The JFK assassination

[Craig234]

I think it's very likely I'll regret it , but I thought I'd make a thread for people who have questions on the JFK assassination.

It's something I've looked at a long time, and it's an amazingly complex topic.

There are a lot of myths that can be dispelled, and questions that can be answered. And some that can't, critically.

A summary from my point of view:

In order to prove a conspiracy, a number of things would be helpful, including motive, means, opportunity - a lot more than 'hey this group didn't like JFK, so maybe they killed him.' For example, the CIA has a hell of a big burden for plausibility to kill the president.

Sadly, some of those biggest burdens are very clearly met. The motives were overwhelming for both organized crime and the CIA.

And a VERY strong amount of presidential betrayal had already been seen from the CIA - for examples:

- President-elect Kennedy wanted to work with Congo Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba for his policies of independence for African colonies; Lumumba was the continent's leader for unity and independence. The CIA had him killed days before Kennedy took office.

- The CIA quite intentionally lied to President Kennedy in their Bay of Pigs scheme to gain his approval, and hid large parts of their plans from him, attempting to force him to commit US military forces to an invasion against his wishes.

Robert Kennedy called the actions by the CIA "virtually treason" and this led to the exit of the two top CIA officials.

- The new CIA officials under the new Director continued working with organized crime on plots to assassinate Castro, against the orders of President Kennedy, and lied about the activities.

However, those things do not prove conspiracy in the assassination. They're just big steps along what's needed.

Then they run into very serious obstacles AGAINST the idea of a conspiracy, because of the facts known about the act.

The evidence strongly suggests that all of the shot came from Oswald's rifle in the TBSD, fired by Oswald.

And that raises quite serious problems for any conspiracy, where such a critical operation would make no sense to place in the hands of Oswald, using a very poor quality rifle.

On the other hand, there is almost an embarrassingly strong case of plausibility for Oswald as the lone assassin.

And there are thousands of mysteries, some with answers, some not.

Let's take just one example - consider the following quote from Jack Ruby in jail, strongly in favor of conspiracy:

"I have been used for a purpose, and there will be a certain tragic occurrence happening if you don't take my testimony and somehow vindicate me so my people don't suffer because of what I have done."

He said he'd tell all if but only if he were transferred, which is was not.

Yet consider his saying the opposite:

"I am as innocent regarding any conspiracy as any of you gentlemen in the room."

He answered a question who was behind the assassination by saying it was Lyndon Johnson.

Yet earlier, he was very praising of Johnson, and said:

"It may not be too late, whatever happens, if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me. But if I am eliminated, there won't be any way of knowing."

It's rather odd for him to have begged to reveal to Johnson the truth about the assassination, yet claim the truth was Johnson did it.

How do you sort that our for any help?

A little recommended reading:

- Very good summary of the conflicts between JFK and the security establishment, $3 Amazon e-book:
"JFK's War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated", Douglas Horne

- One of the best books arguing Oswald as the lone assassin:
"The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: The Reasons Why", Albert Newman

- Perhaps the best book arguing for a conspiracy:
"The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination", Lamar Waldron

[Fast Walker 52]

1. anyone who believes the official JFK assassination story (Oswald was a lone nut)

is either ignorant of the evidence, aware of the evidence but in complete denial, or a shill for the government.

Of course our treasonous corporate media is still deathly afraid of the truth.

[Craig234]

2. This thread is not to turn into

insulting the people with other opinions.

You are invited to make your arguments, and to criticize other arguments. You are not invited to insult those who disagree.

In my opinion, there is a very strong case for Oswald being a lone nut.

First, we have overwhelming evidence of his murderous nature - his attempted assassination of General Walker, and murder of Tippitt.

Second, we have strong evidence of his involvement in 'radical' activities - defecting to the USSR, attempting to defect to Mexico, since he was a teenager being a self-made Marxist at the height of the cold war, etc.

Thirdly, there is huge happenstance. This murderous, radical person who was on a long-term plan for assassinating Walker already, happened to work at a place that happened to have an unoccupied floor overlooking Kennedy's motorcade.

All of that was put in place before any motorcade route was planned.

Fourthly, while there are extremely powerful motives for groups to have assassinated Kennedy, the evidence strongly suggests Oswald was the lone shooter, and it makes very little sense for those groups to trust Oswald with that task.

All kinds of things point away from conspiracy, including the lone murder weapon being the worst quality rifle on the page Oswald ordered from - totally unsuitable for the task of a conspiracy.

If there had been another shooter, there is no way we can see they could have escaped, from the building manager and police officer who ran up the steps, with no other exit, seconds after the shooting - and encountered Oswald.

Oswald left the note, ring, money he did for a reason. As he had on the Walker attempt.

However, there are many suspicious things remaining.

[Fast Walker 52]

3. where was the insult?

I was just stating facts.

Obviously the planners made Oswald to look guilty, so of course that's the easiest thing to see and believe.

But there's reams of evidence that disprove the official story. I suggest you read more.

[Craig234]

4. Where is the insult?

Are you kidding? Your post was two lines and the whole first line was insulting people.

As for reading more, I suspect my library of hundreds of Kennedy books dwarves your reading.

I repeat this thread is not for insults.

Post to learn, but do not continue insulting - I haven't responded yet other than comments, don't keep doing it.

[Fast Walker 52]

5. are you willing to learn?

How can you have hundreds of JFK books and believe the official narrative?

That is mind-boggling to me.

[Craig234]

6. You haven't read the book I recommended above for the lone assassin theory.

Try that.

[milestogo]

21. His murderous nature?

There was no proof that Oswald shot Tippitt. There was not enough time for him to have gotten from that crime scene to the theatre where he was arrested. They blamed it on him anyway.

There was no proof that Oswald attempted to assassinate Walker.

All of your points are mere opinion, not fact.

Ever wonder why there is absolutely no documentation of what Oswald said during the 48 hours he was in custody? No tapes, no notes, nothing. It all disappeared, along with Oswald's life. He was a patsy, not a murderer.

This police officer can tell you what weapon was really found in the School Book Depository:

[Craig234]

22. I think all of those claims are incorrect.

First, about opinion. Everything here is an opinion. It's my OPINION that JFK was shot. It's my OPINION that Jack Ruby shot Oswald. There is evidence of those things, but it's my opinion that the evidence is sufficient.

So it's not about it being opinions, it's about what evidence we have.

There is tons of proof Oswald shot Tippitt. He WAS perfectly able to do it. Witnesses saw him do it. A very rare event of a police officer being shot just HAPPENED to be where Oswald was, with his gun, with the police looking for him.

People have gone back and reconstructed his whole travel. It all works.

There is a ton of proof Oswald shot Walker. We have Marina's testimony that Oswald TOLD her he had shot at Walker just after he did it, as he anxiously waited for news on whether he had killed him.

Maps of Walker's home were in Oswald's belongings. He'd left Marina money and a note as I recall just before going to shoot him.

There ARE mysteries around whether Oswald had any accomplices, just how he travelled - but it's clear he did it.

There are notes of what Oswald said in custody in 11 hours of interrogation, written after the fact by people who were there.

It's a travesty that their incompetence did not tape record or more carefully record the notes, but we have a clear idea from the people who were there.

And it makes sense what they say, fitting his statements and demeanor in the seconds we have of him on film.

He was denying everything except punching the officer in the theatre. He denied owning a rifle and claimed the picture found of him holding it was forged (scientifically proved not forged now). He denied he knew how the alias ID card he was carrying was there.

So there wasn't much value to the comments. He was denying everything, as he did on film.

Notice what he DIDN'T say. If he had really been 'a patsy', manipulated by people, set up, he had the chance to yell their names to the cameras, to give some specifics - he did not do so. Someone in that situation would have quickly wanted to expose his betrayers.

[milestogo]

24. Did it ever occur to you that Oswald was telling the truth?

Did it ever occur to you that there was a coverup of this highly orchestrated assassination? Hundreds of witnesses died mysteriously within a few years of Kennedy's death.

Please provide a link to the notes on what Oswald said while in custody. None are in the Warren Commission report.

Mark Lane interviewed many eyewitnesses to the shooting. They saw a shooter on the grassy knoll. Yet none of those who saw the shooter on the grassy knoll were called to testify at the Warren Commission.

James Files gives a detailed account of shooting JFK from the grassy knoll.

Its incredible that you think you can look at a few seconds of a film clip of Oswald denying his involvement and determine that he was a lone wolf assassin.

He was tragically set up to take the fall for the crime of the century and deliberately killed within a few days so that the truth could be covered.

But the truth will come out. It may not be in my lifetime, but it will come out.

[Craig234]

26. You need to be more honest in your discussing

Of course one of the theories to consider is that Oswald was telling the truth.

The evidence says he was not. The fact you ask the question doesn't add to the discussion, it's just to insult.

Actually you can find the notes in the Warren Commission, Appendix XI.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=622

Mark Lane has not been an especially honest actor, and that is not an accurate description of the witnesses. The issue of the witnesses and the grassy gnoll shooter theory have been reviewed thoroughly in many books.

Citing James Files is just embarrassing. He is a thoroughly discredited liar. Here's a start, a website dedicated to his lies.

http://jamesfilesfraud.com/

You make a completely false statement about the issue of the clip of Oswald.

If there was more to the assassination, it won't necessarily come out. The only new evidence remaining to be found we know of are the remaining CIA files scheduled for release in October 2017, and obviously you can't expect as assassination plot in them.

[milestogo]

27. Your arguments are basically gross generalizations or insults.

"the evidence says he was not"

"citing James Files is just embarrassing"

"Mark Lane has not been an especially honest actor"

You have your mind made up and you are unwilling to look at the vast amount of evidence that the lone nut scenario is completely ridiculous.

The ballistics, the medical evidence, the police and civilian eyewitnesses... none of these square with the cover story.

You have no interest at all in finding out what really happened.

[Craig234]

28. Your post is simply a slanderous lie.

And that won't do. You can discuss the issue or get no other response than that.

[Fast Walker 52]

7. unless it addresses the thousands of pieces of evidence disproving the official story

shown in other books, and thoroughly debunks them, I will pass. Thanks.

It's easy to support the official story when you ignore evidence.

[Craig234]

8. If you wish to remain uninformed, that's your choice

[Fast Walker 52]

11. aren't you the one remaining uninformed, if you dismiss all the conspiracy evidence?

[Craig234]

12. That's not uninformed.

Reviewing the evidence for and against conspiracy and reaching opinions is not uninformed.

You, however, say you choose not to read one side.

[Fast Walker 52]

13. A few things

1) so to be clear, you can refute all conspiracy explanations for the JFK assassination?

2) I will read something that examines all the evidence and convincingly argues against a conspiracy-- that is what I asked for

3) have you read Talbot's "The Devil's Chessboard"?

[Craig234]

14. I think you have the wrong approach

It's not about 'refuting all the conspiracy explanations'. It's about figuring out what happened.

The topic has a thousand things you cannot prove or disprove. It's incredibly complicated.

The Newman book isn't about disproving anything. It's about looking at some of the evidence more closely that I've ever seen it looked at and drawing reasonable results.

I own The Devil's Chessboard and it's high on my list to read more of. I read enough to think it looks great. It's one of a couple books telling the very important and under-reported story of the Dulles brothers that played such a huge, bad role in our history.

[ArtD48]

9. "The evidence strongly suggests that all of the shot came from Oswald's rifle in the TBSD"

That sentence alone is enough to make me dismiss the original posting because the actual film of JFK's head being thrown backward toward Oswald is available.

[Craig234]

10. The science says, all shots from the rear

PBS did a Nova episode which has scientific information that shows the shots came from the rear.

If there had been any shots from the front, where are any of the bullet fragments behind Kennedy there would have been?

There were none.

[milestogo]

18. All 40 of the medical personnel at Parkland Hospital saw an entrance wound

on Kennedy's throat - a wound which had to have been made from the front. They enlarged that wound to perform a tracheotomy.

There was a bullet hole in the front windshield of the limo made by a bullet that hit the windshield from the front, according to police witnesses.

Kennedy's brain was missing at the autopsy in Bethesda. So, no proper tracing of the bullet wounds through his brain was ever done.

That's just for starters.

Any tv show that says all the shots came from the rear is not based on what the actual witnesses saw and ignores the real historical evidence. Its no more scientific than any other mass media produced hatchet job on the subject.

[Craig234]

19. I think those claims are all incorrect.

What you can find are things like a doctor who might have initially referred to an entrance wound who later clarified he was in error. Not forty people who always claimed that.

I have seen no evidence for such a bullet hole in the windshield.

Kenney's brain is understood to have been obtained by Robert Kennedy to prevent the possibility of public spectacle later.

This is why you need credible links for the claims.

[milestogo]

20. There are plenty of interviews on YouTube with the doctors

Last edited Fri Jul 15, 2016, 01:06 AM - Edit history (4)

at Parkland Hospital who attended President Kennedy. If you care to look into it you will learn that every single person who was in that emergency room saw the wounds that were made to his right temple and his throat. Wounds that were made from the front.

Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff, who announced the passing of President Kennedy, said he was killed by a bullet to the brain, and pointed to his right temple.

Do you really think that these people who actually saw the President at the time of death got such a crucial detail wrong? All of them? That would be the most incredible thing I've ever heard.

There are also videos of eyewitnesses who saw the bullet hole in the limosine windshield. The limo was quickly taken away and the evidence destroyed.

Robert Kennedy did not attend his brothers autopsy. He may have ended up with his brother's brain years later, but the brain was removed before the autopsy at Bethesda the night of the assassination. There are plenty of witnesses to this.

Testimony that is closest to the event is the most reliable. Medical witnesses who changed their story years later for the Warren Commission were under pressure to conform to the official story. The vast majority did not change their testimony. They saw a throat wound and a temple wound that were made by shots from the front.

[Craig234]

23. We disagree

I disagree with your opinion about the witnesses regarding the wounds. There are volumes on the topic so we'll leave it at that.

Evidence suggests there was not a hole in the windshield. There is conflicting information, but the best information suggests there was no hole. For example, see Agent Kellerman's Warren Commission testimony.

He says that he carefully felt the crack in the windshield soon after the assassination, and the outside was "smooth". He said he is convinced that the crack was caused by something hitting the windshield from inside the vehicle.

We don't know when the brain disappeared; it was discovered missing the archive three years later. But Bobby took it.

[William Seger]

15. Oliver Stone's bullshit claims another victim

If you only get your "information" from conspiracy theory hucksters, you certainly wouldn't know this (and a great many other things), but when the Zapruder film is examined carefully, it is completely consistent with all the other actual evidence: The film unequivocally shows that the fatal shot came from behind, and that the "back and to the left" movement cannot possibly have been caused by that shot. This is very easy to prove (to anyone with an open mind) using simple high school physics, which is why the conspiracy hucksters avoid this fact like the plague and simply deny it when confronted. Like the "magic bullet," it's just another example of why conspiracy hucksters deserve their reputation for intellectual dishonesty.

[milestogo]

25. The Zapruder film that the public saw was highly edited.

Dino Brugioni is one of a very few people who saw the uncut original of the film. He is a film expert and no huckster.

[William Seger]

32. Douglas Horne is a good example of why I no longer take JFK conspiracism seriously

There is no credible evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered. Another of "very few people who saw the uncut original of the film" was Abraham Zapruder, and he repeatedly said the film showed exactly what he saw that day. Furthermore, it's consistent with the Nix, Muchmore, and Hughes films. Furthermore, it's consistent with all the other physical evidence. Furthermore, neither Horne nor anyone else has ever provided a remotely plausible explanation for how such alterations could have been done in 1963 given any amount of time, much less in the brief time before copies of the film were made.

You say Brugioni "is a film expert and no huckster" and link to a 1.5-hour video which supposedly supports your contention that the "Zapruder film that the public saw was highly edited." Yet, all Brugioni says that seems pertinent to that issue is that he remembers the "pink cloud" of debris being much larger in the print he made than what he now sees in some other (unidentified and unspecified) print, and he speculates that the frame he made a print from has been removed (for some unidentified and unspecified reason). Well, I don't claim to be a film expert, but I've certainly seen different scanned versions of frame 313 where the debris cloud looks different, which I take to be simply differences in the printing or the scanning. And I can also look at the Zapruder film myself and see no evidence whatsoever of frames being removed, which would be completely obvious. (Some JFK conspiracists follow that observation to its "logical conclusion": the film was not altered; it a complete fake.) So "expert" or not, that falls far, far short of being proof of such an implausible claim.

Seriously, if you find Horne's other lame arguments in this video compelling, then I suggest that perhaps you haven't really thought them through.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. It's not complicated. It's simple

A very sick person got up one morning and decided he was going to shoot the President. A few days later, he did.

That's all that happened.

I know it's hard to accept. That's life.

It doesn't really matter anyway. Most high school students have no more a living understanding of JFK than I have of Herbert Hoover. Hell, 9/11 was 15 years ago. My 10 and 7 year olds view it as an abstraction, at best.

Not trying to kill off these parlor games (Who done it? Who?). But, really, it's only a game.

[Craig234]

17. I disagree

Let's start with the important one. You claim it doesn't matter.

It matters very much to anyone who values history. Your statement is nihilistic. If someone kills you tonight it doesn't matter who. If Obama is assassinated tomorrow, it doesn't matter who did it. Biden's president now. Forget it.

I find your position just terrible in dismissing the importance of the issue. Not only for the assassination, but it turns out that there are very important areas of our history related to the investigation, involving the CIA and military, organized crime, Cuba and more.

I thought it was a pretty popular sentiment about not understanding history and its lessons helping repeat them. Not with everyone.

Having said that and that the issue should be considered important - unfortunately, the lack of clear answers gets in the way of the lessons.

I'd say you should read the books I mentioned in the OP, but I guess not since you aren't interested.

But your lack of interests suggests you don't need to post that in the thread.

If there's a thread on some issue in some country I'm not interested in, I don't expect to post in the thread, it doesn't matter - unless there is some reason to.

As to your theory, one thing we do know is that it's not correct. I'm referring to your over-simplification, such as 'sick'.

That's a nice non-answer to the issue that doesn't really answer anything. It doesn't understand that Oswald had pursued his idea of Marxism for years, how the communist bloc views fed into his opinions, his attempted assassination of General Walker.

Your statement is like saying all we need to learn about Hitler is he was a sick guy who decided to start a war. Simple.

No need to understand anything about the political systems, the psychology of authoritarianism and terror, the role of bigotry and scapegoating in societies, the concept of genocide.

Nevemind one of the basic idea behind the European Union was to strengthen ties among European countries to help prevent any more wars after two world wars - waste of time. Hitler was a sick guy who started a war, that's all.

You are entitled not to have any interest in the topic, but that's your issue, the topic is an important one. Maybe you should be helping your children get an interest in the history instead of just saying they don't care.

[dflprincess]

29. From Tip O'Neill's book "Man of the House" (1987)

[div class = "excerpt"]
I was never one of the use people who had doubts or suspicions about the Warren Commission's report on the president's death. But five years after Jack died, I was having dinner with Kenny O'Donnell and a few other people at Jimmy's Harborside Restaurant in Boston, and we got to talking about the assassination.

I was surprised to hear O'Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence.

"That's not what you told the Warren Commission," I said.

"You're right," he replied. "I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."

"I can't believe it," I said. "I wouldn't have done that in a million years. I would have told the truth."

"Tip, you have to understand. The family-everybody wanted this thing behind them."

Dave Powers was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O'Donnell's. Kenny O'Donnell is no longer alive, but during the writing of this book I checked with Dave Powers. As they say in the news business, he stands by his story.

And so there will always be some skepticism in my mind about the cause of Jack's death. I used to think that the only people who doubted the conclusions of the Warren Commission were crackpots. Now, however, I'm not so sure.


Thom Hartmann says Dave Powers also gave him (and/or his co-author Lamar Waldron) the same account of what he saw

Just saying if two of the men closest to JFK caved to FBI pressure and just told them what they wanted to hear, what hope was there for any ordinary citizen trying to tell the truth of what they saw?

[wildbilln864]

30. great post! thank you. n/t

[Craig234]

31. That's part of the information

The O'Donnell and Powers versions varied.

Here is a good summary:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18240

It certainly isn't a neat situation - but their impressions are not conclusive and only part of the evidence. We also have evidence such as was presented in the NOVA documentary, scientifically showing the skull was clearly shot from behind.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

33. LOL The CIA killing ANY US Commander in Chief ANYTIME is funny and...

It's an insult to the KGB. He had made serious threats to use nuclear weapons on Moscow. Lee Harvey Oswald in a "shotgun" only shooting club in the USSR is equally funny! He wielded a piece-of-shit, bolt-action rifle with extraordinary precision.

[Edward Palamar]

34. There is a man claiming to have shot the final bullet :

but an eyewitness says there were actually two men behind the fence.

[sab390]

35. The rule now is to stay with excepted facts

In presenting a theory of this you are supposed to limit it to the fact of record. So, the first shot is not in dispute. Not only did it not hit Kennedy, it missed the Lincoln. This is what you would assume would happen with that gun in those hands. There are then two perfect assassins shots in quick succession. This is not.