HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Who murdered JFK?

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 07:12 PM

Who murdered JFK?

I was watching a show on the assassination of JFK (there will be a bunch of them because this is the 50th anniversary) and was listening to the theories about who did it.....what do you think? Just pick the ONE you think most likely.
66 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Mafia
6 (9%)
Lyndon Johnson
2 (3%)
CIA
33 (50%)
Richard Nixon
1 (2%)
Big Business
1 (2%)
George Bush
1 (2%)
Dallas Conservatives
0 (0%)
Lee Harvey Oswald
20 (30%)
Other (do tell)
2 (3%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

121 replies, 13652 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 121 replies Author Time Post
Reply Who murdered JFK? (Original post)
gopiscrap Sep 2013 OP
True_Blue Sep 2013 #1
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #2
True_Blue Sep 2013 #5
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #8
True_Blue Sep 2013 #13
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #18
True_Blue Sep 2013 #31
Auggie Sep 2013 #3
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #10
Auggie Sep 2013 #92
Jesus Malverde Sep 2013 #89
mnhtnbb Sep 2013 #4
99th_Monkey Sep 2013 #29
GentryDixon Sep 2013 #55
Politicalboi Sep 2013 #61
mnhtnbb Sep 2013 #83
Bay Boy Sep 2013 #105
PCIntern Sep 2013 #6
Dr Hobbitstein Sep 2013 #7
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #11
Warren DeMontague Sep 2013 #9
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #12
GreenStormCloud Sep 2013 #14
tech3149 Sep 2013 #15
RagAss Sep 2013 #16
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #17
True_Blue Sep 2013 #33
roamer65 Sep 2013 #21
RKP5637 Sep 2013 #53
Scootaloo Sep 2013 #84
cpwm17 Sep 2013 #93
Scootaloo Sep 2013 #94
RKP5637 Sep 2013 #116
2naSalit Sep 2013 #28
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #115
PlanetaryOrbit Sep 2013 #19
cpwm17 Sep 2013 #23
Logical Sep 2013 #26
chervilant Sep 2013 #30
Raksha Sep 2013 #63
Silent3 Sep 2013 #65
avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #73
Silent3 Sep 2013 #85
Octafish Sep 2013 #87
zappaman Sep 2013 #88
Octafish Sep 2013 #90
zappaman Sep 2013 #96
Octafish Sep 2013 #99
questionseverything Sep 2013 #107
noise Sep 2013 #98
Silent3 Sep 2013 #109
noise Sep 2013 #110
Silent3 Sep 2013 #112
Major Nikon Sep 2013 #97
avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #72
JackRiddler Sep 2013 #114
Coyotl Sep 2013 #20
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #22
sharp_stick Sep 2013 #24
avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #74
Logical Sep 2013 #25
RBInMaine Sep 2013 #27
avebury Sep 2013 #60
avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #69
mahina Sep 2013 #78
nyquil_man Sep 2013 #121
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #32
dimbear Sep 2013 #58
treestar Sep 2013 #101
Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #34
cpwm17 Sep 2013 #39
CrawlingChaos Sep 2013 #35
Octafish Sep 2013 #37
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #45
gordianot Sep 2013 #62
Bay Boy Sep 2013 #106
Octafish Sep 2013 #111
Octafish Sep 2013 #36
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #44
duffyduff Sep 2013 #38
Silent3 Sep 2013 #64
Incitatus Sep 2013 #40
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #41
Incitatus Sep 2013 #47
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #48
Octafish Sep 2013 #91
LongTomH Sep 2013 #108
Octafish Sep 2013 #117
Benton D Struckcheon Sep 2013 #42
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #43
trackfan Sep 2013 #67
Recursion Sep 2013 #46
Wolf Frankula Sep 2013 #49
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #50
Wolf Frankula Sep 2013 #57
treestar Sep 2013 #102
Niceguy1 Sep 2013 #51
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #52
Iggo Sep 2013 #54
avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #70
Iggo Sep 2013 #75
avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #71
joshcryer Sep 2013 #56
eridani Sep 2013 #59
Blue_In_AK Sep 2013 #66
TheMightyFavog Sep 2013 #68
defacto7 Sep 2013 #76
PowerToThePeople Sep 2013 #77
B Calm Sep 2013 #79
Stupefacto Sep 2013 #80
DiverDave Sep 2013 #81
deutsey Sep 2013 #82
Hayduke Bomgarte Sep 2013 #86
Taverner Sep 2013 #95
treestar Sep 2013 #100
Rex Sep 2013 #103
MADem Sep 2013 #104
JackRiddler Sep 2013 #113
The Second Stone Sep 2013 #118
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #119
PlanetaryOrbit Sep 2013 #120

Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 07:18 PM

1. I voted Other

I'm absolutely convinced that Carlos Marcello, the New Orleans mafia kingfish, was behind the assassination of JFK after reading "Mafia Kingfish: Carlos Marcello and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy" by John H. Davis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True_Blue (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 07:20 PM

2. that would mean you vote mafia

I remember watching Jim Garrison as a child when he was on the news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 07:21 PM

5. Yes, Mafia

My bad, I didn't see the mafia option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True_Blue (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 07:26 PM

8. It's ok, did you change it?

I took a graduate course on the Kennedy assassination, it was fascinating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 07:48 PM

13. Yes

I'm changing from Other to Mafia. I'm not able to change my vote on the poll though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True_Blue (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:22 PM

18. I thought there was a way for you to change your vote

I just click on my original vote and it gets cancelled and then I vote what I want

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #18)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 09:16 PM

31. I just noticed the undo button

I clicked it and changed my vote to mafia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 07:20 PM

3. I don't think it was one group but a combination of several ...

some of which were so secretive, so nefarious, that we'll never know the whole story.

I don't see an option for government cabal, btw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auggie (Reply #3)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 07:34 PM

10. possibly Gerald Ford

who became the working chair of the Warren Commission

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 11:46 AM

92. More along the likes of Prescott Bush & Company, perhaps, or their followers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auggie (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 11:21 AM

89. +1...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 07:21 PM

4. I'll take the CIA...with Oswald set up to take the fall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mnhtnbb (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 09:03 PM

29. Me too ^^ this ^^ ~nt~

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mnhtnbb (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 11:06 PM

55. Agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mnhtnbb (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 11:56 PM

61. I also took the CIA

 

But Poppy Bush and IMO Johnson were also involved. Johnson hated JFK, and there was a possibility Johnson was going to get impeached the Monday following the 22nd. I still want someone to ID the man in the picture at the Book Depository. I still think that is Bush. His name was even mention in a letter J Edgar Hoover wrote. Poppy denied it was himself, but I believe it was. Bush's ALWAYS lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #61)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 08:36 AM

83. I think you're right about Bush and Johnson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #61)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 04:15 PM

105. So you think that Poppy Bush himself was there?

Pulling the trigger I assume? wow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 07:24 PM

6. "It is very complicated" nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 07:25 PM

7. It was obviously Obama...

 

Using both a time machine and a magic bullet. All paid for by George Soros.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 07:39 PM

11. I love it and if that answer was serious I'd say you'd be suffering ODS

that's Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 07:27 PM

9. "It was love that killed Kennedy!"

Mike Wallace wants my body! Well they offered me so much money, what could I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 07:40 PM

12. seriously? I love it when peole come in with far fetched theories

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 07:57 PM

14. Although I voted Oswald, it is strongly possible that he was set up by the Mafia.

Oswald fired the shots. I have no doubt of that. And the plan was for him to be killed while in a shoot-out with the police. Remember that Oswald did shoot and kill a Dallas cop. That cop's partner, instead of killing Oswald on the spot, captured him alive. Then Oswald had to be silenced so Ruby, who had cancer, shot Oswald. That smells like a classic Mafia operation and back-up plan to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:01 PM

15. There is no right answer that can be proven

I never bought the story fron the day it happened. Kennedy pissed off and challenged so many of the power structures it's about impossible to say which one or what combination made it happen.
There's a reason that after 50 years there are more than 500K documents that have not been released. For security reasons? Yea sure! The security of those that have power and will never give it up without a fight.

November 22, 1963 was the beginning of the death of the USA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:05 PM

16. I think the Soviets said it all a day after it happened....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RagAss (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:20 PM

17. Wow interesting

I remember living in Tacoma when it happened and at the time we didn't have a tv, but my dad ran to this tv store and rented one. We (mainly I) liked it so much, we bought it and from that point on we had a tv in the house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 09:29 PM

33. My parents didn't have a TV either

But my dad ran out and bought one that day. I was only 5 and the TV is the only thing I really remember about that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RagAss (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:29 PM

21. They pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I once read Khrushchev cried when he heard the news. One year later, the Soviet military-industrial complex had him removed from power.

This is not coincidence that both leaders were removed from power. Think about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roamer65 (Reply #21)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:57 PM

53. The real power lies in darkness, hidden, secret and protecting

their interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #53)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 08:36 AM

84. Nope. Ratherthe opposite.

 

See, the thing about secrets is that they are always found out eventually. And the longer and dirtier the secret, the messier the follout of discovery.

Conspirators through the ages have learned that secrecy is best in the short term, but for long term... do it in the open. Speak it publically. The public will see you doing so and assume that since you clearly have nothing to hide, you must be on the level. Crime families don't hide themselves, they just afford good lawyers. The MIC doesn't hide itself, it tells you that it's protecting you. Business lobbies don't work in shadows, they just say "hey, dollars are speech too!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #84)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 11:49 AM

93. You're right, as usual

 

CT'ers and authoritarians are the opposite side of the same coin. Neither of them understand how our corrupt system works.

Authoritarians are too trusting of authority and fall for their B/S, and CT'ers are too trusting of the legitimacy of poorly supported and often far-fetched claims about authorities and their powers.

Our corrupt system isn't controlled by just a few people and it has taken a long time to evolve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #93)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 02:01 PM

94. Also, our corrupt system isn't "by design"

 

Nobody, no one person, no dozen or even hundreds of people set out, twirling their mustache and planning on fucking things over.

Nope. All it takes is one person there getting what they want out of the system, this guy over here giving a little twist for what he wants, both oblivious to each other, on and on and on for over two hundred years.

The circumstance of our system is almost literally the result of an infinite number of monkeys at typewriters. Shit just shook out this way. Maybe every 20 years there should be a big referendum to determine "hey, does our shit still work?" I mean you go to the doctor for a check-up yearly, you take your car to the shop to make sure everything's still working... Why not give your democracy such an examination?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #84)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 06:47 AM

116. Excellent point! ... another example, are the Koch Brothers. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RagAss (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:58 PM

28. Uncle Wally's comments

and inserted opinion seems to sound familiar with regard to recent Russian commentary, no?

I voted "other" because I think it was a combination of options on that poll.

The docuvid "Dark Legacy" comes to mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RagAss (Reply #16)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 06:09 PM

115. Vladimir was right on!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:23 PM

19. Dear me, do so many people believe in conspiracy theories?

I mean, seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PlanetaryOrbit (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:36 PM

23. Reality sucks

 

CT's are much more fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PlanetaryOrbit (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:48 PM

26. I agree, people really disappoint me. Woo Woo! n-t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PlanetaryOrbit (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 09:04 PM

30. Dear me, do some people really feel like they have to post derision?

I mean, seriously...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PlanetaryOrbit (Reply #19)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 12:09 AM

63. Yes. And many of them aren't stupid by a long way. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PlanetaryOrbit (Reply #19)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 12:23 AM

65. A lot of people just can't seem to bear the idea that a big event might have a small cause.

Maybe CIA conspiracies and Mafia plots are less frightening than the idea that one lone nut can kill a president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #65)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 03:21 AM

73. Many people are ignorant.

 

btw The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that president John F. Kennedy was likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #73)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 08:42 AM

85. Did they ever unconver evidence for *a particular conspiracy*?

Were they dead certain that there was a conspiracy, or just suspicious that Oswald might have had some help from somewhere?

Are we talking little-c conspiracy (which happens pretty much anytime more than one person colludes to commit a crime), or did that committee conclude in must be a Capital C Conspiracy, you know, where some big, powerful THEM pulls all of the strings?

There's a big difference between suspecting conspiracy is a possibility, and being so dead certain of it that you laugh when anyone suggests that more obvious, straight-forward explanations (sneered at as the "official story", something THEY construct to feed to the masses!) are the likely or the most likely explanations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #85)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 10:14 AM

87. The HSCA did not identify suspects. Many they wanted to interview ended up dead by violence.

JFK Mysterious Witness Deaths and the HSCA

Richard Charnin
July 1, 2013
Updated: July 31

In 1964, the Warren Commission ignored the testimony of 51 eyewitnesses who claimed that the shots came from the Grassy Knoll area. Just 32 said they came from the Texas School Book Depository. In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was forced to conclude that there was a “probable” conspiracy based on acoustic evidence – a 96% probability of at least four shots (including at least one from the Grassy Knoll). The physical evidence indicates more than four shots. Some shooters probably used silencers.

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, the HSCA was not about to refute the Warren Commission’s outrageous Single Bullet Theory. It still maintained that Oswald fired from the TSBD – and the other shooter(s) must have missed. Incredibly, the HSCA floated the canard that the shooters may have acted independently – and therefore there was no conspiracy.

So it is not surprising that prior to the presentation of the acoustic evidence, the HSCA would use obfuscation and factual omission in an attempt to refute an actuary’s calculation of 100,000 trillion to 1 odds of 18 material witness deaths in the three years following the assassination. If the odds were essentially correct, it would force the HSCA to conclude a conspiracy.

My comments and links (in red) are in bold font. This is a sensitivity analysis of unnatural witness deaths.

There were at least 114 unnatural and suspicious deaths in the 14 year period from 1964-1977. Notice the spikes in 1964 (Warren Commission) and 1977 (HSCA).



CONTINUED...

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/jfk-mysterious-witness-deaths-london-sunday-times-and-hsca-cover-up/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #87)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 11:17 AM

88. People still promote that suspicious deaths nonsense?

Whatta load of crap.

The conspiracy literature occasionally still quotes a supposed study done by the London Sunday Times which found that "the odds against these [assassination] witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one." The House Select Committee on Assassinations asked the newspaper where they got that number. The paper replied with the following letter.

The Editor has passed me your letter of 25th April.

Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times' editorial staff after the first edition — the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have — had gone out, and later editions were amended.

There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong. It was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied — correctly — that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter — hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize.

None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material.

Yours sincerely,
Antony Whitaker,
Legal Manager.
(4 HSCA 464-65)

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


Who will you be blaming for all of these "Unnatural deaths"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #88)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 11:25 AM

90. Wow! McAdams, the professional debunker.

An article from John McAdams does not mean it's true.

McAdams is a disinformationalist and smear artiste.

As for the suspicious deaths, here's one that more people need to know about:



Oswald's white Russian friend and apparent CIA minder was an associate of George HW Bush. After deMohrenschildt's death by shotgun in the mouth, investigators from the House Select Committee on Assassination found an address book containing an entry for "Bush, George H. W. (Poppy), 1412 W. Ohio also Zapata Petroleum, Midland" as well as kids' names and birthdays. It really is a small world.

"The Last Investigation" (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1993), p. 358n, by Gaeton Fonzi.

MORE INFO



With McAdams as your teacher, zappaman, it's no wonder you don't know much about JFK or the assassination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #90)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 02:49 PM

96. Have you decided if Oswald was a hero yet?

"As for Oswald, I don't know if he was a hero in all this or not."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2232672

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #96)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 03:24 PM

99. Seeing how he was murdered while in police custody before trial...

...I'll stick to what I wrote: I don' t know.

Why do you attempt to smear me for believing in due process, zappaman?

Don't you know Oswald has a background in US intelligence?

I'm not really surprised so few Americans know his story:



JAMES WILCOTT'S TESTIMONY

James B. Wilcott, a former CIA accountant, swore in a secret session of the House Select Committee on Assassinations that he was told by other CIA employees that Lee Harvey Oswald was paid by the CIA, and that money he himself had disbursed was for "Oswald or the Oswald project." The HSCA report indicated that other CIA employees discounted Wilcott's testimony, but none of their statements were included in the report. The document excerpted below was acquired by John Armstrong after his JFK Lancer NID97 presentation. Selected pages from the National Archives are presented graphically; the remainder, to preserve bandwidth, are excerpted typographically. A link to the complete text of Wilcott's testimony is provided near the bottom of this page.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1978

House of Representatives,

John F. Kennedy Subcommittee
of the Select Committee on
Assassinations,

Washington, D.C.


<. . . . >

TESTIMONY OF JAMES B. WILCOTT, A FORMER EMPLOYEE
OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY:


Mr. Goldsmith. For the record, would you please state your name and address and occupation?

Mr. Wilcott. My name is James B. Wilcott. My address is 2761 Atlantic Street, in Concord, and my occupation is electronic technician.

< . . . . >

Mr. Goldsmith. And, Mr. Wilcott, is it true that you are a former employee with the CIA and that you are here today testifying voluntarily without a subpoena?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. During what years did you work for the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. I worked from the years, May, of 1957 to, April, of 1966.

Mr. Goldsmith. And in what general capacity did you work with the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. All in the finance--in accounting all of the time.

<. . . .>

Mr. Goldsmith. Drawing your attention to the period immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy, at that time, did you come across any information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's relationship with the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I did.

Mr. Goldsmith. And will you tell the Committee what that relationship was?

Mr. Wilcott. Well, it was my understanding that Lee Harvey Oswald was an employee of the agency and was an agent of the agency.

Mr. Goldsmith. What do you mean by the term "agent?"

Mr. Wilcott. That he was a regular employee, receiving a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work.

Mr. Goldsmith. How did this information concerning Oswald first come to your attention?

Mr. Wilcott. The first time I heard about Oswald being connected in any way with CIA was the day after the Kennedy assassination.

Mr. Goldsmith. And how did that come to your attention?

Mr. Wilcott. Well, I was on day duty for the station. It was a guard-type function at the station, which I worked for overtime. There was a lot of excitement going on at the station after the Kennedy assassination.
Towards the end of my tour of duty, I heard certain things about Oswald somehow being connected with the agency, and I didn't really believe this when I heard it, and I thought it was absurd. Then, as time went on, I began to hear more things in that line.

Mr. Goldsmith. I think we had better go over that one more time. When, exactly, was the very first time that you heard or came across information that Oswald was an agent?

Mr. Wilcott. I heard references to it the day after the assassination.

Mr. Goldsmith. And who made these references to Oswald being an agent of the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. I can't remember the exact persons. There was talk about it going on at the station, and several months following at the station.

Mr. Goldsmith. How many people made this reference to Oswald being an agent of the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. At least--there was at least six or seven people, specifically, who said that they either knew or believed Oswald to be an agent of the CIA.

Mr. Goldsmith. Was Jerry Fox one of the people that made this allegation?

Mr. Wilcott. To the best of my recollection, yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. And who is Jerry Fox?

Mr. Wilcott. Jerry Fox was a Case Officer for his branch, the Soviet Russia Branch, Station, who purchased information from the Soviets.

Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Wilcott, did I ask you to prepare a list of CIA Case Officers working at the Station in 1963?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, you did.

<. . . .>

Mr. Goldsmith. At the time that this allegation first came to your attention, did you discuss it with anyone?

Mr. Wilcott. Oh, yes. I discussed it with my friends and the people that I was associating with socially.

Mr. Goldsmith. Who were your friends that you discussed this with?

Mr. Wilcott. George Breen, Ed Luck, and .

Mr. Goldsmith. Who was George Breen?

Mr. Wilcott. George Breen was a person in Registry, who was my closest friend while I was in .

Mr. Goldsmith. Was he a CIA employee?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, he was.

Mr. Goldsmith. And would he corroborate your observation that Oswald was an agent?

Mr. Wilcott. I don't know.

Mr. Goldsmith. At the time that this allegation first came to your attention, did you learn the name of Oswald's Case Officer at the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. No.

Mr. Goldsmith. Were there any other times during your stay with the CIA at Station that you came across information that Oswald had been a CIA agent?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. When was that?

Mr. Wilcott. The specific incident was soon after the Kennedy assassination, where an agent, a Case Officer--I am sure it was a Case Officer--came up to my window to draw money, and he specifically said in the conversation that ensued, he specifically said, "Well, Jim, the money that I drew the last couple of weeks ago or so was money" either for the Oswald project or for Oswald.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you remember the name of this Case Officer?

Mr. Wilcott. No, I don't.

Mr Goldsmith. Do you remember when specifically this conversation took place?

Mr. Wilcott. Not specifically, only generally.

Mr. Goldsmith. How many months after the assassination was this?

Mr. Wilcott. I think it must have been two or three omths after the assassination.

Mr. Goldsmith. And do you remember were this conversation took place?

Mr. Wilcott. It was right at my window, my disbursing cage window.

Mr. Goldsmith. Did you discuss this information with anyone?

Mr. Wilcott. Oh, yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. With whom?

Mr. Wilcott. Certainly with George Breen, the circle of social friends that we had.

Mr. Goldsmith. How do you spell last name?

Mr. Wilcott. (spelling).

<. . . .>

Mr. Goldsmith. Did this Case Officer tell you what Oswald's cryptonym was?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, he mentioned the cryptonym specifically under which the money was drawn.

Mr. Goldsmith. And what did he tell you the cryptonym was?

Mr. Wilcott. I cannot remember.

Mr. Goldsmith. What was your response to this revelation as to what Oswald's cryptonym was? Did you write it down or do anything?

Mr. Wilcott. No; I think that I looked through my advance book--and I had a book where the advances on project were run, and I leafed through them, and I must have at least leafed through them to see if what he said was true.

CONTINUED (Waybac cache, probably will be scrubbed by some turds' chums) ...

http://web.archive.org/web/20030212112648/http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/Wilcott/Wilcott.htm



One thing more you should know: John McAdams has an Octafish page? Spooky, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #87)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 04:50 PM

107. charnin does great work

RC
But we have several finite witnesses groups: Warren Commission, Garrison/Clay Shaw trial, Church senate – and the HSCA. There were 56 deaths among 800 witnesses in the four investigations. The probability is 2.58E-17 (1 in 38,000 trillion). At least 36 were unnatural (23 were homicides). The homicide rate (0.002680) was at least 43 times the national rate (0.000062).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #85)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 02:54 PM

98. A stupid story about a lone nut

This is the explanation given to the public because high level corruption is not up for review.

Citizens who object to bullshit theories are accused of being conspiracy nuts. What this really means is that they aren't being sufficiently obedient to the powerful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Reply #98)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 05:02 PM

109. What makes it a "stupid story"?

Aside from whatever evidence you think there is to the contrary, you're exactly making my point for me. People start with the notion that something so big, so important just couldn't be the work of one "lone nut", they start to imagine all of the powerful interests that might benefit from such an event, and go out seeking evidence to satisfy the sense of scale that they think a "proper" explanation must have.

The world is a scary place with all of the powerful, ruthless people out there. But it's even scarier when average Joes can kill presidents on their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #109)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 05:44 PM

110. It can't be a high level conspiracy

regardless of the evidence because that is simply not permissible. The powerful declared that it was the act of a lone nut and that should be sufficient for the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Reply #110)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 06:02 PM

112. Who's saying "it can't be"?

And who's talking about "what's permissible"? Any more straw men you'd like to get out of your system?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #73)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 02:52 PM

97. The HSCA also concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy

The HSCA also concluded that the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA were not involved in the assignation of Kennedy.

The HSCA also concluded the 'single bullet theory' was valid.

Their evidence of a conspiracy was almost entirely based on the acoustical evidence which was later well debunked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy

Just sayin'



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PlanetaryOrbit (Reply #19)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 03:17 AM

72. Pick up a book sometime.

 

It will give you a better understanding of the history of our country.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that president John F. Kennedy was likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PlanetaryOrbit (Reply #19)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 06:05 PM

114. Dear me, do so many people believe in official fairy tales?

 

I mean, seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:25 PM

20. Perhaps an option should be "The Right Wing"

 

It would be very easy to lump a few of the options into an umbrella with scumbags running black ops for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #20)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:35 PM

22. good point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:44 PM

24. Has anyone pointed out the proper forum

for this yet? I mean I love a good JFK thread but I at least know that I have to wade through the chemtrails to get there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #24)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 03:37 AM

74. This is the proper forum.

 

The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that president John F. Kennedy was likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. It is not creative speculation this was the conclusion of the HSCA.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that "scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy." It added that "on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKassassinationsC.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:47 PM

25. Oswald. Any other answer and you are in the wrong forum!! n-t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:49 PM

27. Oswald acted alone. ZERO evidence on ANY other scenario. Evidence overwhelming.

 

Just YouTube Vincent Bugliosi on this and/or read his book. NO evidence of conspiracy. NONE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Reply #27)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 11:45 PM

60. In 1986 there was a "movie" On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald

with Vincent Bugliosi as the Prosecuter and Gerry Spence as the Defense Attorney. I watched it and thought that Spence did a great job of raising reasonable doubt as to Oswald's guilt. I don't think that he was the brightest bulb in the room so to speak and his past actions were probably used to set him up. I don't think that we will ever know the truth about what happened but I think the most likely scenario would be people from a few different groups were behind JFK's death. When you consider the fact that the US has, over the years, been involved (directly or indirectly) with the overthrow of the governments of other countries, it is really not all that hard to believe that certain factions might assassinate our own leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Reply #27)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 03:11 AM

69. You couldn't be more wrong.

 

The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that president John F. Kennedy was likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #69)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 05:26 AM

78. How many times do you plan to repeat the same post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #69)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 08:22 PM

121. From the HSCA report:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1a.html

A. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy; the second and third shots he fired struck the President; the third shot he fired killed the President

Yes the Committee concluded, based on acoustic evidence taken from a dictabelt recording, that there was a second shooter who missed. The Committee was unable to identify this second shooter, could not credibly link the shooter to any organization or group, and could not credibly link this shooter to Oswald:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html

(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact, fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 09:24 PM

32. Who killed the Kennedys? Well after all, it was you and me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #32)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 11:17 PM

58. I could hardly believe this wasn't a choice in the original poll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #32)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 04:02 PM

101. Forgot about that!

That should have been a choice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 09:35 PM

34. 53 Reasons It Was Lee Harvey Oswald

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11354552

And then 32 reasons and arguments that Oswald acted alone:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11354786

ETA: I'll be happy to discuss these over in those threads. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #34)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:00 PM

39. These are excellent posts from Bolo Boffin

 

Anyone who is interested in this subject should read them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 09:35 PM

35. Ask Poppy Bush

This thread needs more Octofish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrawlingChaos (Reply #35)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 09:53 PM

37. He's a suspect based on what he told FBI.

Poppy Bush warned FBI -- AFTER -- JFK assassinated.

In the hour of the death of President John F. Kennedy, Texas oilman George Herbert Walker Bush named a suspect to the FBI in a "confidential" phone call. He then added he was heading for Dallas. Skeptics need not take my word for it, that's what Poppy told the FBI:



Here's a transcript of the text:



TO: SAC, HOUSTON DATE: 11-22-63

FROM: SA GRAHAM W. KITCHEL

SUBJECT: UNKNOWN SUBJECT;
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY

At 1:45 p.m. 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 telephone call from Tyler, Texas.

BUSH stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he recalled hearing in recent weeks, the day and source unknown. He stated that one JAMES PARROTT has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston.

BUSH stated that PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active in political matters in this area. He stated that he felt Mrs. FAWLEY, telephone number SU 2-5239, or ARLINE SMITH, telephone number JA 9-9194 of the Harris County Republican Party Headquarters would be able to furnish additional information regarding the identity of PARROTT.

BUSH stated that he was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel and return to his residence on 11-23-63. His office telephone number is CA 2-0395.

# # #



Gee. Why was Poppy Bush in Dallas when JFK was assassinated?

Could it be, he was on official business? I suspect he was on Secret Government business. After all, his eldest son bragged during his Texas Air National Guard and Harvard grad school days that his daddy was CIA.

Here's an FBI document from the same week of the assassination in which FBI Director J Edgar Hoover briefed one "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency." Some strange coincidence there, wot?



Here's a transcript of the above:



Date: November 29, 1963

To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State

From: John Edgar Hoover, Director

Subject: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
NOVEMBER 22, 1963

Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963, advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in U. S. policy, which is not true.

Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the U. S. but to all of Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.

An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that these individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.

The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W. T. Forsyth of this Bureau.

# # #



I do remember that GHWB was head of the CIA when the Church Committee was looking into the CIA assassination programs. He made things all friendly-like and turned what had been a serious hunt for truth under previous DCI Colby into another dog-and-pony show that was big on show and light on facts.

Regarding Dallas: Now I don't know if Poppy was a trigger man, was only there to watch what happened or what just happened to be there. I do know Poppy Bush has never explained these memos. He's never even admitted where he was the day JFK was killed.

Seeing how he would go on to become President, as would his dim son, I believe it's vitally important that we learn the Truth.

Why? The United States and the world haven't been the same since November 22, 1963. And not a single major player in the nation's mass media have stepped up and demanded a real investigation. So, it's up to us, We the People.

What's more, Poppy Bush sheltered mass-murdering jet-bombing terrorists like Luis Posada Carriles.

Thanks for the remembering, CrawlingChaos!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #37)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:21 PM

45. amazing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #37)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 12:04 AM

62. Correct not much more needs to be said.

The number of links and anomalies in the Kennedy assassination remind me of the Orient Express.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #37)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 04:44 PM

106. I didn't read that entire post but..

...what I get out of it is Bush overheard some discuss assassination.
Then he heard that Kennedy was assassinated.
Then he told the FBI what he overheard.

Is there more to this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #106)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 05:59 PM

111. Poppy Bush reported the threat AFTER President Kennedy was dead.

Another part of interest in the first memo: Poppy told the FBI he was in Dallas on the day of the assassination. Odd, considering Bush has said he couldn't recall where he was when asked over the years by interviewers.

The second FBI memo is important because J Edgar Hoover names "George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" in a briefing on the Miami Cuban reaction to the assassination. Again odd, as Poppy Bush denied under oath to Congress being a member of CIA until he was appointed DCI by President Ford, who'd served on the Warren Commission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 09:45 PM

36. Military Industrial Complex and Dixie

JFK said, ''No'' to those wanting war at least four times.

Even though they knew their invasion plans were compromised, the CIA and Pentagon tried to force Kennedy to make war over the Bay of Pigs.

While an attack on Soviet missile bases in Cuba and on ships at sea would escalate to nuclear war, the Pentagon and most of the Cabinet tried to force Kennedy to make war, nuclear if necessary -- the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Pentagon and the Hawks in Congress and his Cabinet recommended war in Vietnam and southeast Asia to stop the spread of Communism, Kennedy sent volunteers -- which he ordered out by the end of 1964 -- but said he would never commit U.S. draftees to fight in another country's civil war, Vietnam.

Most troublesome to me, seeing how the Hawks lied America into invading Iraq twice in the last 22 years, DCI Allen Dulles and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Lyman Lemnitzer counseled Kennedy to order an all-out nuclear sneak attack on the Soviet Union in Fall of 1963 -- the optimal time for a successful pre-emptive war.

Dixie's role: Racist Joseph Adams Milteer pretty much outlined the 'official version of Dallas' before it happened. Milteer didn't know he was being taped by an FBI informant.

Now retired-FBI agent Don Adams, who interviewed Milteer, came forward a few years back and reported the FBI intentionally obstructed justice in its investigation of Milteer and in its investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy.

Those with open minds also may want to learn about Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden, the first African American on the White House Secret Service detail who reported overt racism by his fellow agents and outright hostility toward the "n------loving president" and was railroaded after reporting what he saw to the Warren Commission.

Remember Gen. Curtis LeMay ran as George Wallace's running mate for president in 1968, helping split the Democratic southern vote once and for all for the GOP. LeMay was head of the USAF during the assassination. In addition to disregarding orders, he later lied about his whereabouts on Nov. 22, 1963.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #36)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:16 PM

44. Interesting post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 09:57 PM

38. The fact the biggest number of people voted Oswald gives me hope

 

that common sense has finally entered the national consciousness.

It always was Oswald, acting alone, who killed JFK, wounded Governor Connolly, and murdered Officer Tippit.

There has never been any proof otherwise, and there never will be.

It's time to face the truth and move on. One mentally ill loser really did do the deed by himself and changed the course of history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #38)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 12:18 AM

64. The sum of the various non-Oswald choices still adds up to more than Oswald

The crazy is pretty strong here these days, and I'd say that even if the non-Oswald votes were no more than 20%.

It's one thing to be a bit suspicious or uncertain, but being adamantly convinced that the obvious culprit, Oswald, is false or highly unlikely is irrational.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:04 PM

40. Lee Harvey pulled the trigger.

I think that part is pretty clear. There's a lot of speculation, but no solid evidence as to what other parties may be involved, but some did benefit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Incitatus (Reply #40)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:12 PM

41. so you subscribe to Arlen Specter's lone gunman theory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #41)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:28 PM

47. I'm not convined either way.

He was assassinated long before I was born. I can't say I've thoroughly reviewed everything. I do think there were a number of people that were happy to see him go. I do have a friend that is pretty sure Bush Sr. was involved, but I can't give you his reasoning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Incitatus (Reply #47)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:30 PM

48. Specter is the one who came up with the magic bullet theory

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #48)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 11:31 AM

91. Impossible Bullet

Here's the Warren Commission's entire argument ... The Magic Bullet.

JFK Exhibit F-294

Photo of 5 bullets fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle: (left to right) the "magic bullet" (CE 399), two bullets fired into cotton wadding(CE 572), a bullet fired through a goat rib (CE 853), and a bullet fired through the wrist of a human cadaver (CE 856).

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=45739

The magic bullet appears to have been fired into cotton wadding.

That makes clear why the Warren Commission's case is bogus.






Few, if any, of the Warren Commission's claims for CE 399 are supported by the evidence. On the contrary, there is a mass of evidence that refutes the SBT. This includes:

Eyewitness testimony - particularly that of John Connally himself.[3] Connally always insisted that he was hit after JFK was wounded in the throat.

Photographic evidence - the Zapruder film shows John Connally still holding his Stetson after JFK has been hit.[4]

Ballistics evidence - Arlen Specter even disproved his own theory when trying to line up the locations of wounds on JFK and Connally in a reconstruction using wires in a garage.[5] The picture of the reconstruction shows Specter having to hold a straight wire well above the marked location of the JFK back wound in order to line up JFK's throat wound with Connally's back wound.

Physical evidence - the bullet itself, CE 399[6], which is barely distorted and almost intact despite claims that it smashed 10cm of Connally's fifth rib and shattered his radius (a hefty bone). CE 399 also has a very dubious chain of evidence. This alone would probably result in CE 399 not being allowed as evidence in a court.

Medical evidence - the bodies of JFK and John Connally.

CONTINUED...

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/22nd_Issue/sbt.html



Thank you for asking your question, gopiscrap. While it's been 50 years soon, this world continues to change in an awful way because of the assassination of President Kennedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #91)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 04:52 PM

108. I think you're right on that point, Octafish!

"While it's been 50 years soon, this world continues to change in an awful way because of the assassination of President Kennedy."

JFK was a visionary. Apollo put us on track to explore the solar system. His civil rights and anti-poverty legislation put us on track to being a much more equal and just society. Nixon, and later Reagan took us off that track and we still haven't gotten back on.

I'll give some props to both Clinton and Obama for some good legislation; but, they really haven't repudiated Reaganonomics.

Sadly, I don't think there's anyone of JFK stature or vision on the horizon. Maybe somewhere, there's a young politician who will develop into a Kennedy, but is still below the horizon. We can only hope!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LongTomH (Reply #108)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 08:51 AM

117. Special Message to the Congress on Protecting the Consumer Interest.

March 15, 1962

To the Congress of the United States:

Consumers, by definition, include us all. They are the largest economic group in the economy, affecting and affected by almost every public and private economic decision. Two-thirds of all spending in the economy is by consumers. But they are the only important group in the economy who are not effectively organized, whose views are often not heard.

The federal Government--by nature the highest spokesman for all the people--has a special obligation to be alert to the consumer's needs and to advance the consumer's interests. Ever since legislation was enacted in 1872 to protect the consumer from frauds involving use of the U.S. mail, the Congress and Executive Branch have been increasingly aware of their responsibility to make certain that our Nation's economy fairly and adequately serves consumers' interests.

In the main, it has served them extremely well. Each succeeding generation has enjoyed both higher income and a greater variety of goods and services. As a result our standard of living is the highest in the world--and, in less than 20 years, it should rise an additional 50 percent.

Fortunate as we are, we nevertheless cannot afford waste in consumption any more than we can afford inefficiency in business or Government. If consumers are offered inferior products, if prices are exorbitant, if drugs are unsafe or worthless, if the consumer is unable to choose on an informed basis, then his dollar is wasted, his health and safety may be threatened, and the national interest suffers. On the other hand, increased efforts to make the best possible use of their incomes can contribute more to the well-being of most families than equivalent efforts to raise their incomes.

The march of technology--affecting, for example, the foods we eat, the medicines we take, and the many appliances we use in our homes--has increased the difficulties of the consumer along with his opportunities; and it has outmoded many of the old laws and regulations and made new legislation necessary. The typical supermarket before World War II stocked about 1,500 separate food items--an impressive figure by any standard. But today it carries over 6,000. Ninety percent of the prescriptions written today are for drugs that were unknown 20 years ago. Many of the new products used every day in the home are highly complex. The housewife is called upon to be an amateur electrician, mechanic, chemist, toxicologist, dietitian, and mathematician--but she is rarely furnished the information she needs to perform these tasks proficiently.

Marketing is increasingly impersonal. Consumer choice is influenced by mass advertising utilizing highly developed arts of persuasion. The consumer typically cannot know whether drug preparations meet minimum standards of safety, quality, and efficacy. He usually does not know how much he pays for consumer credit; whether one prepared food has more nutritional value than another; whether the performance of a product will in fact meet his needs; or whether the "large economy size" is really a bargain.

Nearly all of the programs offered by this Administration--e.g., the expansion of world trade, the improvement of medical care, the reduction of passenger taxes, the strengthening of mass transit, the development of conservation and recreation areas and low-cost power--are of direct or inherent importance to consumers. Additional legislative and administrative action is required, however, if the federal Government is to meet its responsibility to consumers in the exercise of their rights. These rights include:

(1) The right to safety--to be protected against the marketing of goods which are hazardous to health or life.

(2) The right to be informed--to be protected against fraudulent, deceitful, or grossly misleading information, advertising, labeling, or other practices, and to be given the facts he needs to make an informed choice.

(3) The right to choose--to be assured, wherever possible, access to a variety of products and services at competitive prices; and in those industries in which competition is not workable and Government regulation is substituted, an assurance of satisfactory quality and service at fair prices.

(4) The right to be heard--to be assured that consumer interests will receive full and sympathetic consideration in the formulation of Government policy, and fair and expeditious treatment in its administrative tribunals.

To promote the fuller realization of these consumer rights, it is necessary that existing Government programs be strengthened, that Government organization be improved, and, in certain areas, that new legislation be enacted.

I. STRENGTHENING Of EXISTING PROGRAMS

This Administration has sponsored a wide range of specific actions to strengthen existing programs. Major progress has already been achieved or is in prospect in several important areas. And the 1963 budget includes recommendations to improve the effectiveness of almost every major program of consumer protection.

(1) Food and drug protection. Thousands of common household items now available to consumers contain potentially harmful substances. Hundreds of new uses for such products as food additives, food colorings and pesticides are found every year, adding new potential hazards. To provide better protection and law enforcement in this vital area, I have recommended a 2 percent increase in staff for the food and Drug Administration in the budget now pending before the Congress, the largest single increase in the agency's history. In addition, to assure more effective registration of pesticides, a new division has been established in the Department of Agriculture; and increased appropriations have been requested for pesticide regulation and for meat and poultry inspection activities.

(2) Safer transportation. As Americans make more use of highway and air transportation than any other nation, increased speed and congestion have required us to take special safety measures.

--The federal Aviation Agency has reexamined the Nation's air traffic control requirements and is designing an improved system to enhance the safety and efficiency of future air traffic.

--The Secretary of Commerce has established an Office of Highway Safety it. the Bureau of Public Roads to promote public support of highway safety standards, coordinate use of highway safety research findings and encourage cooperation of State and local governments, industry, and allied groups--the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is likewise strengthening its accident prevention work--and the Interstate Commerce Commission is strengthening its enforcement of safety requirements for motor carriers.

--In addition, I am requesting the Departments of Commerce and of Health, Education, and Welfare, to review, with representatives of the automobile industry, those changes in automobile design and equipment which will help reduce the unconscionable toll of human life on the highways and the pollution of the air we breathe. Additional legislation does not appear required at this time in view of the automobile industry's action to incorporate in the new model design changes which will reduce air pollution.

(3) Financial protection. Important steps are being taken to help assure more adequate protection for the savings that prudent consumers lay aside for the future purchase of costly items, for the rainy day, for their children's education, or to meet their retirement needs.

--Legislation enacted last year has strengthened the insurance program of the federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation.

--The Securities and Exchange Commission has undertaken at the request of the Congress a major investigation of the securities market which should provide the basis for later legislation and administrative measures.

--The Postmaster General and the Department of Justice have stepped up enforcement of the mail fraud statutes. Arrests for mail fraud last year set an all-time record; and convictions increased by 35 percent over the previous year.

(4) More effective regulation. The independent regulatory agencies also report increased emphasis on programs directly helpful to consumers.

--The Interstate Commerce Commission has instituted proceedings designed to prevent excessive charges for moving household goods in interstate commerce.

--The Civil Aeronautics Board has recently taken action to protect air travelers from abuses of overbooking.

--The federal Trade Commission has intensified its actions against deceptive trade practices and false advertising affecting a variety of goods, including refrigerators, house paint, sewing machines, vacuum cleaners, kitchen utensils, food wrapping, and carpets.

--The federal Power Commission is initiating a vigorous program to assure consumers of reasonable natural gas prices while assuring them of adequate supplies--revitalizing all of its regulatory programs in the electric power field--and undertaking a national power survey designed to identify ways of bringing down power costs in the decades ahead by making the best possible use of our capital and energy resources; and I recommend that the Congress enact legislation and make available funds to enable the Commission to provide for 34 million natural gas consumers the information similar to that now provided electrical consumers on typical bills in various areas, thus spotlighting abnormally high rates and stimulating better industry performance.

--The federal Communications Commission is actively reviewing the television network program selection process and encouraging the expanded development of educational television stations; and it will also step up in fiscal year 1963 its enforcement program to prevent interference with air navigation signals, distress calls, and other uses of radio important to public safety.

--For all of the major regulatory agencies, I am recommending increased appropriations for 1963 to provide the increased staff necessary for more effective protection of the consumer and public interest.

--Of the important changes in agency organizational procedure recommended last year to eliminate delays and strengthen decision-making, the great majority have been authorized by reorganization plans or legislation and are being put into practice by agency heads; and, to permit similar improvements in the operations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the federal Power Commission through greater delegation of assignments, I recommend enactment this year of legislation along the lines of S. 2135 for the SEC and S. 1605 and H.R. 6956 for the FPC.

(5) Housing costs and quality. The largest purchase most consumers make in their lifetime is a home. In the past year, significant steps have been taken to reduce the cost of financing housing and to improve housing quality. The level of interest rates and other charges on mortgage loans has been reduced by a variety of federal actions. Under authority provided by the Housing Act of 1961, new programs have been started (a) to encourage experimental construction methods likely to develop better housing at lower cost, (b) to provide lower interest rates and longer maturities on loans for rehabilitation of existing housing, (c) to provide especially low cost rental housing for moderate income families, and (d) to provide housing for domestic farm labor. The same legislation also authorized demonstration grants to develop better methods of providing housing for low income families.

(6) Consumer information and research-and consumer representation in Government. Government can help consumers to help themselves by developing and making available reliable information.

--The Housing and Home finance Agency will undertake, under the budget proposed for fiscal 1963, new studies to discover ways of reducing monthly housing expenses, lowering the cost of land for home building, and minimizing financing charges.

--The Department of Agriculture is undertaking similar research designed to help raise rural housing standards and reduce costs,

--The food and Drug Administration will expand its Consumer Consultant Program which, together with the home demonstration program of the Agriculture Extension Service, now provides valuable information directly to consumers on product trends, food standards and protection guides.

--The Bureau of Labor Statistics is now conducting a nation-wide survey of consumer expenditures, income, and savings, which will be used to update the widely-used Consumer Price Index and to prepare model family budgets.

--Too little has been done to make available to consumers the results of pertinent government research. In addition to the types of studies mentioned above, many agencies are engaged--as aids to those principally concerned with their activities, in cooperation with industry or for federal procurement purposes--in testing the performance of certain products, developing standards and specifications and assembling a wide range of related information which would be of immense use to consumers and consumer organizations. The beneficial results of these efforts--in the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and Health, Education, and Welfare, and in the General Services Administration and other agencies--should be more widely published. This is but one part of a wider problem: the failure of governmental machinery to assure specific consideration of the consumer's needs and point of view. With this in mind, I am directing:

--first, that the Council of Economic Advisers create a Consumers' Advisory Council, to examine and provide advice to the government on issues of broad economic policy, on governmental programs protecting consumer needs, and on needed improvements in the flow of consumer research material to the public; this Consumers' Council will also give interested individuals and organizations a voice in these matters;

--Second, that the head of each federal agency whose activities bear significantly on consumer welfare designate a special assistant in his office to advise and assist him in assuring adequate and effective attention to consumer interests in the work of the agency, to act as liaison with consumer and related organizations, and to place increased emphasis on preparing and making available pertinent research findings for consumers in clear and useable form; and

--Third, that the Postmaster General undertake a pilot program by displaying, in at least 100 selected post offices, samples of publications useful to consumers and by providing facilities for the easier purchase of such publications.

II. NEW LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ADDED CONSUMER PROTECTION

In addition to the foregoing measures, new legislative authority is also essential to advance and protect the consumer interest.
(A) Strengthen regulatory authority over foods and drugs

The successful development of more than 9,000 new drugs in the last 25 years has saved countless lives and relieved millions of victims of acute and chronic illnesses. However, new drugs are being placed on the market with no requirement that there be either advance proof that they will be effective in treating the diseases and conditions for which they are recommended or the prompt reporting of adverse reactions. These new drugs present greater hazards as well as greater potential benefits than ever before-for they are widely used, they are often very potent, and they are promoted by aggressive sales campaigns that may tend to overstate their merits and fail to indicate the risks involved in their use. For example, over 20 percent of the new drugs listed since 1956 in the publication New and Non-Official Drugs were found, upon being tested, to be incapable of sustaining one or more of their sponsor's claims regarding their therapeutic effect. There is no way of measuring the needless suffering, the money innocently squandered, and the protraction of illnesses resulting from the use of such ineffective drugs.

The physician and consumer should have the assurance, from an impartial scientific source, that any drug or therapeutic device on the market today is safe and effective for its intended use; that it has the strength and quality represented; and that the accompanying promotional material tells the full story--its bad effects as well as its good. They should be able to identify the drug by a simple, common name in order to avoid confusion and to enable the purchaser to buy the quality drugs he actually needs at the lowest competitive price.

Existing law gives no such assurance to the consumer--a fact highlighted by the thoroughgoing investigation led by Senator Kefauver. It is time to give American men, women and children the same protection we have been giving hogs, sheep and cattle since 1913, under an act forbidding the marketing of worthless serums and other drugs for the treatment of these animals.

There are other problems to meet in this area:

--An extensive underground traffic exists in habit-forming barbiturates (sedatives) and amphetamines (stimulants). Because of inadequate supervision over distribution, these drugs are contributing to accidents, to juvenile delinquency and to crime.

--Two billion dollars worth of cosmetics are marketed yearly, many without adequate safety testing. Thousands of women have suffered burns and other injuries to the eyes, skin and hair by untested or inadequately tested beauty aids.

--Factory inspections now authorized by the pure food and drug laws are seriously hampered by the fact that the law does not clearly require the manufacturer to allow inspection of certain records. An uncooperative small minority of manufacturers can engage in a game of hide-and-seek with the Government in order to avoid adequate inspection. But protection of the public health is not a game. It is of vital importance to each and every citizen.

--A fifth of all the meat slaughtered in the United States is not now inspected by the Department of Agriculture, because the coverage of the Meat Inspection Act is restricted to meat products moving across state lines. This incomplete coverage contributes to the diversion of unhealthy animals to processing channels where the products are uninspected and can, therefore, be a threat to human health.

In short, existing laws in the food, drug, and cosmetic area are inadequate to assure the necessary protection the American consumer deserves. To overcome these serious statutory gaps, I recommend:

(1) first, legislation to strengthen and broaden existing laws in the food and drug field to provide consumers with better, safer, and less expensive drugs, by authorizing the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to:

(a) Require a showing that new drugs and therapeutic devices are effective for their intended use--as wall as safe--before they are placed on the market;

(b) Withdraw approval of any such drug or device when there is substantial doubt as to its safety or efficacy, and require manufacturers to report any information bearing on its safety or efficacy;

(c) Require drug and therapeutic device manufacturers to maintain facilities and controls that will assure the reliability of their product;

(d) Require batch-by-batch testing and certification of all antibiotics;

(e) Assign simple common names to drugs;

(f) Establish an enforceable system of preventing the illicit distribution of habit-forming barbiturates and amphetamines;
(g) Require cosmetics to be tested and proved safe before they are marketed; and

(h) Institute more effective inspection to determine whether food, drug, cosmetics, and therapeutic devices are being manufactured and marketed in accordance with the law;

(2) Second, legislation to authorize the federal Trade Commission to require that advertising of prescription drugs directed to physicians disclose the ingredients, the efficacy, and the adverse effects of such drugs; and

(3) Third, legislation to broaden the coverage of the Meat Inspection Act administered by the Department of Agriculture, to promote adequate inspection--in cooperation with the States and industry--of all meat slaughtered in the United States.

(B) Require "truth in lending"

Consumer debt outstanding, including mortgage credit, has almost tripled in the last decade and now totals well over $200 billion. Its widespread availability has given consumers more flexibility in the timing of their purchases. But, in many instances, serious abuses have occurred. Under the chairmanship of Senator Douglas, a subcommittee of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee has been conducting a detailed examination of such abuses. The testimony received shows a clear need for protection of consumers against charges of interest rates and fees far higher than apparent without any real knowledge on the part of the borrowers of the true amounts they are being charged. Purchasers of used cars in one study, for example, paid interest charges averaging 25 percent a year, and ranging well above this; yet very few were aware of how much they were actually paying for credit.

Excessive and untimely use of credit arising out of ignorance of its true cost is harmful both to the stability of the economy and to the welfare of the public. Legislation should therefore be enacted requiring lenders and vendors to disclose to borrowers in advance the actual amounts and rates which they will be paying for credit. Such legislation, similar in this sense to the "Truth-in-Securities" laws of 1933-34, would not control prices or charges. But it would require full disclosure to installment buyers and other prospective credit users, and thus permit consumers to make informed decisions before signing on the dotted line. Inasmuch as the specific credit practices which such a bill would be designed to correct are closely related to and often combined with other types of misleading trade practices which the federal Trade Commission is already regulating, I recommend that enforcement of the new authority be assigned to the Commission. The Government agencies most concerned in this area have been cooperating with the subcommittee in developing the information necessary to prepare a workable and effective bill; and in view of the exhaustive hearings already held, I hope that the Congress can complete action on this important matter before it adjourns.

(C) Manufacture of all-channel television sets

Five out of six home television receivers today are equipped to receive programs on only the 12 very-high frequency (VHF) channels. As a result, in most areas, stations desiring to operate on any of the 70 ultra-high frequency (UHF) channels would usually have such small audiences that there is little incentive to make the substantial initial investment and continuing expenditures that effective broadcasting requires. The result is a sharply restricted choice for consumers.

After extensive study, the federal Communications Commission has concluded that an effective and genuinely competitive nationwide television service, with adequate provision for local outlets and educational stations, is not possible within the narrow confines of 12 VHF channels. Legislation now before the Congress would authorize the Commission to prescribe the performance characteristics of all new television receivers shipped in interstate commerce to assure that they can receive both VHF and UHF. signals. I strongly urge its passage as the most economical and practical method of broadening the range of programs available. This step, together with the federal aid for construction of educational television stations which is nearing final passage by the Congress, will speed the full realization of television's great potential.

(D) Strengthen laws promoting competition and prohibiting monopoly

The most basic and long-standing protections for the right of consumers, to a choice at a competitive price, are the various laws designed to assure effective competition and to prevent monopoly. The Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and many related laws are the strongest shields the consumer possesses against the growth of unchecked monopoly power. In addition to the measure now nearing final passage which would provide subpoena powers for civil as well as criminal antitrust investigations, several other improvements are needed:

(1) The federal Trade Commission should be empowered to issue temporary cease-and-desist orders against the continuance of unfair competitive practices while cases concerned with permanent relief from such practices are pending before the Commission. Under the present law, smaller competitors may be driven into bankruptcy or forced to accept merger on adverse terms long before present remedies become effective, thus reducing the competitive safeguards vital for the consumer. Similarly, deceptive trade practices in consumer goods may do their damage long before the Commission can "lock the barn door." I, therefore, reiterate my previous recommendation that the Congress give prompt consideration to effective legislation to accomplish this purpose.

(2) The consumer's right to a reasonable price can also be adversely affected by mergers of two business firms which substantially reduce effective competition. As in the case of unfair methods of competition, damage once done is often irreparable, and the Government, acting through the courts, cannot readily restore the degree of competition existing prior to the merger. Accordingly, I strongly recommend enactment of legislation to require reasonable advance notice to the Department of Justice and to the appropriate Commission or Board of any merger expected to result in a firm of substantial size. This will enable the businessman to obtain advice in advance, without litigation, as to whether a proposed merger would be regarded as contrary to the public interest. In addition, along with the recommended authority for the FTC to issue cease-and-desist orders, it is an essential safeguard against combinations which might cause unwarranted increases in consumer prices.

(3) In view of the potentially anti-competitive abuses to which the use of patents and trademarks are by nature subject, I recommend

--enactment of legislation requiring publication of the terms of all settlement agreements between different persons applying for patent rights on the same invention--for recent hearings have shown that such agreements may include features designed to weaken future competition at the expense of the consumer; and

--enactment of legislation authorizing the FTC to apply for the cancellation of any trademark which is, or becomes, the common descriptive name of an article and thus should be in the public domain. While a competitor has such a right today, it is important-if the FTC is to have clear authority to halt this kind of unfair commercial advantage--that the Senate insert this provision in its review of trademark legislation (H.R. 4333) already approved by the House.

(E) "Truth in packaging"

Just as consumers have the right to know what is in their credit contract, so also do they have the right to know what is in the package they buy. Senator Hart and his subcommittee are to be commended for the important investigation they are now conducting into packaging and labeling practices.

In our modern society good packaging meets many consumer needs, among them convenience, freshness, safety and attractive appearance. But often in recent years, as the hearings have demonstrated, these benefits have been accompanied by practices which frustrate the consumer's efforts to get the best value for his dollar. In many cases the label seems designed to conceal rather than to reveal the true contents of the package. Sometimes the consumer cannot readily ascertain the net amount of the product, or the ratio of solid contents to air. Frequently he cannot readily compute the comparative costs per unit of different brands packed in odd sizes, or of the same brand in large, giant, king size, or jumbo packages. And he may not realize that changes in the customary size or shape of the package may account for apparent bargains, or that "centsoff" promotions are often not real savings.

Misleading, fraudulent or unhelpful practices such as these are dearly incompatible with the efficient and equitable functioning of our free competitive economy. Under our system, consumers have a right to expect that packages will carry reliable and readily useable information about their contents. And those manufacturers whose products are sold in such packages have a right to expect that their competitors will be required to adhere to the same standards. Upon completion of our own survey of these packaging and labeling abuses, in full cooperation with the Senate Subcommittee, I shall make recommendations as to the appropriate roles of private business and the federal Government in improving packaging standards and achieving more specific disclosure of the quantity and ingredients of the product inside the package in a form convenient to and useable by the consumer.

As all of us are consumers, these actions and proposals in the interest of consumers are in the interest of us all. The budgetary investment required by these programs is very modest--but they can yield rich dividends in strengthening our free competitive economy, our standard of living and health and our traditionally high ethical patterns of business conduct. Fair competition aids both business and consumer.

It is my hope that this Message, and the recommendations and requests it contains, can help alert every agency and branch of government to the needs of our consumers. Their voice is not always as loudly heard in Washington as the voices of smaller and better-organized groups--nor is their point of view always defined and presented. But under our economic as well as our political form of democracy, we share an obligation to protect the common interest in every decision we make. I ask the Congress, and every Department and Agency, to help in the fulfillment of that obligation.

JOHN F. KENNEDY

SOURCE: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9108

As you know, LongTomH, the guy was ahead of his time. He was a man of peace who believed in equal justice for all -- a true Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:13 PM

42. My fave theory is that Oswald acted alone, but that he was aiming for Connally.

Oswald, being a former Marine, wanted his discharge changed to honorable, and had written the Sec'y of the Navy to that effect. Said Sec'y returned a form letter turning down that request. That Sec'y was --- Connally.
I like this theory because it very simply explains the accuracy of his shooting: he was aiming for Connally and missed. Backing this up is that when the cops went and got Marina, she at first thought he was being arrested for shooting Connally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Benton D Struckcheon (Reply #42)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:15 PM

43. Ineteresting I knew the part about Connelly but I never knew that

Ms. Oswald reacted that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Benton D Struckcheon (Reply #42)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 01:59 AM

67. I've thought that since I was a kid reading that letter in the Warren report.

I've always wondered why no one ever talked about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:26 PM

46. Werner Herzog once gave a long speech about how good the Warren Commission report is

And complains that nobody who complains about it has actually read it. Even Stone hadn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:47 PM

49. Hunter S. Thompson and It was an Accident.

Hunter Thompson was the man on the grassy knoll. He had been paid to hit Jackie, and he missed. He was sorry to the end of his days.

Wolf

(There are two basic themes of history, conspiracy and fuck-up. This was a fuck-up)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wolf Frankula (Reply #49)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:48 PM

50. how do you figure?

Back it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #50)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 11:09 PM

57. Rumor Has It he Said so.

Gore Vidal always thought it was a Mafia hit. Shooting somebody in the middle of his bodyguards is the purest Palermo sendoff.

Me, I think Lee Harvey Oswald did it.

Wolf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wolf Frankula (Reply #49)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 04:05 PM

102. Had a chance to see the scene in Dallas

It really was lucky Jackie didn't get hit. Anyone could have. Connolly did, but not fatally.

I don't know much about guns though. But it seemed a long shot, to a moving vehicle - Oswald was "lucky" he hit his intended target.

After hearing all the stories of how he cheated on Jackie, there should be a CT about her hiring a hit man. Divorce would have meant too much publicity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:54 PM

51. 50 years later

T doesn't really matter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Niceguy1 (Reply #51)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:56 PM

52. actually it does matter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Niceguy1 (Reply #51)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 11:04 PM

54. No. It does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #54)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 03:15 AM

70. Why not?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #70)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 03:54 AM

75. He said it doesn't matter, and I said "No. It does (matter)."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Niceguy1 (Reply #51)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 03:16 AM

71. How can you say that?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 11:09 PM

56. No Cuba?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 11:25 PM

59. How can we possibly tell when the PTB compromised or hid so much evidence? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 12:24 AM

66. I wish I knew.

I will never feel comfortable with the official story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 02:45 AM

68. JFK. Albiet a JFK from an alternate timeline where he survived the assasination attmept...

No thanks to the meddling of a group of smegheads on a search for curries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 04:11 AM

76. Cuba, CIA, Mafia triangle.

A lot of revenge, a lot of hatred, a lot to loose and a lot to gain all around.

In any case, it ruined it for all of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 04:18 AM

77. I do not know, but the story told by the state smells like poo-poo. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 05:31 AM

79. Skull and Bones Society

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 06:51 AM

80. This vote shows the lack of persuasive skills Lone-nutters have nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 07:34 AM

81. Garrison was RIGHT

It was about fucking MONEY, billions, and in 1962 that was a whole lot.

Why would they try and discredit him so hard if he wasnt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 07:54 AM

82. I believe it was the same shadowy crew of covert operatives

that toppled governments in Iran and Guatemala, assassinated leaders around the world, was behind Bay of Pigs, was deeply involved in things going on in Southeast Asia, etc. This crew consisted of many overlapping circles of power (intelligence, military, mafia, corporate, right-wingers, etc.)

They felt betrayed by Kennedy over Bay of Pigs (which had been Nixon's baby under Eisenhower) and probably saw him as a traitor for his backdoor diplomacy with Cuba and USSR after the missile crisis.

I base this on many sources I've read over the years, but the big one that comes to mind is the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 10:08 AM

86. Other

I think it was a collaboration between elements of both organized crime and the CIA with Oswald used as a patsy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 02:03 PM

95. There were two gunmen

 

Other than that, there is so much information, disinformation and plain lies I think we will never know what happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 04:01 PM

100. Oswald

The only CT I am willing to entertain is the one about Poppy Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 04:08 PM

103. The only reason I went with the CIA is

 

because JFK wanted to abolish the agency after learning about their heroin trade during the Vietnam war (the Bay of Pigs didn't help either) and deciding they were becoming a rogue agency. I STILL believe LHO killed JFK...but the orders came from above his pay grade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 04:09 PM

104. As long as we're prancing far afield with every option for creative speculation, why not include

FIDEL CASTRO as one of the obvious options?

Really--the USSR is defunct. Why is Cuba still--all these years later--still unloved?

We do business with Vietnam now, and we lost 58K of our beloved citizens there.

Why can't we "get over" Cuba? If they offed our leader, that might be one reason....?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 06:05 PM

113. Get rid of all that garnish.

 

Two options:

1) LHO alone as per Warren Commission report.

2) Military-intel coup d'etat.

It's one or the other. The rest is distraction (mafia, please!) or mistaking possible parts of the plot for the whole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 09:14 AM

118. It was Oswald, working for the CIA

 

in my opinion. Has the CIA ever opened its books on how much they used Oswald?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 04:13 PM

119. this amazes me that I would get this much response to the poll question

and also so much discussion. Shows that even after 50 years that this event still strikes a raw chord in people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 07:54 PM

120. I thought only right-wingers believed conspiracy theories to this sort of extent.

I'm amazed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread