? Or Lyndon Baines Johnson, whom the killing made king? And/or crime bosses Sam Giancana, Santo Trafficante, and Carlo Marcello? And/or rogue CIA veterans, say E. Howard Hunt, later of Watergate fame? And/or anti-Castro Cuban exiles? And/or Southern racists and other conservatives?

In short, who done it? Who exactly do we indict? As the rascally defense attorney Johnny Cochrane might have put it, if we can't name the names, we can't fix the blame.

We can - and should - blame Dulles, Lemnitzer, LBJ, the military-industrial complex, and other of the movers and shakers for a long list of economic, social, and political crimes. But not for the assassination, a discrete event that demands hard evidence that could stand up in either a court of law or a cut-throat graduate history seminar. We should never stop trying to find that evidence, but at least so far, no one - including filmmaker Oliver Stone - has produced a court-worthy case that the top echelons of some shadowy secret government or "deep state" organized the killing.

This hole continues to undermine the entire exercise. If we cannot identify the conspirators by name, how can we possibly say why they did it? And if we cannot say why, how can we reasonably make the killing of JFK central to a more general political ideology about how power works in the United States and how we might change it?

Which brings us to Carl's belief that JFK "was secretly working to end the US occupation of Vietnam." The claim that this supposed withdrawal plan could have been a prime motivation for his murder has been around since at least the early 1970s, but let's look at it apart from who killed him and why. Two different strands provide the basic evidence.

First, many of JFK's close confidants say that he told them that he planned to withdraw from Vietnam after winning a second term. The problem is that they never bothered to mention it in their celebration of Camelot and kept quiet about JFK's "hidden agenda" until 1967-1968, when America's foreign policy elite, especially in the Democratic Party, was turning to the view that they could never win the war. The hesitation should prompt at least a little suspicion that convenient memories represent a heartfelt effort to whitewash JFK.

Second, JFK left behind the famous National Security Action Memos 263, in which he supposedly called for a complete withdrawal from Vietnam within two years. Only the document does not say that. Read it for yourself. "It remains the central objectives of the United States in South Vietnam to assist the people and Government of the country to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy," says paragraph 1.

NSAM 263 then mentions withdrawal in the context of bringing home 1,000 military advisors who had been training the South Vietnamese forces. According to the war's leading historian, Stanley Karnow, this was primarily to prod South Vietnam president Ngo Dinh Diem to soften what JFK saw as a counter-productive crackdown on internal dissidents. Shortly after, and only three weeks before Dallas, Kennedy tacitly agreed to a South Vietnamese military coup against Diem, which led to the dictator's death.

NSAM 263 and surrounding documents also suggest that Kennedy hoped to bring home a larger number of military advisers within two years. By then he expected South Vietnamese forces to be able to beat the Communists with much less American participation. But, if his beloved Green Berets and their "Vietnamization" failed, as it would, there is little to suggest that Team Kennedy, which became Team Johnson, would ever willingly leave Southeast Asia. This is why Noam Chomsky and others have insisted that JFK planned to withdraw completely only if he could claim a victory. Douglass, who is a more a moralist than serious historian, completely misses the plot.

As with all counter-factual history, none of us have any way to prove what JFK would have done in Vietnam had he lived. But one other element of the story needs comment, even at the risk of goring sacred cows. Borrowing uncritically from the Douglass book, JFK's nephew Robert Kennedy Jr. tells a delightful story of a 1967 interview that his father gave Daniel Ellsberg, a then wavering war hawk who was researching what became "The Pentagon Papers," which he later leaked. Ellsberg wanted to know how JFK, who had sent so many advisers into Vietnam, had held out against sending in combat troops. "My father explained that his brother did not want to follow France into a war of rich against poor, white versus Asian, on the side of imperialism and colonialism against nationalism and self-determination," wrote Robert Jr.

"Would JFK have accepted a South Vietnamese defeat?" Ellsberg pressed. "We would have handled it like Laos," said brother Robert. "What made him so smart?" Ellsberg pressed further. "Whap!" Bobby's hand slammed down on the table, and Ellsberg jumped in his chair. "Because we were there!" said Bobby, slapping down again on the desk. "We saw what was happening to the French. We were determined never to let that happen to us."

Bobby was describing a trip he and JFK, newly elected to Congress, had made to Vietnam in 1951, where they saw for themselves and learned from an American diplomat called Edward Gullion that the French Legionnaires, for all their bravery, were doomed to lose, as they did at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. But the story and the insistence from brother Bobby, nephew Robert Jr., and author Douglass that JFK had generally opposed the American war in Vietnam masks the deeper tragedy of JFK's interventionist approach to foreign policy.

In May 1953, only two years after the "epiphany" in Vietnam, JFK met Diem, who was living in the United States, and became one of the first Americans to back the Catholic politician to become leader of the primarily Buddhist Vietnam. Kennedy then worked with the CIA and its American Friends of Vietnam to build support for Diem, whom he saw as an anti-French nationalist and "a third way" between colonialism and communism. He thought that the United States could create and sustain a nationalist alternative to Ho Chi Minh and his communist-led National Liberation Front. It did not work with Diem and was not about to work with Vietnamization.

JFK made a similar mistake in Latin American with his Alliance for Progress, which claimed to support U.S.-led reform as an alternative to left-wing revolution. As I showed back in the 1970s, the Alliance played a key role in promoting the string of right-wing military coups from Brazil to Chile. The same with JFK's supposed support for Cuba's Fidel Castro. Though, as Carl writes, JFK clearly understood how the U.S. had colonized Cuba, we can hardly call his extended effort to kill Castro in Operation Mongoose a form of support.

Where, then, does that leave us? Much to his credit, JFK moved beyond being a committed Cold Warrior and worked with Nikita Khrushchev to defuse some of the nuclear threat, just as Ronald Reagan learned to work with Mikhail Gorbachev. But, like Reagan, Kennedy tried to use every element of American power to crush independent nationalist and reformist movements. Is that really the kind of interventionist foreign policy that any of us want to support?



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How To Break Their Hold."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-72 # Activista 2013-12-01 18:31
Thank you for facts - aka inconvenient truth -
Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald
 
 
+29 # David Starr 2013-12-02 10:27
Keep staying in denial. Hopefully, one day you'll wake up. A lot of facts and incidents occurred relating to the JFK assassination. Case is NOT closed.
 
 
+16 # jfetzer 2013-12-02 13:46
Oswald was framed, for which we have a mountain of evidence. See, for example, "Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald" which I co-authored with Jim Marrs.

The "magic bullet" theory is not only provably false but not even anatomically possible, which means there had to have been at least six shots from three directions. See "Reasoning about Assassinations".

A distinction must be drawn between SPONSORS, FACILITATORS and MECHANICS. The SPONSORS included the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the anti-Castro Cubans, the Mafia, the Eastern bankers, the Texas oil men and Israel.

The FACILITATORS included Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover, where LBJ made sure all the arrangements were in place to kill his predecessor and the FBI was used to cover it up.

The MECHANICS included the shooters, their supervisors and coordinators, who appear to have included Edward Lansdale and George H.W. Bush.

For more on the probable identities of the assassins, see"JFK: The Assassination of America", where the videos should be up shortly at jfk50santabarba ra.com
 
 
-1 # Letthewordgo4th 2013-12-02 23:47
The Israelis? Really? Did Jack Ruby have dual citizenship? Where are the facts concerning Israeli involvement? I got it the Israeli's are routine Int'l. black operators, but unless & until their involvement in the "big event" is proven or at least provably reliable, the Israeli angle doesn't pass the smell test. Hey, 6 out of 7 sponsors ain't bad, & I agree those are all culpable w/some additional heavyweight background people on board as well.
 
 
+2 # Anarchist 23 2013-12-03 12:31
The Mitrokhin Archive published as 'The Sword and the Shield' fingers Hunt,Murchison and Richardson by name. Maddie Brown, long time mistress to LBJ said he said it was 'the oil men and the CIA'...certainl y all had motive, means, opportunity! Your analysis is spot on!
 
 
+12 # Junius 2013-12-01 21:17
Robert Kennedy was asked in a 1967 interview
"At the time of his death, did your brother believe the Vietnam war was winnable?"
"Yes," he replied.
 
 
+3 # Letthewordgo4th 2013-12-02 23:52
How does this have any meaning in light of the context? No way would RFK reference his brother to PUBLICLY challenge LBJ's war policies at that moment in time. His response gives us virtually no understanding of what his or his brother's real opinions were regarding 'Nam or what their policies & strategies may have been or became had JFK dodged the Dealey ambush, & thus, your citation is meaningless & irrelevant.
 
 
+47 # Mister P 2013-12-01 21:27
Best book on this subject is David Talbot's "Brothers," about JFK and RFK. It says that after Hoover (?!) called RFK to tell him that JFK was dead, RFK's first call was to the CIA, to ask, "was it one of your guys?" Talbot doesn't solve the crime, but he's got a lot of facts new to me. RFK never believed the Warren Report - one reason he ran in 1968 was to reopen the inquiry, after he was elected.
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2013-12-04 18:55
...(A)nd, of course, was one of the reasons, if not the primary reason, that he too was murdered. The last thing that the conspirators responsible for JFK's death wanted, was for RFK to reopen the inquiry into who really murdered his brother, and to actually have a chance of getting to the bottom of who was really responsible, and holding them accountable.
 
 
-70 # BobC 2013-12-01 21:34
The questions of who hated JFK and why, and whether there was any rational justification for their hatred, are totally separate and distinct from the question of who killed him. The latter question has been answered by 50 years worth of a thorough examination of the forensic evidence in the murder case, which all points to Oswald and no one else.
 
 
+31 # ericlipps 2013-12-02 02:45
Quoting BobC:
The questions of who hated JFK and why, and whether there was any rational justification for their hatred, are totally separate and distinct from the question of who killed him. The latter question has been answered by 50 years worth of a thorough examination of the forensic evidence in the murder case, which all points to Oswald and no one else.

Actually, no. The Congressional investigation of the 970s concluded that JFK's death was probably the result of a conspiracy--whi ch I suppose is why that investigation is well on its way down the memory hole.
 
 
+2 # BobC 2013-12-02 05:15
The Congressional (HSCA) conclusion was based on the "acoustic evidence", which has been examined since then by the National Academy of Sciences and demonstrated to be severely flawed --- as in, the recording was made blocks away, a minute or two after the shots were fired.
 
 
0 # Al21 2013-12-02 23:38
Wrong that is a tired old bit of disinfo. That study itself has been called into question and was also proven to be a flawed by D. B. Thomas.
 
 
-3 # BobC 2013-12-03 05:22
In turn, the D.B. Thomas paper was proven to be flawed: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/
 
 
0 # Al21 2013-12-03 12:08
Oh, Mcadams. That's your objective reference, lol.
 
 
-3 # BobC 2013-12-03 14:15
On what basis do you disagree with O'Dell's conclusions? I'm no expert on acoustics, but it looks like a pretty thorough analysis to me. I can't tell whether or not it was peer-reviewed, but even if it was you'll just say the peer reviewers were being somehow controlled by the conspirators.
 
 
0 # Al21 2013-12-04 11:36
Nice try Bobby, but don't put words in my mouth. That study was not peer-reviewed and has been disputed itself.
 
 
-3 # BobC 2013-12-04 11:53
Well then, if that's the case, at best there is a lack of clear consensus among researchers on the acoustic evidence. The ballistics evidence trumps it anyway. The exit wound was on the side facing the grassy knoll, which is why we can see it on the Zapruder film.
 
 
0 # Al21 2013-12-04 20:47
You mean that YOU can see it on the Zapruder film, not "we". There are a number of experts far more knowledgeable than you like Mr. Fetzer for one who commented above who can easily disprove that claim. You laughably state things like your comment above as if it is a done deal, lol. Very sad and more unsubstantiated , over-generalize d nonsense.
You make claims that you can't back up.
 
 
+1 # Anarchist 23 2013-12-03 12:34
Wow...'a minute or two after the shots were fired' I though sound traveled a lot faster than that..guess Mach 2 isn't very fast after all!
 
 
-2 # BobC 2013-12-03 13:58
Well, obviously those aren't gunshots on the recording.
 
 
+25 # REDPILLED 2013-12-02 07:13
As with 9/11, physics doesn't support the Official explanation/cov erup. JFK's head was snapped BACK by a bullet fired from ahead of the motorcade, as the Zapruder film clearly shows, with fragments of JFK's skull and brains being blown out the back of his head, which Jackie vainly tried to retrieve. The impossibilty of the "magic bullet" has been shown, as well. See Printing: CIA Official Tied to JFK Assassination http://www.opednews.com/populum/printer_friendly.php?content=a&id=173371
 
 
-10 # BobC 2013-12-02 07:52
No; look at the Zapruder film again. In frame 312, his head moves slightly forward due to the impact of the bullet from behind. In frame 313, brain matter is blown out of the exit wound on the top/right/mid-t o-front part of his head. The brain matter goes up and forward, not backward. Some of it ends up on the trunk of the car because the car is moving forward. Also in frame 313, his head jerks backward and to the left as the nerves in his brain explode, which causes his body to straighten involuntarily and violently. This has been duplicated in goats. You need to rely on physics and biology rather than myth if you want to understand what happened. The so-called "magic" bullet followed a straight-line trajectory from the 6th-floor window, through Kennedy's neck and then Connolly's chest, wrist, and thigh. I have seen this proven repeatedly in documentaries using 3D computer technology. Conspiracy theorists continue to hang their hat on Jim Garrison's ridiculous drawing, which showed the seats lined up incorrectly as in a regular passenger car, which the presidential limo was not.
 
 
-4 # RobertMStahl 2013-12-03 06:53
Another piece worth noting:
http://www.corbettreport.com/jfk-a-conspiracy-theory/
 
 
+2 # Anarchist 23 2013-12-03 12:37
You do believe in magic! Because the 'magic' bullet was not noticeably damaged....in my non-magical world (see CSI for example or read true crime and Ann Rule) a bullet that is fired into something is deformed by the impact... then there is the 'magic' bullet...nearly pristine despite having left fragments in Connolly's thigh...a magical world or just magical thinking? You make the call.
 
 
-1 # BobC 2013-12-03 14:04
Watch the recent Nova (PBS) episode called "Cold Case". They test-fired rounds from a Mannlicher-Carc ano into materials as hard as pine wood. The bullets came out looking just like the slightly deformed bullet found on the stretcher. BTW the damage is noticeable in the photo showing the mashed end. If you're getting your ballistics knowledge from "CSI", that might be part of the problem. Do the crooks on "CSI" use a Mannlicher-Carc ano rifle?
 
 
0 # RobertMStahl 2013-12-03 06:51
With 9/11, however, Indira Singh came along and tied together all the court trials to which, when considered as a whole, put the pieces of the puzzle together identifying the criminals and the intent. A CBS affiliate out of Boston did a program but never aired it, and as of her last communication with Richard Andrew Grove in 2008, no one has ever heard from Singh again. What is it that we clamor for?
 
 
-3 # tclose 2013-12-02 11:12
It's amazing that BobC and Activista get such high negatives, in suggesting that the evidence after all these years still "point to Oswald and no one else".

Yes, there have been many theories that suggest otherwise but none of them are supported by forensic evidence. BobC correctly puts to rest the Congressional HSCA conclusion about a conspiracy and the suggestion that a single ("magic") bullet could not have injured both Kennedy and Connolly.

It is a very human reaction to question events that seem improbable. That a loser like Oswald could have carried out the feat of killing a president in this manner is hard to come to grips with, that's for sure. Yet the preponderance of evidence shows that this is what happened, unlikely or not. Specifically:
- The only shots that were fired were by Oswald, including one that injured both Kennedy and Connolly, and one that entered the President's head from behind not the front.
- Oswald was clearly the shooter and the gun proven to be used was purchased and owned by Oswald.
- While there were many groups that had negative feelings towards the President, no evidence exists or has come forward over the past 50 years that links any of these groups to Oswald's actions.
- There is no evidence tying the actions of Jack Ruby to any group or conspiracy.

RSN is generally an educated and highly rational group of individuals; that so many of us seem to be taken in by these unproven conspiracy theories is unlike us.
 
 
-12 # BobC 2013-12-02 11:46
Thanks for the support, tclose. As disturbing as it is to have to rebut the constant denial of facts by Fox News watchers and conspiracy theorists from the right-wing fringe in the Obama era, I find it even more disturbing when fellow liberals plug up their ears and scream "LALALALA" when confronted with provable facts. I would think they would be relieved to learn that their long-held conspiracy paranoia, while perhaps justified in certain other areas, has been misplaced with regard to the JFK assassination. But no, they cling to their flimsy theories (most of which contradict each other, by the way) like a religion. It just so happens that the president of the United States was assassinated by a left-winger; deal with it.
 
 
+5 # Al21 2013-12-03 00:14
Your ad hominem attacks unfortunately for you do not equate to facts nor truth. And your "friend's' comment above means just as little. Your cherry picked "evidence only means you are in favor of the W.C. report and nothing else. There is expert evidence to refute and or question most of what you've cited here and the evidence of a conspiracy goes far beyond the "magic bullet" and whatever else happened in Deally plaza, although there is still much evidence there to contradict the W.C's investigation. Even LBJ did not fully believe the final conclusions of the WC and stated so to Walter Cronkite. He later begged Cronkite not to air that interview due to "national security". It was aired a few years later after LBJ died. JFK himself was a strong believer in the possibilities of a military/right- wing coup as depicted in "7 Days in May". He not only had a great deal to do with that film being made, but he was the main reason that "The Manchurian Candidate" was made. He personally called the UA studio head who was fearful of the national repercussions from making the film that he was hesitant to make it. JFK personally assured him that he had no problem with the content of the film and strongly encouraged it being made. So you can include LBJ and JFK in your lamely cited group of liberals dreaming "LALALA.."
 
 
-3 # BobC 2013-12-03 05:32
Allegedly LBJ believed that Castro was behind it. I don't think he was correct, but are you endorsing his theory? I'm not quite sure how the guilty parties could have been left-wingers and right-wingers at the same time. Of course JFK was afraid of right-wing nuts; who wouldn't be? They were at least as nutty back then as they are today. Anyway, the "expert evidence" you're talking about is based either on a misunderstandin g of the basic facts or on wild conjecture that translates into unshakeable conclusions without the proper forensic analysis.
 
 
+1 # Al21 2013-12-03 12:35
I'm not endorsing the supposed theory of LBJ's that YOU postulate. I'm merely pointing out that LBJ admitted what I stated in an interview. Regardless of whether or not he thought it was an international conspiracy or from within, he still was never convinced that there wasn't a conspiracy. That is the point.
Your "not sure how the guilty parties could have been left-wingers and right-wingers at the same time." To your point, the whole left-right wing issue at the top of ladder is for the most part smoke and mirrors. You have for instance so-called liberals like Harriman working with right wingers like Prescott Bush for year and including when both were laundering money for the Nazi's in the '30's and well into the war even after Hitler declared war on the U.S.
I'm surprised with all your self-proclaimed expertise that you'd be so easily flummoxed on that left-right illusion that's still perpetuated today to keep the rest of us at odds with one another.
Nice try, but JFK wasn't concerned with "right-wing nuts". He was concerned with serious people that he was fighting against behind the scenes. So, please don't try to make this more of a small group of crazies. JFK in his short time took on big oil, CIA, the mafia and the MIC. Those are formidable enemies. So save that lame theory of yours.
How convenient for you to state that anything you don't agree with is wild conjecture, lol. More generality and ad hominem.
 
 
-1 # BobC 2013-12-03 14:09
It's not that complicated. A Castro supporter in 1963 could fairly be considered "left-wing", and someone trying to overthrow Castro could be considered "right-wing". If you agree that LBJ was wrong in his conjecture, then what difference does it make what he thought? All that matters is that his theory didn't hold water, just like yours doesn't.
 
 
0 # Al21 2013-12-04 11:57
Poor Bobby. You're trying so hard to put words in my mouth.
And as you've done over and over in this comment section you somehow are so arrogant and foolish to believe that because you say something doesn;t "hold water", lol, that your assertion is fact. Your pretend assertions that you know what is true and what isn't is what doesn't "hold water".

I NEVER stated that LBJ was wrong in his conjecture. I'm not as arrogant as you seem to be to claim to know things I do not. Whatever Johnson knew or didn't know it was a helluva lot more than we do. Whatever his intention was in claiming that the conspiracy in his mind might have had "international connections", either way, as I made it clear in the comment you think you read but did not comprehend-- that LBJ was stating that a conspiracy was indeed possible. That is the point.
I do find it so amusing that you believe LBJ you know more than the most inside person in the government at that time, who hand-picked the heads of and literally created the WC which he intensely monitored all the way through it's existence. But hey Bobby your arrogance is unparalleled it seems. Unfortunately arrogance does not equal accuracy.
As far as whatever you think is complicated you merely prove in your reply that you don't know much about the disinfo and distractions that the left/right paradigm implies even to this day.
 
 
-3 # BobC 2013-12-04 13:53
Well, there's no way for me to tell what you think since you're all over the map. The widely divergent conspiracy theories can't all be right, so pick one. Then I'll know what points to argue.

As far as LBJ goes, he might have had his suspicions, but did he look closely at what Oswald did or didn't do when he reached out to the Cuban embassy in Mexico City? That would be the key to determining whether Castro was behind it or not. LBJ was a busy man after 1963, so maybe he didn't take the time to study the case in fine detail like some of us have done since then. I.e., maybe he just figured he'd let the Warren Commission and FBI sort it out, and then whether they did or didn't do a thorough job with integrity, he would just accept their conclusion and move past it. He certainly wouldn't have wanted a war with Cuba; that would have derailed his domestic agenda even more than Vietnam did.
 
 
0 # Al21 2013-12-04 16:10
"Well, there's no way for me to tell what you think since you're all over the map."

LOL!! From you I'd expect such a childish unsubstantiated , lame effort at continuing to twist my words.

"LBJ was a busy man after 1963, so maybe he didn't take the time to study the case in fine detail like some of us have done since then..."

Oh right, I forgot that you were there and LBJ told you this personally. If you get paid for all this nonsense you spew then you are really overpaid.
LBJ controlled the whole process which lasted all of nine months. If you can actually make such a moronic comment then you have absolutely no idea what kind of micro-manager LBJ was about all the key issues in his presidency and this one at that time was one of the most important as any credible historian will cite. LBJ personally kept tabs on all things night and day and was not adverse to waking people in the middle of the night to find out what he wanted and to get people to do what he wanted. That is LBJ msm history 101. No president in our modern times was as hands-on as LBJ and again.
War or no war. He controlled, impeded and distorted the investigation from day one. The latter two points are made clearly in the beginning of your beloved Frontline on Oswald.
Now if that's the type of nonsense you're going to continue to share go back to your nlog or go try and convince someone else who'll praise you for all your generalized and unproven claims.
 
 
+2 # karenvista 2013-12-03 00:14
Quoting tclose:
- There is no evidence tying the actions of Jack Ruby to any group or conspiracy.


HSCA findings re Jack Ruby and the Mafia:

The committee took note that Jack Ruby had dined with a Dallas-based member of the Marcello organization the evening before the assassination of the President and that the same Dallas-based member of the Marcello organization was the first person to visit Ruby after he had been jailed for the murder of the President's alleged assassin. The committee had little choice but to regard the Ruby-Campisi relationship and the Campisi-Marcell o relationship as yet another set of associations strengthening the committee's growing suspicion of the Marcello crime family's involvement in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy or execute the President's alleged assassin or both.

Excerpts from organized crime expert John Davis's book MAFIA KINGFISH, focusing on Ruby's ties to one of the most powerful Mafia figures in the country in the 1960s, Carlos Marcello, who was known to hate Kennedy and who was heard by five people, two of them police informants, to acknowledge involvement in Kennedy's assassination.

In a post-conviction news conference, Ruby said unnamed, high-ranking individuals were responsible for his plight and would suppress the truth about Oswald's slaying. According to The (London) Sunday Times, Ruby told a psychiatrist that he had been framed to kill Oswald and that he knew who ordered Kennedy's killing.
 
 
+5 # Letthewordgo4th 2013-12-03 00:35
No evidence Oswald ever fired a gun that day. Had he lived & been brought to trial, he would have had an interesting story to tell as the evidence against him would have all been hearsay. The Magic bullet was planted on that stretcher in Parkland just as the 3 shell casings found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. As for "evidence," it's tough to produce provable evidence when the very institutions that have come under suspicion regarding JFK's murder were some of the very one's charged with collecting, examining, disseminating, interpreting, & explaining it to the public. Over the ensuing 50 years, they failed miserably as we know evidence was mishandled, disappeared, destroyed, & yes, altered. Add murder, bullying, & threats, & that applies to the potential witnesses as well. As for the "evidence," there are questions surrounding much of what passes for it as you must know. How can you so cavalierly trust it & the authorities who've proven to be so frequently antagonistic to a straightforward , honest, public display & consideration of what is claimed to be the evidence?

Jack Ruby' had known mob connections & had worked as an informant for Nixon in the '40's. W/the CIA mobbed up over Cuba, & Ruby's connections to the mob & right-wing politics, & later his Dallas PD pals & their guests who visited his Carousel Club, it isn't a stretch to see a whole bunch of dots that could easily be connected. Of course, you'd have to be intellectually honest; not as common as one might think.
 
 
+3 # Letthewordgo4th 2013-12-03 00:00
The Magic bullet was planted evidence as were the three Mannlicher Carcano shell casings found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Real evidence was destroyed, altered, lost, and phony evidence was frequently substituted (for example, the original rifle found on the 6th floor was a Mauser). The forensics on much of the bullet evidence can't be trusted as much of the chain of custody regarding what they claim to have has been in question since virtually the moment the guns stopped firing. Oswald didn't fire a gun of any sort on that day in Dallas.
 
 
+4 # Anarchist 23 2013-12-03 12:32
The whole Oswald theory is based on the 'magic' bullet...do you believe in magic?
 
 
+59 # brux 2013-12-01 21:36
Basically the top .01% of our country is responsible for the derailing of democracy and where the US was heading ... by what Noam Chomsky said was elites waging a brutal class war in America. Kennedy was the last President who talked the talk and walked the walk of what FDR and Henry Wallace called an age of the common man. That is what died with Kennedy and who is responsible.
 
 
+7 # thymesup 2013-12-02 10:14
precisely. motive is always considered in murder. oswald was an admirer of jfk. james douglass' book describes in great detail jfk's 'turning toward peace,' as epitomized in his 'peace speech' june '63 at american university graduation. in the ussr, everybody got to read it. in the u.s. hardly anyone is aware of it because it received hardly any reporting. allen dulles ran the warren commission, appointed by johnson, after jfk fired him, vowing to 'splinter the cia iinto a 1000 pieces,' due to th many time he felt they were trying to trick him into war that would have been nuclear armageddon.
 
 
-13 # BobC 2013-12-02 10:26
Oswald had become disillusioned with JFK after he (JFK) allowed the right wing in the military and CIA to bully him into the Bay of Pigs disaster, and we now know that his administration tried to have Castro killed. In the Cuban missile crisis, JFK stood his ground against not only the USSR but also Castro, which Oswald, being an admirer of Castro, did not view as "fair play for Cuba". Sure, the extreme right saw JFK as an appeaser of communists, but the extreme left did not see him that way... just like today, when the extreme right tries to portray Obama as an appeaser of Islamic terrorists even though the left would (accurately) view him more as a terrorist-killi ng machine.
 
 
+2 # Al21 2013-12-03 00:29
Can you cite where these quotes were made and to whom? Did you know that Oswald for all his support for "FPFC" also tried to get involved with an anti-Castro group in the same city? Why is it that so many of the people that Oswald hung out with in New Orleans and even in Dallas were in some fashion connected to the CIA? Why is it that Oswald's tax returns have been considered classified since the assassination? Oswald was quoted also as saying very positive things about JFK. Marina Oswald has stated for years that, he respected JFK. He wept the day that Patrick Kennedy died, which was shortly before the assassination.
Oswald the supposed lone nut assassin oddly enough never tried to seek the fame the people like Bugliosi claim he was after. Most of the comments we know and heard him make were about getting someone to come forward and give him legal assistance and that he was a "patsy". While none of this proves he was innocent, it brings a great deal into question and for a fact the so-called quotes you cite he made and others do no more to seal the deal that he was out to kill JFK.
 
 
+1 # Letthewordgo4th 2013-12-03 00:47
Based on what evidence? You've got bupkis about Oswald's disillusionment w/JFK so why cite a phantom fact that is unprovable & thus damages your credibility?

Fair Play for Cuba was a phony sheep dipped CIA group. Virtually everyone in it were CIA or FBI connected. Had Operation Northwoods become operational, FPFC would have been a convenient group to blame for the false flag op. the Joint Chiefs sponsored.
 
 
0 # Al21 2013-12-04 11:58
Well stated, Letthewordgo4th .
 
 
-4 # BobC 2013-12-03 09:45
Here you go, guys... just in case you're interested in reading facts instead of fantasy: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/twenty-four-years/
 
 
0 # Al21 2013-12-03 12:39
Oh wow that frontline piece? That's the best you have to share? Prove that this frontline episode was all fact laden, please. I'd love to read it your, uh, treatise on this.
 
 
-3 # BobC 2013-12-03 14:20
The episode was heavily sourced, as is the case with everything Frontline does. I'm not going to waste my time referencing every detail for you. If you think PBS was in on the conspiracy just like everyone else on God's green earth apparently was, then I give up.
 
 
0 # Al21 2013-12-04 15:07
Once again poor Bobby. I never said that PBS was in on the conspiracy, lol. I merely stated in a sarcastic manner that it was not a fact laden and to go further was not the heavily sourced piece you claim it to be. But let's move to some facts. Frontline who needs to proclaim this piece as "definitive"doe s make some interesting assertions that they never go further with. They prove for example that LBJ made Dallas and later the WC avoid the communist issue as it may have attributed to a possible conspiracy. Interesting considering his interview years later revealing that the WC never changed his mind. FL proves that the investigation into Oswald and JFK was never allowed to be pursued as an objective investigation. Proof like that along with Nick Katzenbach's memo that "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial." This was written by the then highest legal officer in the nation before a real investigation had gotten off the ground. We could stop there alone, but I'll try and proceed with the little space left.
FL never revealed Priscilla McMillian's intelligence ties and being the one to first interview Oswald in the S.U. where she painted him as an idealist. After working with the WC she changed the article on it's reprinting to make O look like a "fanatic".
 
 
0 # Al21 2013-12-04 15:31
FL never brings up one of O's key moments as a kid that set his dreams afire – that tv show—“I Led Three Lives” about a man who pretended to be a communist for the fbi and infiltrated various commie organizations. This above all was his dream and goal in his youth to do this kind of work, which may be what he actually did.
Posner never clarifies the meaning of the levels attained in the marines and glosses over the fact that 4 years before the assassination Oswald has lost a significant amount of skill and only qualifies by two points to achieve the lowest level of skill as a marksman. So that means that in 4 years he’s going to be able to make a shot that altho some experts do--- most experts can’t and yet they will all try without any of the obstacles and multiple pressures that Oswald would have had. Sure that makes sense. Kiling a human being let alone the President of the US with a large crowd full of spectators, intelligence agents and law enforcement, none of those pressures were there to intimidate even the best expert snipers.
Not to mention if he was the lone nut shooter, he had the best shot coming down Houston. Elm was perfect however for some form of trianglulated fire and the fare worse option for a lone assassin to attempt, let alone succeed at.
So-called commie is sent to not only a top secret base but one that is controlled by cia. He's learning Russian, espousing Marxism— and yet no cia or military investigation of him.
 
 
0 # Al21 2013-12-04 15:39
Funny how when convenient CIA or FBI are portrayed as "keystone cops" as Blakey does and then yet the WC which relied largely on both agencies conducted such a through investigation. Where is the definitive and sourced investigation of FL here?
FL in their exhaustive definitive research overlooks Oswald’s connection and relationship with David Ferry when he joined the Civil Air patrol. Gee wonder why.
My feedback here only cites about 1/4 of the Fontline piece. I've got tons more notes on this film alone and I'm by no means an expert or worthy of being called a serious researcher I'm just a layman in this area, a concerned citizen who's noted like the massive majority of Americans has the many inconsistencies of the WC and the msm strong stance to protect the same.
I find it humorous that for the most part your only means of refuting anyone here who disagrees with you is to take that childish stance of it being unproven and do so with no credible info except to say that's what you think. If there's a keystone cop here it's you.
 
 
+4 # Salus Populi 2013-12-03 13:36
[2 of 2; continued from last post]

The famous photo of Oswald holding radical newspapers, aside from being a likely construct [based on the difference in direction between the shadows of his nose and his body], are virtually a dead give-away to the phoniness of his "leftism."

As anyone who has studied the history of the Bolsheviks and their successors knows, the Daily Worker was the newspaper of the Communist Party USA, which took its direction from Moscow, which even after the secret speech of 1955, was fundamentally Stalinist and virulently opposed to Trotsky, whose role in the Bolshevik Revolution had been falsified and written out of Soviet history after his assassination by a Stalinist agent in Mexico in 1940.

The Socialist Worker was the newspaper of the party of the same name, which was the main party supporting the legacy of, and founded by followers of, the same Trotsky.

For anyone to be prominently displaying both, as Oswald does in the doctored photo, shows no knowledge of leftism whatsoever; or else shows a deliberate effort at disinformation aimed at the naive and gullible.
 
 
+2 # Salus Populi 2013-12-03 13:33
[1 of 2]

Oswald's "Fair Play for Cuba" committee happened to be run out of the same office as a right-wing ex-FBI man in New Orleans with close ties with David ferrie. His sponsor and close associate in Dallas was George de Morenschield, a CIA informant who shot himself to death [or possibly was murdered] the night before he was scheduled to give testimony to the HSCA. Oswald learned his russian at the Naval Intelligence School in California, which was used by high-level agents before sending them in "sheep-dipped" as defectors. His wife was the niece of a high-ranking KGB official. He was a protege of David Ferrie, in the latter's class of airmen; Ferrie, despite his pathologies, was a valued source for both the Marcello organization and the CIA in New Orleans.

[Continued next post]
 
 
+2 # Salus Populi 2013-12-03 13:38
[2 of 2; continued from last post]

The famous photo of Oswald holding radical newspapers, aside from being a likely construct [based on the difference in direction between the shadows of his nose and his body], are virtually a dead give-away to the phoniness of his "leftism."

As anyone who has studied the history of the Bolsheviks and their successors knows, the Daily Worker was the newspaper of the Communist Party USA, which took its direction from Moscow, which even after the secret speech of 1955, was fundamentally Stalinist and virulently opposed to Trotsky, whose role in the Bolshevik Revolution had been falsified and written out of Soviet history after his assassination by a Stalinist agent in Mexico in 1940.

The Socialist Worker was the newspaper of the party of the same name, which was the main party supporting the legacy of, and founded by followers of, the same Trotsky.

For anyone to be prominently displaying both, as Oswald does in the doctored photo, shows no knowledge of leftism whatsoever; or else shows a deliberate effort at disinformation aimed at the naive and gullible.
 
 
+2 # John S. Browne 2013-12-04 19:31
I'm with you on this, "Salus"; but can I make a suggestion? How 'bout "semi-deleting" the second copy you inadvertantly posted in the wrong place, by editing the mistaken copy, completely replacing the comment with, simply, "..." or whatever you choose, thus removing the confusion?
 
 
-44 # BobC 2013-12-01 21:37
See my comments here: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20637-solving-kennedys-murder-a-modest-proposal-for-progress, for the reasons why there is no way Oswald's presence in the Texas School Book Depository building could have been orchestrated by conspirators, and why there is no way Ruby could have been acting on anything but momentary impulse. In my comments on that thread, I also review the physical evidence, which all points to Oswald, his gun, and the trajectory from the 6th-floor window.
 
 
+8 # 4merlib 2013-12-01 22:18
But BobC, it just doesn't fit the narrative that a kooky Communist could have been responsible for killing a progressive icon. It just has to somehow be blamed the vast right-wing conspiracy. Note also the obsession with establishing that Kennedy was not really as anti-Communist and pro-business as he seemed, it was just part of his strategy to implement a secret progressive agenda. And that, of course, is why he had to be killed!
 
 
+7 # ericlipps 2013-12-02 02:50
Quoting 4merlib:
But BobC, it just doesn't fit the narrative that a kooky Communist could have been responsible for killing a progressive icon. It just has to somehow be blamed the vast right-wing conspiracy. Note also the obsession with establishing that Kennedy was not really as anti-Communist and pro-business as he seemed, it was just part of his strategy to implement a secret progressive agenda. And that, of course, is why he had to be killed!

Oh, rubbish. For 50 years the official "narrative" as been exactly that: a crazy Commie loner shot JFK, period and shut up. Unfortunately, it simply hasn't worn well, and not just with "progressives," many of whom never much liked Kennedy in the first place precisely because they saw him as a run-of-the-mill Cold Warrior.
 
 
-12 # Inspired Citizen 2013-12-02 04:50
Oswald had become a desperate man and may have decided to become "famous" by assassinating a President. Ideology was moot to Oswald, or he may have just decided to "help" Cuba by killing it's foe.
 
 
+2 # karenvista 2013-12-03 00:58
Quoting Inspired Citizen:
Oswald had become a desperate man and may have decided to become "famous" by assassinating a President.



Yes, all people who assassinate an important person to "become famous" automatically undermine their celebrity by telling the world that they didn't do the act and that they are just a "patsy." That makes sense??

This is one of the stupidest claims that the Warren Commission defenders make.

The other thing you guys never address is that it is very well documented that Oswald was not an unintelligent drifter, as you paint him. He was a Marine intelligence operator whose duties included mapping and radar for the U2 flights flying over the Soviet Union when he was stationed at Atsugi Air Base in Japan, which was run by the CIA. It trained U.S. military in the Russian language and infiltrated agents (supposedly defecting) into the Soviet Union.

He traveled in to the USSR in high style even though broke and the U.S. State Department gave Oswald a loan (no repayment required) for his expenses to return to the United States. As JFK Assassination Researcher Bob Harris points out, that’s pretty generous treatment during the height of the Cold War for someone with a Marxist past, who could have been a potential subversive and traitor to his country. Why did the State Department do that?

If you had just been set-up as an assassin, or were one, would you go just to a matinee for any reason other than to meet your contacts?
 
 
-6 # Activista 2013-12-03 09:54
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald
was a psycho ...
 
 
-4 # BobC 2013-12-03 10:44
Yes, Karen, I would go there to hide from the cops swarming through the neighborhood.
 
 
+3 # Anarchist 23 2013-12-03 12:45
Yes, and make myself very conspicuous by dawdling past the shoe store (whose owner, conveniently standing outside the store called the police) and then not paying the $.75 for the ticket. Oh yes, and moving around, sitting next to nearly every single viewer including a pregnant woman. Waiting to make contact with a 'handler' or just some sort of pervert? The 'Official State History' is really just the 'Official State Myth'
 
 
-6 # BobC 2013-12-03 14:27
Oh my God, so now the shoe store owner is part of the conspiracy? Oswald needn't be forgiven for murdering a police officer and the President of the U.S., but I think we can forgive him for acting nervous and somewhat irrational when he knew that all of law enforcement was looking for him.
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2013-12-04 19:45
Damn, you as a twister of facts really do take the cake! "Anarchist 23" did not say what you claim! He no where asserted, or even alluded, that the shoe store owner was part of the conspiracy. He simply made the point that Oswald flaunted himself to the shoe store owner as if to intentionally draw attention to himself, as he did in the theater, etc. If Oswald was nervous, he was very likely such because he was probably most concerned that he might be, or was going to be, setup; or, most likely, the "setup" was intentional and he went along with it, but he was nervous that his handlers wouldn't live up to whatever they falsely promised him, such as their getting him out of the setup and being held accountable for JFK's murder (of course, not telling him that what they really meant by that was that they were going to "get him out of it" by having him killed so they could remove any possibility that he would spill the beans that the whole assassination was a "factions-of-th e-U.S.-governme nt/'al CIAduh(!)'", and others, coup and inside job, through and through, and from the beginning.
 
 
+1 # Al21 2013-12-04 21:03
Good comment John S. Browne and it's good too that you also called BobC on his ridiculous efforts to twist people's comments to suit his very transparent hyperbole.
 
 
0 # samiam 2013-12-03 22:33
why would he go to a movie carrying a pistol,
what was he expecting?
 
 
-5 # BobC 2013-12-03 23:02
He shot JFK from behind instead of while the motorcade was approaching the TSBD because he didn't want to die on the spot. He left the TSBD immediately after the shooting so he wouldn't be arrested on the spot. He left his rooming house so he wouldn't be arrested there. He got his pistol so he could protect himself from cops. He figured he'd be safer if he kept moving. He ducked into the theater because cops were everywhere on that street, seeing as how there was an officer down several blocks away. Yes, he was acting out his frustration with life, and he wanted to be politically relevant. Obviously he had to have known all along that his chances of avoiding capture forever were not great, but that doesn't mean he wanted to get arrested. If I were in his shoes, I'd want to avoid capture for as long as possible. I can't believe this is even a point of controversy with you people.
 
 
+6 # thymesup 2013-12-02 09:55
examining the motives of the 'top 1% including cia and military industrial complex,' sheds necessary light.
 
 
0 # Junius 2013-12-03 17:15
Indeed, the "top 1%" had benefited from Kennedy's tax cut, which lowered the top rates, and Eisenhower had coined the term "military-indus trial complex" in his famous response to Kennedy's demand for more missiles.
 
 
+3 # Al21 2013-12-03 00:38
Why more sarcasm and ad hominem? What does that prove? Who said that JFK was not pro business? Why does a politician have to be either pro-business or pro-citizens? A good politicians like JFK was for both. He lowered taxes when they were at record highs, he did a great deal for business. He also aimed to do as much for the poor. He came into office as a real hawk. He was the one who helped to raise the war machine even higher than Ike did. But it's also clear that he changed in the latter outlook after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He had back channels going with Khrushchev since and they were both working towards a lot more than the test ban treaty that they both signed. This was the second attempt that Khrushchev was making with an American president. The first was ruined by the U2 spy plane crash that forced the Russians to stop Ike's visit to the S.U. which would have been a true beginning of peace between the two nations and the two former allies.
The fact that some have idealized JFK is true, but you have proved the other pov that he was a right wing hawk in disguise. Let's try a dose of reality instead. This man put himself up against the joint chiefs, the CIA and the MIC by making the effort to do things as he saw them needing to be done and not getting sucked into a land war with Cuba and Russia which is clearly what they wanted.
 
 
+11 # thymesup 2013-12-02 09:57
that didn't need 'to be orchestrated by conspirators.' he worked there for pete's sake. he had proven cia and fib ties, as did ruby with fbi and underworld, whom cia uses for its 'wet work' inside u.s.
 
 
-25 # brno222 2013-12-01 21:57
Jack Ruby/Rubinstein had the task, as a loyal member of the sayanim, of shutting up Oswald to prevent the patsy from revealing what he knew about Israeli involvement in JFK's murder. JFK stood in the way of Israel's plans for getting atomic weapons. The hit was organised by the Jewish-controll ed Chicago mafia, the same mob that backed Obama's election. There were at least 3 hitmen assigned to the job, and the round that blew JFK's head apart was a .221 Remington Fireball.
 
 
-2 # Letthewordgo4th 2013-12-03 00:51
So Jewish equates to the "Israelis," or do you have actual plausible evidence? If that's all you've got, rubbish!
 
 
+2 # karenvista 2013-12-03 01:02
You may get a lot of negatives but there is absolute proof that JFK was trying to keep Israel from building and getting fissile material for the Dimona plant. that's a fact. You can look it up quite easily.
 
 
0 # Al21 2013-12-09 21:51
Very true. JFK did indeed do so.
But that does not mean Israel had a thing to do with his death. In all the years since 11/22/1963 there has not been one shred of proof to conclude in the remotest way that this drool has any basis in fact. It's just one more smoke screen using that tired old big lie.
The government of Israel's done enough in recent years to have shamed themselves before the world. But to believe that that the so-called Jewish mob and Israel were in on this is one, let alone had the power to orchestrate this is just more slight of hand distraction from the CIA as at least the major tool used by their corropt owners to take out the last man who really tried to be President. While we're at it, let's blame the Catholic Church because JFK would not do their bidding, lol.
 
 
+30 # edude 2013-12-01 22:14
We don't have to rely on the words or dubious memories of a few "close confidants" that JFK wanted to withdraw from Vietnam, and it wasn't just 1000 troops. By October 4, 1963, Kennedy and McNamara had agreed on a plan for the complete withdrawal of US troops within 2 years. JCS Chair Maxwell Taylor's memo relaying that news to the Joint Chiefs reads: “All planning will be directed towards preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all US special assistance units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965. The US Comprehensive Plan, Vietnam, will be revised to bring it into consonance with these objectives….” Thanks to James Galbraith for finally setting the historical record straight: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/opinion/advisers-son-reflects-on-jfk-after-50-years/nbh57/
 
 
-1 # Letthewordgo4th 2013-12-03 00:54
This is correct. Read the October 2nd, 1963 White House Statement "U.S. Policy On Vietnam" that preceded the October 3rd, 1963 NSAM memo cited above.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/state63.htm
 
 
-23 # Michael Lee Bugg 2013-12-01 22:18
Just as I don't believe that Bush and Cheney orchestrated the 9-11 attack so they could use it as a pretext to invade Iraq (I do believe they knew an attack involving hijacked airplanes was coming so they conveniently let it happen on purpose but got far more death and destruction than expected, hence the prolonged efforts to prevent a timely and thorough investigation) I don't believe LBJ or anyone else orchestrated the JFK assassination. Oswald may have been goaded or set up by someone to do it, but why has there not been one 'deathbed confession' or slip of the tongue in 50 years? Oswald was probably a fanatic who acted alone. BUT, the bullet that struck JFK in the back of his head and exited above a line between his right eye and right ear could have been accidentally fired from the AR-15 held by the Secret Service agent sitting on the left side of the back seat of the car behind JFK in a freak accident. The angles and the nature of the wound better fit this scenario, and the government cover up was to hide the embarrassing fact that the fatal shot was accidentally fired by one of the men charged with protecting JFK! Read the book, Mortal Error, for a detailed description with diagrams and photos that support this theory. Oswald might have made the head shot with extreme luck, but I doubt that because he was tracking an accelerating target through a scope from a less than ideal vantage point. As for the Secret Service agent doing it, freak accidents happen every day!
 
 
-16 # Activista 2013-12-02 00:00
I agree with you on both 911 (they had information but let it go) and JFK (all these complex "perfect" conspiracies - I am curious about your background, education - Thanks
 
 
-2 # Michael Lee Bugg 2013-12-02 09:53
I was in first grade when the assassination happened. I remember mom crying when she heard the news. I do a lot of reading, and I think about what I read and consider its plausibility. No other theory better fits the commonly known facts and the film evidence than theory A - Oswald managed to hit JFK in the head as the car accelerated around a lefthand curve with JFK's head moving slightly even though he was not an expert marksman nor had he practiced such a shot; or theory B, the one I prefer, that Agent Hickey accidentally fired the third shot while looking back at Oswald as the cars accelerated. This theory makes it understandable why none of the other theories have been even close to be proven, and why there has been no death-bed confession or slip of the tounge. It also explains why the government would cover up the truth, get rid of Kennedy's brain so no one else could examine it, and why the Secret Service took the body from the hospital so no one else there could examine it and determine something other than the official version. "For the good of the country" they laid it all off on Oswald to protect the Secret Service and to squash 'inside job' theories! Why did LBJ not run for reelection against Nixon if he was so power hungry that he risked his own life to have JFK killed? As for shots from in front of JFK's car, they were nothing more than three echoes that came from the shots fired from behind JFK's car. There could have been a second wave of echoes.
 
 
+2 # Al21 2013-12-03 00:53
There has been at least one death bed confession by E. H. Hunt. James Files whether or not it is true has admitted to being one of the assassins. Jack Ruby admitted that there was much more he had to say regarding the assassination. There were numerous witnesses that the W.C never called and other who changed their testimony. How many people who were witnesses to the crime died in the next several years? What about the number of witnesses called by the HSCOA and died within weeks of being called to testify like Roselli and Giancana or de Mohrenschildt?
The evidence against Hickey is old news that photos, films and witnesses have proven wrong. It was only resurrected for the 50th anniversary as Hickey was dead and it just adds to more stories and and red herrings that those who run the media can use to claim that the conspiracy theorists as they call them all have such differing theories.
LBJ did not run for re-election because he was so unpopular at the time due to the war in Vietnam, not to mention in the south for the civil rights act. When RFK came out to run against him that was it. All LBJ could hope for and did was that the field of candidates after RFK died would prove no clear leader and that the Democratic leadership would draft LBJ to run. They did not.
 
 
+18 # ericlipps 2013-12-02 02:56
Quoting Michael Lee Bugg:
Just as I don't believe that Bush and Cheney orchestrated the 9-11 attack so they could use it as a pretext to invade Iraq (I do believe they knew an attack involving hijacked airplanes was coming so they conveniently let it happen on purpose but got far more death and destruction than expected, hence the prolonged efforts to prevent a timely and thorough investigation) I don't believe LBJ or anyone else orchestrated the JFK assassination. Oswald may have been goaded or set up by someone to do it, but why has there not been one 'deathbed confession' or slip of the tongue in 50 years? Oswald was probably a fanatic who acted alone.

My understanding is that there is no way, short of divine intervention, that Oswald could have made the shot: not only were top marksmen unable to duplicate the feat afterward without the aid of shims to steady the rifle (none were found in the "sniper's nest"), there was, in addition, a large tree (since removed, right down to the ground)blocking the line of fire from that window.
 
 
-5 # BobC 2013-12-02 05:21
Actually the tree is still there (at least as of 2 years ago), no doubt grown but pruned since 1963. Its presence might explain why the first shot missed. It did not impede Oswald's view for the 2nd and 3rd shots. Quite a few marksmen have duplicated the feat in various tests over the years.
 
 
+4 # Letthewordgo4th 2013-12-03 01:01
Not using the Mannlicher Carcano that Oswald was supposed to have used that day they didn't. Where's that evidence, Bob? Oh right, there isn't any as they never used that gun. Don't even know if the Mannlicher they claim to have is the one they claim they found at the TSBD that day. The people & evidence you put a lot of confidence in have zero credibility.
 
 
-4 # BobC 2013-12-03 09:53
Whenever I refer to ballistics tests, I am referring to tests conducted using Mannlicher-Carc ano rifles and rounds that were identical to those used by Oswald.
 
 
+1 # Anarchist 23 2013-12-03 12:49
And those tests were done when by whom and where are the results published? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
 
-2 # BobC 2013-12-03 14:29
Do some research of documentaries conducted by knowledgeable, rational people rather than crackpots, and you'll find them.
 
 
0 # Al21 2013-12-09 21:55
Good ol' BobbyC always full of "facts" that he cannot source; but always ready with a massive generalization in place of any substance.
 
 
+1 # Al21 2013-12-03 12:47
Although there were a number that did equal the timing, the majority in all those tests did not duplicate it. And it was never under the same exact conditions and obstructions that Oswald had. If you know anything about what it takes to be a sniper who is trying to take a human life that in itself raises the stress far more than anyone can imagine. And it's not just a human being, it's the President of the United States amidst crowds of people, law enforcement and intelligence agents-- and yet someone who in their last test barely qualified as a marksman years before the assassination is expected to have accomplished what most experts could not even in far easier circumstances.
 
 
-2 # BobC 2013-12-03 14:34
Shooting at Gen. Walker was good practice for him.
 
 
+1 # samiam 2013-12-03 22:38
But he missed.Strange how he couldn't hit a static target at close range yet was successful hitting a moving one at a distance.
 
 
-2 # BobC 2013-12-03 23:06
What's so strange about it? Walker was inside his house, and Oswald was trying to shoot him from an alley, at night. He barely missed him. He missed JFK on the first shot too.
 
 
-1 # Al21 2013-12-04 15:46
LOL!!! As if that was the more difficult shot.
 
 
0 # Al21 2013-12-04 15:42
LOL!! Gee Bobby you're one of the believers in Oswald making an impossible series of shots that many experts could not equal and no one did so under remotely the same pressures, but hey IF he did supposedly try to kill Walker, lol.... how could he miss a shot like that! Keep trying Bobby.
 
 
+3 # BobC 2013-12-02 08:02
Michael, I have been tempted on several occasions to adopt the theory posited in "Mortal Error". It is definitely intriguing and would be plausible except that the author and Mr. Donahue made some incorrect assumptions. For example, it turns out that the MC full-metal-jack et round will fragment when it hits a skull; this was duplicated in experiments on human cadavers. I know that it seems counterintuitiv e since the same bullet will retain its general shape and remain intact when passing through other seemingly hard materials, including pine wood. With the exit wound in JFK's head being so enormous, the exact trajectory is hard to pin down; unfortunately the doctors who performed the autopsy were not so thorough as to trace the path of the bullet internally from the entrance wound inward. You're right that the path could have been consistent with the location of Agent Hickey, who had the AR-15 on the floor and picked it up (he said) after the last shot was fired. But it also could have been consistent with the angle leading up to the window.
 
 
+1 # BobC 2013-12-02 08:07
P.S. Also, with that last bullet fragmenting the way it did, I don't think we could assume that any portion of it would necessarily continue on a straight-line path from the entrance wound, even if the autopsy doctors had done their job correctly.
 
 
0 # Michael Lee Bugg 2013-12-02 09:41
BobC, thanks for the info that the MC bullet might have fragmented after entering the back of Kennedy's skull, if it did. No doubt Oswald could have made the head shot, accidents do happen, people do get lucky in the most unlikely situations, like the deer I just missed hitting last night by instantly jamming the clutch and brake pedals to the floor the moment my brain registered "deer in the headlights." However, it is far less likely than the bullet having come from the AR-15 BY ACCIDENT. The book Mortal Error shows a picture taken AFTER Oswald's FIRST shot and in that picture Hickey is clearly seen holding the AR-15 pointed toward and over JFK's car (and head) as he turns to look toward Oswald's position. The 'agent in charge' may have told JFK's driver to get away fast just before Oswald's second shot, the 'magic bullet' was fired. As both cars accelerated inertia caused Hickey to lean back toward the trunk of the second car while his finger was on the trigger. The muzzle depressed before it discharged. Very possible. Stanger things have happened. Many people just want it to be a big conspiracy but they cannot explain why no one has confessed or even had a slip of the tounge. It is idiotic to think that LBJ was involved. Why would he risk execution for murder and treason just to sit on the throne, and why did he not run for a second term if he had such a craving for power? No doubt lots of people wanted JFK dead, but it is also possible Oswald acted alone.
 
 
-1 # BobC 2013-12-02 10:04
No problem, Michael. I have "Mortal Error". In the photo labeled 15, Hickey, along with a couple of other agents, has turned his head around, apparently trying to ascertain the source of the first shot. However, no AR-15 is visible. If he's holding it, we cannot tell because the driver of the follow-up car is partially blocking him. We don't see the AR-15 raised until photo 25, which was taken along the Stemmons Freeway, well after the car had disappeared beyond the triple underpass. Hickey testified: "At the end of the last report I reached to the bottom of the car and picked up the AR-15 rifle, cocked and loaded it, and turned to the rear. At this point the cars were passing under the over-pass and as a result we had left the scene of the shooting. I kept the AR-15 rifle ready as we proceeded at a high rate of speed to the hospital." I still haven't seen any photographic evidence to contradict what he said.
 
 
+1 # Letthewordgo4th 2013-12-03 01:10
"unfortunately the doctors who performed the autopsy were not so thorough as to trace the path of the bullet internally from the entrance wound inward . . . "

To say the least. There was no autopsy at Parkland and the Bethesda charade was & remains a scandal.

As for Hickey, JFK's aids Dave Powers & Ken O'Donnell were riding right alongside Hickey in that car. Had he fired a gun, they both would have stated so. Hickey never fired a shot. The secret service guys in that car, however, do have a lot to answer for.
 
 
+11 # thymesup 2013-12-02 09:54
then it's awfully interesting that a dozen or so doctors who saw kennedy's body and wounds at parkland hospital all described entry wounds on the front, and hug exit wounds. fisty sized on back right side of his head. also, oswald's cia and fbi links are indubious if one examines the evidence. see david lipton's book 'best evidence,' detailing changes made to the body after leaving parkland hospital.
 
 
+3 # Letthewordgo4th 2013-12-03 00:57
You need to read more books. There have been plenty of people weighing in w/all sorts of info over the years including confessions of one sort or another. See E. Howard Hunts confession to his son, and read Dr. Crenshaw's book about what he and the other ER doctors saw & experienced at Parkland. Plenty of others are out there as well.
 
 
+5 # karenvista 2013-12-03 01:24
Bugg and Activista- How about E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession? How about Frank Sturgis's confession? How about Carlos Marcello's to five witnesses?

Read Richard Belzer's "Hit List" and see the hundreds of people killed, many, like Sam Giancana, because they were being subpoenaed to testify. His FBI protection team had all left. Giancana was assassinated by someone he had let into his house, a friend he thought, who shot him in the back of the head while he was cooking dinner and then shot him five times around his mouth. A rather explicit message to everyone to "keep your mouth shut." Giancana wasn't a nobody. He ran the Mob in Chicago and Ruby once worked for him before he worked for Carlos Marcello.

Your 911 comments are inane. Tons of scientists, pilots, firefighters, engineers and architects have proved that two planes could not pulverize three steel framed skyscrapers.

Particularly WTC 7 that BBC announced had collapsed 20 minutes before it did. Firefighters were in the streets telling people to get out of the way because the building was going to collapse, with no visible reason that it should collapse.

There is a YouTube video of the pre-collapse explosions with firefighters moving people back and doing the countdown to the explosion on their two way radios.

There are videos of firefighters talking about the continual explosions they heard going off before and after the planes hit.

You guys need to do a lot of research.
 
 
-4 # BobC 2013-12-03 08:14
"Particularly WTC 7 that BBC announced had collapsed 20 minutes before it did. Firefighters were in the streets telling people to get out of the way because the building was going to collapse, with no visible reason that it should collapse."

So, the BBC was in on it? And the New York City Fire Department knowingly sacrificed hundreds of their own, for what exactly?

"You guys need to do a lot of research."

LOL! Research? Is that what you call it?
 
 
0 # samiam 2013-12-03 22:50
If you believe in the 9/11 conspiracy did the U.S. arrange with the Saudi terrorists for the hijacking of the planes that hit the Twin Towers, Pentagon etc? If so, what pray was the reason for doing this? Don't say it was done to justify invading Iraq. The Bush administration already had invented a reason: WMD.
 
 
-1 # BobC 2013-12-04 07:37
Some of them seem to think those planes were imaginary. Others are of the opinion that the U.S. government rigged the buildings with explosives just in case they didn't collapse on their own --- you know, just to make sure that thousands died instead of hundreds. Nothing really makes sense in the conspiracy-nut rabbit hole.
 
 
+10 # spercepolnes 2013-12-01 22:18
"I also review the physical evidence, which all points to Oswald, his gun, and the trajectory from the 6th-floor window."

Not so - Oswald reputed gun, reputedly used steel jacketed bullets that go in, through and out, largely intact. the bullet/s that killed JFK and injured Connolley, left most of themselves spread through his head and surroundings - and came from the front, not the rear, as Oswald's did....
 
 
+1 # BobC 2013-12-02 05:29
That is incorrect. The massive exit wound in his head was in the top/right/mid-t o-frontal area. The small entrance wound was in the back of the head. (His head was turned somewhat to the left when it was hit.) The MC bullet can go through soft tissue or even pine wood intact but will fragment when slamming into bone, which is much harder. This has been demonstrated in numerous tests since then.
 
 
+1 # Al21 2013-12-03 01:03
Most of the Dallas physicians on hand have all stated in interviews the opposite, that the massive wound was towards the back of the head on the left side. Those photos you cited along with the x-rays have been proven fabrications.
 
 
-2 # BobC 2013-12-03 22:11
The doctors in Dallas didn't even turn him over. They were too busy trying desperately to save his life. So, they could hardly be expected to make any determination on where bullets entered and exited him. Anyway, they did not say that the massive wound was on the back left part of his head; nor were photos and x-rays from the autopsy "fabricated". Just more wild fantasy on your part.
 
 
-1 # Al21 2013-12-04 15:55
LOL!! More unproven nonsense. Let's see you prove that ALL these people lied.
"http://www.you tube.com/watch? v=5RIAHVqdjDY"
 
 
+1 # Anarchist 23 2013-12-03 12:57
So now the 'magic' bullet is also Schroedinger's Cat's bullet...(using the 3 bullet Oswald hypothesis)sinc e one bullet clearly missed, cutting James Teague on the cheek, one bullet was in Kennedy's neck at Parkland (although doctors said it was an entrance wound from the front of the throat) and then the 'magic bullet blasting off his head and also leaving fragments in Connolly's thigh and yet 'falling out' to be found pristine on the stretcher in Parkland? By the way..the lower right occipital of JFK's skull was blown off...not his forehead...or do we have magic 'wound' ballistics to go with the 'magic' bullet? In this universe, the smaller wound is the entry would, the larger the exit wound.
 
 
-3 # BobC 2013-12-03 14:41
Um, no; there was no bullet "in Kennedy's neck at Parkland"; that's the bullet that went through his neck before hitting Connally. The one that blasted off part of his head came after that. In case you've never seen the Zapruder film, his head was tilted down and somewhat toward the left when that final shot hit him. So, the angle of trajectory to the 6th-floor window is consistent with his head wound.
 
 
0 # samiam 2013-12-03 22:53
So why didn't the "magic bullet" fragment after shattering Connally's ribs and wrist?
 
 
-2 # BobC 2013-12-04 07:44
Because after a MC bullet leaves an object (in this case, Kennedy's neck) and encounters air, it tumbles. This was shown in slow motion on the Nova "Cold Case" episode. With this motion, it did not hit solid bone with full force, such as what happened with the final round slamming into JFK's skull. It only nicked Connally's ribs, and the bones in the wrist were small enough not to prevent the bullet from traveling all the way through the wrist, back through more air, and into his thigh. It was slightly damaged though, if you look at it from the end instead of lengthwise. People love to use the word "pristine", which is not accurate.
 
 
+3 # curmudgeon 2013-12-01 22:37
Another interesting take

http://adamsjfk.com.....you won't be disappointed

Also 'Google' 'Shanklin jfk investigation' (he was in charge of both Dallas FBI office AND the FBI investigation.. .and some say ' a not quite honest and ethical person' )
 
 
+2 # curmudgeon 2013-12-01 22:39
P.S. The Adams was an FBI agent who took part in investigation..

Then saw a picture taken in Dallas on that day then began his own unraveling.....
 
 
+22 # stevemax 2013-12-02 00:47
IT's known....do your homework and you will know. LBJ for sure, CIA for sure, mafia for sure....all involved. And yes there are more names and names of assassins. It's easier to remain ignorant ....no need to act. Knowledge is uncomfortable.. .it means they got away with it...and therefore everything since then is brought in to question. If those in power could pull the assassination/c oup d'etat off w/o accountability. ..then what did they do subsequently? And is it still going on? Yes it is, hence the election of George Bush Jr. another coup d'etat....2 of them. Our nations people are mostly of strong and good character and sadly misled by ruling psychopaths...s ome known some in the shadows.
 
 
+4 # thymesup 2013-12-02 10:17
agreed; it takes a bit of effort to discover the fats behind the charade of mainstream 'reporting'.
 
 
+10 # RnR 2013-12-02 03:42
JFK was killed partly because he wanted peace. Supposedly he was engaged in back door negotiations with Kruschev (sp?) to implement nuclear disarmament along with not wanting the Viet Nam war. You can see the same elements at work today...let's bomb Iran, let's bomb Syria, let's bomb.... that's all they know...they're too stupid to subscribe to any other philosophy than "mine is bigger than yours and I'm going to shove it down your throat"...

Supposedly he said to Bobby (paraphrasing here) "Lincoln went to the theater before he was assassinated, do you think I should go?" and Bobby answered "If you go I'll go with you".
 
 
+3 # Inspired Citizen 2013-12-02 04:37
What a disappointing article. If the conclusion is that Oswald acted alone, then why doesn't Weissman just come out and say it?

Not a word was mentioned of any possible mafia connection to the murder aside from a list at the beginning. Many conspiracy theorists believe that the mafia is the most likely group that may have assisted Oswald.

It's easy, with enough of the information, to make a case that Oswald had help AND that he acted alone.
 
 
+2 # Letthewordgo4th 2013-12-03 01:32
Oswald never fired a shot that day, & the mafia were along for the ride as mechanics. No, this thing goes to the very top of the US government. This goes right through the door of the Joint Chiefs, CIA, FBI, NSA, & on through to any & all their assets both public & private & including the "media" & up yet still to the many power brokers & "trusted & exemplary wise men" such as the Warren Commisioners among others where Wall Street & Realpolitik intersect. One of the the thing that makes JFK such a unique President & outstanding leader is his comprehension of just how corrosive the cold war was to the American system & how imperative it was for the US as much as the rest of the world to somehow turn the momentum away from confrontation & towards accommodation, cooperation, & peace.
 
 
-3 # brenda 2013-12-02 05:05
Who killed Kennedy? A scoped rifle from Montgomery Ward's mail order that cost under $15.00 delivered with ammo. Gun control is a necessary evil.

And, a very lackadaisical FBI for dropping the ball on preventative measures of precautionary type including the investigation of crackpots and cranks.
 
 
-1 # Anarchist 23 2013-12-03 13:00
wow brenda, if that is the case aren't you angry that we have been paying enormous sums to have our 'security agencies' keep us secure and yet tiem after time after time, they keep dropping the ball? Or as Ed Sulzbach, former FBI profiler wrote in another context: "There really aren't that many coincidences in life. And to call coincidence after coincidence after coincidence a coincidence is just plain stupid."
 
 
-2 # BobC 2013-12-03 14:44
Are you suggesting that the FBI and perhaps the Secret Service should have been dissolved after the assassination, so that it would be open season on every politician thereafter? I mean, hell, if they can't prevent every single tragedy, why even bother, right? Why have law enforcement at all? Why even have a civilization, if life can't be perfect all of the time?
 
 
+6 # Bev 2013-12-02 05:48
JFK wanted to make this a better and peaceful world, clearly demonstrated by establishing the Peace Corps. He wanted to end the Fed just as Lincoln tried with the "Greenbacks" which led to his assasination as well.
 
 
+8 # pirwin 2013-12-02 07:32
A classic hit piece, masquerading as some kind of hard-nosed underground straight talk.

Weissmann first admits that, yes, there has been an obvious but official lie covering up the truth of the Kennedy assassination for 50 years. It is based on absurdities trumpeted by the obsequious corporate media, but we are to forget the enormous implications of this and shrug it all off as of no consequence because as yet there is no one unassailable theory we can point to as an alternative to the obvious official lie.

Any particular theory is much more complex and thus much more debatable and assailable than the fact that the official lie is a lie. So, let's start there.

That lie has had and still has the combined forces of multibillion dollar agencies and corporations behind its propagation. They have hidden and destroyed evidence. They have created no end of obfuscating side shows and dead ends for those who try to find the truth.

Those who have tried to find the truth are mostly amateurs and self-employed journalists with no subpoena power.

When Weissman can get even one mainstream media organization to admit what he admits in his first sentences above, I will offer up my theory (hardly a terribly original one) for debate in that context. Until then, his "so whodunnit?" argument is hogwash, and please note just whose hog he is washing.
 
 
+7 # Clovis 2013-12-03 02:47
I wholeheartedly concur. Weissman's argument is also based on the fallacious assumption that you must first have a clearly defined suspect (whodunit?) before you begin a criminal investigation, when all you need is persuasive evidence of wrongdoing and an array of suspects, all of which will presumably lead, if pursued, to the perpetrator(s) of the act. Most of the JFK research over the years has amply demonstrated the wealth of evidence available for pursuing a proper criminal investigation. The Gibson article alone presents several possible suspects who should have been further investigated.

A final observation about the first sentence in your last paragraph, which begins: "When Weissman can get even one mainstream media organization to admit what he admits in his first sentence..." What is so amazing about this statement is that the US Congress itself, through the Church Committee in the mid 70s, itself reached the conclusion that Oswald had not acted alone, and still the media won't touch it beyond repeating the Warren Commission conclusions. When the mainstream press reverts reflexively to dubious conclusions refuted even at the official level, you really have to wonder.
 
 
+5 # JSRaleigh 2013-12-02 08:22
You're all trying to find one single over-arching conspiracy for the murder & I don't think that exists. I believe there were conflicting conspiracies working at cross purposes.

My take:

1. CIA/Anti-Castro Cubans/Mafia conspiracy to murder Kennedy & blame it on Cuba. "Remember the Maine!"

2. Oswald was a low level FBI informant in a CIA/Mafia scheme to steal weapons from Ft. Hood in Texas, sucked into Conspiracy #1 specifically to serve as the fall guy. Although he may have actually been one shooter. The evidence appears mixed at best.

3. LBJ and Earl Warren conspired to have the Warren Commission thwart the CIA/Anti-Castro Cubans/Mafia conspiracy's aim of generating enough war fever to have the U.S. invade Cuba.

4. J.Edgar Hoover conspired with anyone & everyone to cover up the FBI's incompetence, especially that their informant had been left holding the bag. There was plenty evidence of what was going on BEFORE the assassination & Hoover's FBI screwed the pooch in not preventing it.

5. Other conspiracies I might have missed, especially disinformation spread by any and all of the above in order to CYA.
 
 
+16 # MsAnnaNOLA 2013-12-02 08:40
So if the govt, CIA, etc are not involved why start the cover up immediately? There is ample evidence that Oswald was framed, then the cover up started immediately. It stands to reason the people who set him up are the ones who covered it up, how else would they have known to immediately start the cover up? The only actors who could have covered up the truth so completely are the very government and CIA that probably committed the crime. It is possible that the very reason Oswald was chosen to be the patsy is he was in fact CIA or FBI at the time of his death. This would be a perfect excuse for the people responsible to coerce the vast number of people in government to aid in the cover up. Thus loyal patriotic Americans could be coerced to help cover the truth by bad actors. "For the good of the country" we must cover this up... It is not logical if Oswald desired fame that he would claim to be the patsy. If he desired fame he would have shouted his deed to the rooftops. Much like on 911, no investigation was conducted before naming the suspect. If you go back to how he was even named a suspect, there is little evidence for them to even have pursued Oswald as opposed to any other person in the vicinity that day. Did you know that future CIA director George H.W. Bush was in Dallas that day. Check out excerpts from Russ Bakers book at whowhatwhy.com. Very interesting...
 
 
+6 # thymesup 2013-12-02 10:22
exactly. good comments!!!!!!
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2013-12-02 12:13
It's interesting that just about the only two adults who couldn't remember where they were when JFK was murdered were future presidents, GHW Bush and Richard Nixon.

And even more interesting that both just happened to have been in Dallas.

http://mtracy9.tripod.com/kennedy_nixon.htm
 
 
-1 # Al21 2013-12-04 21:41
Not to mention but "George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" was named in a Hoover memo as being a part of a briefing on 11/23/62.
An earlier memo by FBI agent Graham Kitchel also mentioned G.B.; "At 1:45 pm Mr. GEORGE H. W. BUSH, President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company, Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar, Houston, telephonically furnished the following information to writer by long distance phone call from Tyler Texas."
The memo goes on to name say that Bush had heard in recent weeks and only by " "hearsay" that one James Parrot threatened to kill JFK. So after weeks, by hearsay H.W decides to call the FBI from Tyler Texas at 1:45pm to make such a claim which he asked to be kept "confidential". He also stated that he was on his way back to Dallas.
Russ Baker in his book "Family of Secrets" points out quite well that Bush's call was nothing more than a smoke and mirrors effort to give himself an alibi as not being in Dallas at the time JFK was killed.
The fact that Hoover later compromised H.W.'s ties with CIA stands in contrast to the man whom upon becoming the director of the CIA laughed at why he would be given such an appointment when he had no intelligence experience.
In this instance the man makes himself out to be a liar twice.
 
 
+16 # intheEPZ 2013-12-02 08:45
First solve JFK murder, then investigate 9-11. I'll bet there are commonalities.
 
 
+6 # thymesup 2013-12-02 10:24
thanks, lady! well said. i wonder the above two comments do not have a reflection next to them that i clicked on 'thumbs up.' it stays at zero.
 
 
+5 # thymesup 2013-12-02 10:27
longtime eminent author, jfk conspiracy researcher, poet ("com ing to jakarta"), berkeley prof, and former canadian diplomat peter dale scott notes it is the same source (scoundrels, say i )likely responsible for both.
 
 
+15 # ladypyrates 2013-12-02 09:34
I see the fools debate stills continues with the mainstream media covering up the crime and plenty of willing lackeys still buying into the nonsense. In 1985, the US District Court,Southern District of Florida, subpoenaed CIA heads and after an exhaustive review of the evidence, held that the CIA did in fact plan and carry out the killing of President Kennedy. (80-1121-Civ-JW K. E.Howard Hunt...) The hand-wringing assertion by Weissmann that there's no basis to prosecute anyone is also a lie. The definition of an accessory-after -the fact is as follows "A person who,knowing a crime has been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the felon, in order to enable him to escape from punishment, or the like." Read the five volume Assassination Records Review Board report as a starting point, and you will come up with an impressive list of persons who could be charged with obstruction of justice in the murder of the President...at the very least.
 
 
+2 # Junius 2013-12-02 10:06
Quite aside from the adolescent romance of "Camelot," it seems unlikely that Oswald was "just a lone nut." It seems even less likely that we'll ever know..
 
 
+12 # hydroweb 2013-12-02 10:34
Does anyone remember the great Ramparts Mag articles on the conspiracy? What sticks in my mind were all the witnesses, cab driver, etc... that conveniently died very soon after the assassination. Not to mention the "alleged perp!"
 
 
0 # Anarchist 23 2013-12-03 13:06
hydroweb: I not only remember that article...I still have the copy of the issue it was anthologized in: 'A Muckraker's Guide to 1968 & other horrors'....I dug it out and have it on my lap as I type..if you want any details on article I can look them up pronto!
 
 
+7 # thymesup 2013-12-02 10:52
see the book 'jfk and viet nam' by john newman. http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkvietbook2.jpg

as usual, the generals were for war, the cia withheld crucial intelligence, the president wanted peace but agreed to send 1000 advisors, RATHER than the troops requested. jfk was the one in his administration FOR PEACE. and he intended to bring them home. the same weekend as the assassination lbj increased the commitment to troops in viet nam, overturning jfk's nsam (national security action memo) 263 with is own, nsam 273. military industrial complex won. read via/air force liaison/histori an l fletcher pouty,'s 'the secret team,' 'jfk and viet nam,' or watch his interviews on youtube. a wealth of info here.
 
 
+8 # thymesup 2013-12-02 11:17
from president kennedy's last press conference, nov 14, 1963, right after coup in viet nam.

QUESTION: "Mr. President, following up that, sir, would you give us your appraisal of the situation in South Viet Nam now, since the coup, and the purposes for the Honolulu conference?"

THE PRESIDENT: "It is to review the situation there . . . the purpose of the meeting at Honolulu . . . is to attempt to assess the situation -- what American policy should be, and what our aid policy should be, how we can intensify the struggle, how we can bring Americans out of there. Now, that is our object, to bring Americans home . . .."

The best President there ever was or probably ever will be again! Surrounded on all sides by those who wanted the war & did all they could to insure America would fight it, President Kennedy was intent on finding a way to "bring Americans out of there. Now, that is our object, to bring Americans home." God bless you Mr. President!!!

Earlier that month, there was a plot to kill the President in Chicago (November 2nd, 1963), & then just a few days later, another plot in Tampa on November 18th with both having similarities to the plot that took his life in Dealey Plaza. Clearly, those intent on fighting that war in Southeast Asia and removing this meddlesome President from all the other impediments he presented them with were tracking his movements for the ideal time to strike & remove him from office. May they rot in hell!!!
 
 
+4 # Junius 2013-12-02 17:23
Quoting thymesup:
from president kennedy's last press conference, nov 14, 1963, right after coup in viet nam.

THE PRESIDENT: "It is to review the situation there . . . the purpose of the meeting at Honolulu . . . is to attempt to assess the situation -- what American policy should be, and what our aid policy should be, how we can intensify the struggle, how we can bring Americans out of there. Now, that is our object, to bring Americans home . . .."


Earlier that month, there was a plot to kill the President in Chicago (November 2nd, 1963), & then just a few days later, another plot in Tampa on November 18th !


And in the previous month:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/viet14.htm

NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263

The President has reviewed the discussions of South Vietnam
which occurred in Honolulu, and has discussed the matter further
with Ambassador Lodge. He directs that the following guidance be
issued to all concerned:

1. It remains the central object of the United States in South
Vietnam to assist the people and Government of that country to
win their contest against the externally directed and supported
Communist conspiracy. The test of all decisions and U.S. actions
in this area should be the effectiveness of their contributions
to this purpose.
 
 
-4 # randi1randi1@yahoo.com 2013-12-02 14:21
I believe that Oswald acted alone, hoping to use this political act as a means for proving his commitment to socialism for the purpose of getting into Cuba.
 
 
-3 # easter planet 2013-12-02 19:24
Watch the movie "J. Edgar" and you will know who killed the Kennedy's. Also read Gorbachev's Memoirs and you will see what Kennedy told him about his fears for safety, and what really happened to FDR.
 
 
-2 # Salus Populi 2013-12-03 14:20
Hmm. Almost tempts one to say, with Hercule Poirot, that "they all killed" Kennedy. But it seems that Steve Weissman, whose book "Big Brother and the Holding Company: The World Behind Watergate" remains one of the very best and most comprehensive examinations of the Nixon regime's crimes and coverups, struck a nerve with some of the posters above.

For those with basic reading skills, in the very first paragraph Weissman seconds Gibson that there was indeed a conspiracy; nowhere does he claim that Oswald killed Kennedy, with or without assistance.

Instead, the crux of his argument, seconding Chomsky [who professes to have no opinion on the assassination, and to consider it of little or no importance, in keeping with his institutional theory of the state] that Kennedy was hardly the paladin of peace and freedom that the Cameloters portray: that, in fact, he was committed to victory in Vietnam, followed by withdrawal; that he let Operation Mongoose continue to attempt the violent removal of Castro [Johnson is notoriously quoted that after taking office he learned that "we had been running a damned Murder, Inc. in the Caribbean," though I have seen no evidence as to whether or not, having discovered this salient fact, he put an end to it.]; that his vaunted "Alliance for Progress" included, on the dark side, the founding of Latin American death squads and the turning of their militaries into forces for internal repression, and so forth.
 
 
+2 # Salus Populi 2013-12-03 17:53
Regardless of the reactions of true believers in Camelot, there is no reason to encomiize the Kennedy administration in order to posit a conspiracy. What I said in the previous post is historically documented and unassailable.

This does not detract from the fact that he promised to break the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind; nor that he [and McNamara] firmly rejected the murderous Operation Northwoods, and that Lemnitzer was fired by him at least partly as a result; nor that in the Cuban Missile Crisis, he did indeed remove the obsolete missiles from Turkey -- which were scheduled to be removed anyway, in preparation for atomic-armed subs prowling the Mediterranean, and which Bobby persuaded him not to include in his deal with Krushchev, since it hadn't been officially offered, but only discussed, between the two [Bobby felt it would show weakness, and that Kennedy should just, after the crisis was over, quietly proceed with their removal, a strategy JFK followed] -- nor that he did promise not to invade Cuba again.

Nor does it obviate the "deal" Papa Joe made with the Giancana mob in return for the delivery of Chicago, crucial to JFK's election; Bobby's subsequent vendetta against the Teamsters could very well have been seen as a betrayal and reneging on what Joe had promised.

In short, a conspiracy could have any of a number of reasons; making JFK out to be a saint is neither historically accurate nor necessary.
 
 
+2 # Polar Bear 2013-12-04 06:52
What about the recent study by a Father son team who are forensic specialists?I heard an interview n NPR and I thought PBS Frontline covered their study..how the bullet when thru Kennedy and Connely unscathed?? Just wondering
 
 
-2 # BobC 2013-12-04 07:58
Not quite unscathed, but yes, I think you're referring to the Nova "Cold Case" episode on PBS recently.
 
 
-2 # vamom1 2013-12-04 19:35
Easy to see there are lots of JFK theorists here - wondering what you think of the book Blood Money & Power by Barr Mclellan - I'm in the middle of it, and finding it makes a lot of sense. Always start with the motive, and LBJ had the most to gain, and a track record of always getting what he wanted. Thoughts?
 
 
+1 # peakchoicedotorg 2013-12-07 23:06
A clever distraction from a Republican ...
 
 
0 # elizabethblock 2013-12-05 16:58
An argument that I find persuasive against there having been a conspiracy: If lots of people had been involved, eventually at least one of them would have talked.
 
 
-2 # peakchoicedotorg 2013-12-07 23:03
RFK sent an envoy to tell Krushchev in person a few weeks later that the family knew the Soviets were not involved and it was the ultra right wing militarists who were responsible.

Unfortunately, the judicial system has never shown much interest in oversight of the intelligence (sic) agencies, aka the "deep state." Having Chief Justice Warren chair the coverup ensures that.
 
 
+1 # peakchoicedotorg 2013-12-07 23:04
Weissman: "we can hardly call his extended effort to kill Castro in Operation Mongoose a form of support."


Response: Trying to shut down Mongoose and then starting back channel negotiations to resume diplomatic relations is a form of support, although the Chomsky Cult won't ever mention that.

Chomsky used to recognize that November 22, 1963 was a coup, here's a great article about his flip flop.


www.ctka.net/2011/batey_article.html
Who is Anton Batey?
Part One: Batey's Posthumous Assassination of JFK
by Brian Hunt with James DiEugenio
 
 
+1 # peakchoicedotorg 2013-12-07 23:05
General Giap (Vietnamese general fighting the Americans)

his son confirms that the North Vietnam side knew Kennedy was pulling out

www.ctka.net/2013/General_Giap_Knew_Kang.html

General Giap Knew

By Mani S. Kang
 
 
+1 # peakchoicedotorg 2013-12-07 23:15
A much better "Reader Supported News" article:

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20557-16-mind-blowing-facts-about-who-really-killed-jfk
by Carl Gibson, Nov. 22, 2013

----


If the Mafia or a lone nut had really killed JFK, there would not be so much disinformation and denial fifty years later.

----

Senator Wayne Morse came to the White House [Nov. 12, 1963] to see the president about his education bills. Kennedy wanted to talk instead about Vietnam -- to his most vehement war critic. Morse had been making two to five speeches a week in the Senate against Kennedy on Vietnam. JFK took Morse out into the White House Rose Garden to avoid being overheard or bugged by the CIA.
The president the startled Morse by saying: "Wayne, I want you to know you're absolutely right in your criticism of my Vietnam policy. Keep this in mind. I'm in the midst of an intensive study which substantiates your position on Vietnam. When I'm finished, I want you to give me half a day and come over and analyze it point by point."
Taken aback, Morse asked the president if he understood his objections.
Kennedy said, "If I don't understand your objections by now, I never will."
JFK made sure Morse understood what he was saying. He added, "Wayne, I've decided to get out. Definitely!"
- JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass
 
 
+1 # garrison 2013-12-09 06:45
This article is fatuous. Weissman starts by saying that we really do not know who was in on the conspiracy to kill JFK. Except no one considers Steve a front tier researcher on the JFK case, so how does he know what that case is today and who the targets are? He doesn't.

Some of us have been working to do just that and we have developed cases. Because he is not aware of them, does that mean they do not exist? Of course not. It just means he is not aware of them.

He then says that somehow JFK was not really withdrawing from Vietnam and tries to imply, like Chomsky, that this was all something made up after the fact. Not true. We now have the declassified records of the May 63 Sec/Def meeting which shows in black and white that McNamara was at work on getting the Pentagon in line to prepare for a withdrawal that winter. He criticized them for being too slow about it.

He then says that somehow the withdrawal plan was contingent on victory. There is no "contingency" in the Sec Def meeting notes. And all three military advisors to JFK--Bundy, McNamara, Taylor--are all on record as saying Kennedy was not sending troops into Vietnam. Period.

He then says that although Kennedy met Gullion, he at first supported Diem. Well, yeah, at first everyone did. But JFK was always against American direct involvement in the Third World. He opposed Operation Vulture in 1954, and even opposed American help to France in the Algeria War. Why not mention those instances?
 
 
+1 # garrison 2013-12-09 06:52
Let me continue with his last two comments to show the fatuousness.

The coups in Latin America he is talking about, Brazil and Chile, acme after Kennedy was killed. How can he be held responsible for them?

Second, it was not JFK who was trying to assassinate Castro, it was the CIA and mafia. These plots were deliberately kept secret from Kennedy as the declassified Inspector General Report reveals.

Kennedy was working for a detente with Castro after the Missile Crisis. And those involved thought it was heading somewhere. It was abandoned by LBJ. Just like Kennedy's Vietnam policy was abandoned and then reversed by LBJ. Just like Kennedy's policies in Laos, Indonesia and Congo were all reversed by LBJ and the CIA. See the book Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, Chapter 17 for the documentation on this.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN