JFK's death 44 years later and the big 'what if?'

LINCOLN WAS WRONG: THE EASE OF FOOLING MOST OF THE PEOPLE MOST OF THE TIME

JOHN CHUCKMAN

This year marks the forty-fourth anniversary of John Kennedy’s assassination.
What is most remarkable about this is the stunningly simple fact that, despite innumerable books and several official investigations, we still do not know what happened in 1963.

Not understanding what happened is no mere curiosity of history. It tells us something profound about the nature of government in America today, all of it running against the received notion of a free and open society.

I might not say that were the assassination a simple, straightforward matter that had occurred with few witnesses, but it was an event with many witnesses, many of whom were ignored by the Warren Commission with some of the most credible discounted. And it was anything but simple, although the conclusions of the Warren Commission are just that, simple.

At least some of the key parties involved – Lee Oswald, Jack Ruby, and David Ferrie, for example – are subjects of voluminous government records about their bizarre or criminal activities, and forty-four years later, parts of these essential records remain secret.

I might not say that about the free and open society also, were there not a long history of government secrecy around the event, and at times deliberate misrepresentation. Yes, there was finally in the 1990s a big opening of files held secret for decades, but these files – at least the parts not blacked-out – tell us little of importance that is new. Indeed, to the thoughtful inquirer they only raise the issue of why most of them were ever considered worthy of being labeled secret in the first place.

Most importantly, though, a good many files still have not been released, a critical point not treated carefully by many writers on the subject. Certain CIA and FBI files on Oswald are key examples.

You must ask yourself, why, if the assassination is just a simple murder by one misfit, has there been so much secrecy? Indeed, why, if it was a simple murder, was the President’s murder not investigated in Dallas, the scene of the crime, instead of from Washington? All the evidence and most witnesses were located in Dallas. Federal agents at the hospital actually drew their guns against local police and officials to seize the President’s body for shipment to Washington, instead of allowing the perfectly normal procedure of the local jurisdiction autopsying the body. Why? Why was the autopsy conducted by the military with military doctors who were rank amateurs at shooting investigations?

There is no such thing as a free and open society where great matters of empire are concerned, and this is something no less true of the United States than any past imperial power. The people are never consulted on imperial matters, whether war, assassination, or overthrowing other governments, and they are, sadly, frequently deliberately misinformed about them, their own resources being used against them, just the latest examples being around the invasion of Iraq.

Although elements of the CIA truly hated Kennedy, and J. Edgar Hoover would have spat upon his grave given an unobserved opportunity, I do not subscribe, for many reasons, to the idea that an arm of the American government killed Kennedy. It is highly probable that individuals in some government agencies did understand what had happened and worked to blur and confuse the investigation afterwards. I also consider it possible that, owing to these intense hatreds, glimmers of intelligence in advance of the assassination were deliberately ignored or buried. This seems most likely in Hoover’s case.

Motives for hiding any knowledge of events are unknown, but almost certainly they have to do with hiding genuinely embarrassing or compromising information concerning secret operations and relationships. Embarrassment is more often than not, certainly more often than genuine national security, the reason for imposing secrecy in the American government.

Assassinations at this level in a large advanced society are always the result of conspiracies and complex plans, the plans providing for the certainty of success and the safe distancing of conspirators.

There are, I believe, three plausible candidates for organizing the assassination, all quite powerful groups, all selected for their extreme motives, resources, and opportunity.

The first candidate is a branch of the American mafia, a number of whose members had been deeply hurt by the Attorney General’s aggressive organized crime-fighting activities. After all, Kennedy had received handsome secret contributions in cash from the organization when he ran for office. He had also had at least the seeming cooperation of some senior mafia leaders in his efforts to assassinate Castro, and here he was letting his brother conduct a ruthless campaign against the interests of some families. A mafia family leader and the leader of the Teamsters Union at the time, a known mafia associate, are on record as having made threats against Kennedy. Some members of the Congressional investigations came to favor this candidate although they failed to prove it.

The second candidate is one of the many Cuban refugee groups armed, trained, and paid by the CIA in hopes of invading Cuba again, hurting its economy through terrorist activities, and assassinating any of its leaders. Few Americans today appreciate the extent of these government-subsidized terrorist camps then, operations that make Osama’s camp in the mountains look insignificant.

Kennedy was loathed by the most violent of these groups in his last days because he agreed not to invade Cuba as part of his settlement with the Soviet Union over missiles in Cuba. After that pledge, Kennedy had the FBI raiding the operations of some of these previously catered-to groups as a show of good will towards the Soviets. It is in connection with these very raids that Oswald had some not-well-understood but certain connection with the FBI. These refugee groups were ruthless, angry men who didn’t hesitate to kill or cripple those in their way. They had even conducted a number of terrorist attacks in Miami.

The third candidate is Israel, whose secret efforts at developing nuclear weapons were underway at the time and had become known to Kennedy. He made it unpleasantly clear in private communications that he would not allow Israel to go nuclear, something not widely known in America. But the people running Israel considered it essential that the country become a nuclear power, and we have all seen over many decades how Israel has not hesitated to assassinate or attack where it regards its interests are involved.

Just a few years after Kennedy’s assassination, during the Six Day War, Israeli planes made a two-hour attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, a spy ship operating in the Eastern Mediterranean, killing many of its crew. Israel’s motives have never been explained adequately or investigated openly, but likely had to do either with suppressing information of atrocities in the Sinai – the Liberty being an intelligence-gathering ship – or with trying to trick the United States into entering its war against Egypt. In either case, we see ruthlessness compatible with eliminating a hostile, powerful leader.

I don’t claim to know the truth because the truth would require new evidence. And the candidates are not all mutually exclusive. One might well expect the mafia or Mossad to manipulate and use people like the violent Cuban refugees.

Each of these groups had great motives, more than adequate means, and ample opportunity. By comparison, Oswald stands out as a ridiculous figure with no motive, virtually no means, but a seeming opportunity arranged for him by others at the Texas Book Depository. He was, almost certainly, the patsy he said he was in police custody shortly before his death, having been duped by forces he didn’t understand into certain activities that would mark him before the assassination. We have ample evidence of Oswald’s lack of serious interest in things military, his having been pretty much a flop at being a Marine, and of his temperamental inclination in other directions. While he had a temper (who doesn’t?), he was not a violent man, indeed Russian observers who recalled his years in Russia said he was temperamentally incapable of murder.

If you want to understand why the Warren Commission Report is so wrong, just spend some time yourself reading it with a critical eye. You can find an old copy at a used bookstore for a dollar or two. Parts of it are laughable, much of it is fragmentary, and all of it is a prosecutor’s brief. There is no voice for the defense. Our Western traditions of law require the clash of defense and prosecution before a jury can arrive at guilt. There is no other way, although so much of the public is today conditioned by mystery books and television shows where a detective wraps everything up neatly by the end of the book or show.

Perhaps even more importantly, as few younger readers will know, the Warren Commission did no investigation. Its investigative arm was J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. He personally kept tight control of these investigations day by day. Hoover’s FBI committed many blunders and genuine crimes over the years of his being director, from trying to send Einstein, a Jewish refugee from Nazism, back to Germany (he hated Einstein’s free thinking) to carrying out an elaborate plan to discredit Martin Luther King with secretly recorded tapes in the hope he would commit suicide. These great men, and many other notable figures, Hoover privately regarded as dangerous communists.

Hoover more or less blackmailed many members of Congress and several presidents with his secret files obtained by spying on their private lives. After his death these files were whisked away never to be seen again. As I said, Hoover hated the Kennedy brothers, surely giving him a total lack of impartiality as an investigator. Hoover, too, spent many days at resorts and racetracks over his career paid for by mafia figures he should have been investigating. Communism, even though it never had any large presence in the United States, was always Hoover’s obsession, and Oswald had the (false) reputation of being a communist. It was not a promising arrangement for the Warren Commission from the beginning, and the poor results show.

With a few special exceptions of genuine investigative journalism and analysis, there are two general categories of books about the Kennedy assassination, both biased in their information. There are the various “theory” books which do not accept the Warren Commission and attempt to promote some particular theory of the crime based on (necessarily) incomplete evidence. Examples of these include a book on Hoover himself as suspect, one on the Secret Service having an accident with automatic weapons, and a number on various CIA figures such as Howard Hunt.

Some of these “theory” books suggest almost paranoid fantasies and have given Kennedy assassination books a bad name in general, making easy targets for those wishing to support the Warren Commission. But we must not conflate honest skepticism and lack of belief in the Warren Commission with the theories of people who promote specific concepts of how things were done. This is a trick, conflating honest doubt with unsubstantiated or far-out theories, used over and over again by those promoting our second category of Kennedy assassination books.

The second category includes books that work towards showing the Warren Commission was right, at least in its major conclusions, attempting to restate old material in new words, neglecting to tell readers clearly that they have no new evidence of any great significance with which to work their glib magic. There is an equally long series of these with some of the notable ones along the way being Edward Epstein, Gerald Posner, and, very recently, Vincent Buglosi.

In general, if you go back to examine press reviews at the time of the release of each of these books, you will find a large consensus buzz in the mainstream press about how we finally have the case resolved. That very statement has been made time and time again. This was almost embarrassingly true of Gerald Posner’s book some years ago, a book that added nothing of consequence to our understanding of the crime but used aggressive new language to restate old stuff. It is now being said of Vincent Bugliosi.

People impressed by big fat books will be impressed by Vincent Bugliosi’s recent book on the Kennedy assassination, Reclaiming History, but in a sense its very size is a judgment against it. It is no great feat for an experienced court prosecutor to churn out a voluminous document. They do it all the time in their court briefs, taking pages of legalese to say what should take paragraphs of good, clear English.

It is fitting in more than one way that Bugliosi is a prosecutor, for his book is a prosecutor's brief, just a fatter one than the ones produced by Bugliosi's predecessors.
But size here serves another purpose, what I would call intimidation. How could you possibly argue with this massive pile (1,600 pages) of evidence and argument? The truth is that it is not hard at all to argue with it.

Bugliosi follows his predecessors who used pretty much the same evidence to reach the same conclusions which any independent-minded student of the assassination understands is impossible, that is, that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone. Bugliosi had no new evidence of any significance with which to work. He simply looks at the same old stuff ad nauseam, coming up here and there with prosecution tricks to make old stuff seem fresh or different.

But a key fact of the assassination is that the existing evidence is not adequate to convict anyone, and certainly not Oswald. There is, of course, other evidence in existence which has never been released. The CIA and the FBI have files they have never opened.

We know this from many bits of evidence, including references in documents we do have and from situations about which we can positively conclude evidence must exist by the nature of things. A good example of the last is the CIA surveillance photos and recordings of Oswald, or someone pretending to be Oswald, in Mexico City. An obviously incorrect photo was released and the claim was made recordings were erased.

Oswald's connections with the FBI have never been satisfactorily examined. There are many circumstances suggesting his being a paid informant for the FBI, especially during his time in New Orleans. A letter Oswald wrote to a Dallas agent just before the assassination was deliberately and recklessly destroyed by order of the office's senior agent immediately after the assassination with no reasonable explanation.

Oswald had no motive for killing Kennedy, having expressed admiration for the President. Bugliosi cannot get around this fact, only pursuing the typical path of all his forerunners in attacking Oswald's character. There has been another series of books over the years, pretending to be biographies of Oswald but only serving to attack his character, giving assassination writers material to cite. These include works by writers who clearly had CIA connections: notably Priscilla Johnson, someone all students of the assassination knows was conveniently in Moscow when Oswald was there, and the late Norman Mailer, a man who could not have written his own big, fat book on the CIA without agency cooperation.

Oswald's being promptly assassinated himself by Jack Ruby, a man associated with the murky world of anti-Castro violence, someone whose past included gun-running to Cuba and enforcer-violence in the Chicago mafia, is a gigantic fact that sticks in the throat of any author. It has never been explained satisfactorily and is not by Bugliosi.

One trouble with all such books is that we have every two decades a new generation of people, most of whom do not know enough about the case to begin to argue with such an exposition. One cannot help but believe that those who prompt the periodic publication of these books have just this fact in mind. Posner is old, stale, and forgotten. This generation gets Bugliosi.

We must always remember Bertrand Russell's profound, unanswered question after he had reviewed an advanced copy of the Warren Report: "If, as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security?" Russell's question goes to the heart of the matter, as you would expect from one of the greatest mathematical minds of the 20th century. It has never been answered, and certainly not by Bugliosi.

It must be at least somewhat embarrassing for Bugliosi that Italian authorities recently, near the release of his book, conducted a series of tests with Oswald's ridiculous choice of weapons, a 1940 Mannlicher-Carcano, one of the last rifles in the world a determined assassin would choose. Italian Army sharpshooters could not come close to Oswald's supposed feat of loading the crude bolt-action rifle and firing it three times, let alone hitting anything while doing so.

Moreover, in other tests conducted by the Italian Army using animal parts, it was shown impossible for a bullet to emerge from Kennedy virtually intact as the Warren Commission claimed "the magic bullet" did. One thinks of the lost opportunity in 1993 to discover something new when permission was refused by the widow of the dead John Connally to extract known bullet fragments from his wrist, fragments supposedly from “the magic bullet.” The evidence was buried, literally.

Of course, when we limit ourselves to three times loading and shooting for the rifle, we are already playing the Warren Commission's own game. There were in fact at least four shots as a closely-analyzed recording clearly showed. Recent analysis at Texas A&M University showed that the ballistics evidence used to rule out a second gunman later had been misinterpreted.

The Kennedy assassination and its inadequate investigation and secrecy mark an important turning point in modern American history. Elections are still held, and more groups of people can vote today than over most of the country’s not particularly democratic history, but government in the dark world of international affairs behaves often as though there were no electorate to which it is responsible. This seems a paradox, but if you think about it, you will see its truth.

You don’t have to be an obsessive, conspiracy-minded person to be concerned about the state of affairs in America. Have Americans been told the truth about the CIA’s great failures leading up to 9/11? Have they been told about the abuse of the CIA leading up to the Iraqi invasion, including what really happened in the Plame affair? Have Americans been told the truth about 9/11 itself, including the virtual certainty that the fourth flight over Pennsylvania was shot down by the military? Have Americans been told the simple truth about the invasion of Iraq? Have all the lies that were told, including rubbish about terror and weapons of mass destruction, been corrected? Have they learned how many Iraqis their government has killed and crippled?

No, not at all, not any more than they have been told who killed Kennedy and why.

So how is this great democracy different in the dark business of international affairs compared to the autocrats with whom it so often allies itself? Not at all.

the above is one of the best reporting jobs i have read in a long time.... complete-- to the extent one can write about a topic when so much is hidden from it's free society.
thoughtful on this anniversary date... thank you for sharing this with us.

Mr Chuckman, the space aliens called. They'll stop by to pick you up at 3. They said to pack for cold weather, and bring an extra roll of tinfoil. Guess they must be planning on having a turkey with you today?

Oh, and they said "thanks for believing"...

I don't believe that Mr. Chuckman has read the Warren Report. Did you know it has something like 27 volumes? YES I SAID VOLUMES. It is EXHAUSTIVE in detail. I read about 3 hours of it once. I read the portion about Oswald and his wife and their neighbor lady and the happenstance nature by which Oswald came to work at the TBD that day so long ago. I need Chuck-the-Canuck asserting his opinion of "Conspiracy laden" America like I need a hole...oops bad choice of words. All I know is that on today Thanksgiving Day I am truly grateful that I live in this country, warts and all, while many of our enemies are breaking the doors down trying to get in. As for Mr. Chuckman does he really think his endless babbling is fooling anybody but himself? Straight up Chuck, I'd bet a a large sum of cash, ours or yours, that you never read the Warren Report. And anybody who has seen this tome on a library shelf knows this a winning proposition for me. If you told me that you read the entirety of Funk & Wagnall's I wouldn't believe that either. You see Chuck they are about equal in length.

11/11 and 11/22 sound like 9/11.

I was alive and well when Kennedy was assinated and have wondered, along with everyone else, why his investigation was so badly botched. I have always had the opinion that J. Edgar Hoover was the mover and shaker behind the assination of Kennedy. His motive? Pure and simple hate of the man and what he stood for but alas, no one will ever have the true answer because the US government will never "Kiss and tell"!

JC,
In my experience many people were not really cut up over the killing of JFK, and they said so.

It's part of the American 'story line' that the whole nation grieved over his killing, but it just isn't so.

Many groups at that time hated his guts.

Re Vietnam War and Civil Rights Johnson vs Kennedy;

JMO
Kennedy would have backed off in VN, but done less for civil rights than Johnson.

LBJ came into office not owing his election to any domestic US vested interests. Kennedy owed that bill, as the top man on the ticket.

A thorough analysis by Mr. Chuckman to say the least.... but sadly skewed and flawed.

Shots were fired that day, witnesses saw a gun shooting from the 6th floor, the Zapruder film indicates that the shots came from the rear (Z224 and Z313), trajectory recreations show that it came from the 6th floor, LHO was the only employee missing from the TSBD after the event and he pulled a gun out during his capture.

LHO fit the profile of an assassin, years before the art of criminal profiling was even recognized: a loser, a loner, a nobody who wanted to make an impact on the world, his motive. Research Hinkley or Bremer's and look inside an assassin's mind.

LHO was supposed to have been laid off from the TSBD work assignment, but was kept only because he was considered a good worker. Research Roy Truly, his TSBD supervisor. Unless of course Truly was in on the "Conspiracy" to make sure the "Assassin" was ensured his opportunity. As far as I am concerned, this is one of MANY linchpins to any conspiracy theory: Had Truly decided to lay him off, or reassign him to another building, this whole notion of LHO being a "patsy" for any conspiracy falls apart.

Unless of course there was a backup patsy...

His means was a Mannlicher-Carcano, hardly the choice of weapon by a trained conspiratorial assassin, but one that LHO owned, and could fire 3 shots in 6 seconds. That has been proven on numerous occasions, by among others conspiracist author Josiah Thompson. See
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm

So we have a person who fits the assassin profile, who by sheer happenstance is able to work at the TSBD on 11/22/63. and owns a gun, a gun that he tried to shoot General Edwin Walker with months earlier.

Botched investigations aside (and I sure dont subscribe to the blip on a waveform as "acoustical evidence"), a deep analysis of the facts, the evidence, and all of the players over the past 30 years leads me to believe LHO acted alone.

I tried to find a conspiracy, but it simply doesnt have proof to exist.

And anyone that suggests that this lack of proof is why it is the perfect conspiracy has to be eyed as a crackpot, with a personal agenda to promote.

George Bush, Dick Cheney and global warming are responsible for Kennedy's death. I am sure that will make all you liberals give thanks that the truth is finally out.

It has never ceased to amaze me how, in the Land of the Free, we simply don't question the most tragic episodes in our nations history. The big questions always get discarded so that we can be controlled by a small percentage of our population for their personal gain. Throughout my lifetime I've witnessed this pattern and have been labeled Unamerican countless times. However, I consider myself truly American and believe in our basic freedom, right, and responsibility to question events that effect all of us.

Whereas global warming is a likely suspect (what an ass) I tend toward believing E. Howard Hunt's recorded near-death bed (so he thought, anyway) confession -
a CIA led job initiated by LBJ.

Makes me very glad I live in Canada.

George Bush, Dick Cheney and global warming are responsible for Kennedy's death. I am sure that will make all you liberals give thanks that the truth is finally out.

Posted by: Jim Nelson | November 22, 2007 12:21 PM

Happy Thanksgiving...Putz!

I am sick of conservative cynicism (Jim Nelson) that thinks the US Government is innocent of any wrong doing in the Kennedy Assassination. The above author is correct in saying the assassination was a turning point, American Government had entered its dark and secretive age, closed off from the purview of the public...Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Iran-Contra...and of course all the democratically elected leftist governments overthrown and replaced by brutal facist dictators more amiable to American Corporations.

"For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: 'It might have been!'"

John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-1892)

That's all that needs to be said.

John Chuckman, the only person that could have told us "everything" was killed by Ruby.

Have we been told everything the gov't knows? NO!

But I'm satisfied enough to let JFK rest in peace.

So take your conspiracy theories back to Canada.

Referring to Lee Harvey Oswald and mass murderer Charles Whitman]
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Do any of you people know where these individuals learned how to shoot?... Private Joker.
Private Joker: Sir. In the Marines, Sir.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: In the Marines. Outstanding. Those individuals showed what one motivated Marine and his rifle can do. And before you ladies leave my Island, you will all be able to do the same thing.

Jim Nelson--Cheney

We'll get Rosie O'Donnell on the case as soon as she wraps up the inside job on the WTC.

I think Jom Nelson got it pretty much right: Bush, Cheney, and Global Warming. He did forget Big Oil.

There was no assassination.

JFK's shooting was a tragic and avoidable accident. The full story is at http://PeterMerel.newsvine.com/_news/2007/08/26/921098-jfk-shooting-accidental

So sad.

"The internet is a place that ATTRACTS ego maniacs and copycats."

Chuckman,

Never heard the Kennedy Assassination blamed on the Jews before, that's a new one for me. I suppose it was just a matter of time. I guess we really are guilty of everything.

Thanks for sharing, Mr. Chuckman. Appreciate your excellent delivery of a few possibilities into JFK's murder. Personally, I've always felt he was ambushed by anti-Cuban exiles under the leadership and with the tactical assistance of a group of CIA hnadlers. How else can anyone explain the strange behavior of the gentleman with the umbrella, who seemed to track the President's movements and only opened and raised his umbrella when the President's motorcade came within 10-12 feet of him--not to mention the individual standing next to him, who raised his hand high over his head as if to signal a shooter in the grassy knoll area as oppose to greeting the President. Find it interesting too that when everyone else was scrambling for cover when the shots were being fired these two individuals simply sat down on the curb, seemingly without a care in the world. Minutes later they were seen leaving the area in opposite directions. WHY were these two individuals NEVER called to testify or share their observations with the Warren Commission?
They are only the tip of the iceberg here...

This much is clear. Without the assassination, Lyndon Johnson would not have become president, the Vietnam buildup would not have occurred and the riots of the 60s would not have happened. The assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King probably would not have taken place. Without Johnson, Nixon would not have run or been elected. Without Nixon, no Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter. Reagan hopefully still would have appeared on the scene to end the Cold War. Beyond Reagan is speculation. As far as the civil rights legislation, it was moving forward beginning with Eisenhower and very likely would have advanced, but without Johnson, America might have been spared the
so-called war on poverty which broke apart the black family structure through aid to women as long as they did not have husbands.
The past is prologue and the other effects on the world of today is impossible to fathom except to say that the assassination of John Kennedy put in motion a domino effect that continued for decades.

What a wonderful observing post by, Mr. Chuckman. I was 16 years old when president Kennedy was assassinated. I have read many, many books on it and firmly believe Oswald did not murder our President! I found it very interesting that Israel was seeking to go nuclear and Of course President Kennedy would have decided to prevent this. He was against the spread of nuclear weapons and was working with Moscow to eliminate some of these weapons.

Recently I read how Scooter Libby of all people was in the Mossad , this helps me realize the many ties this Country and this organization has with many officials in Washington Today, so who knows the ties that bound Israel and others in Washington, who were working against JFK back in 1963.

Smirky McFlightsuit is right on. If a person takes enough time to really study the case honestly, it is clear that Oswald did it alone.

Kennedy Assassination and the Cuban connection. Check it out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4582488.stm

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,393540,00.html

http://www.jfk.org/Research/Cuba/

To all the "Someone Would Have Talked", Alfred Neuman and Darth Vader fans:

Those who would have talked were silenced before they could.

The list of dead (murdered) Americans is not short. It includes US Senators, RFK, CIA operatives, mobsters, and wives of those involved. Anyone attempting a book (before their death) was silenced; publishing was prevented. Jimmy Hoffa was one of the first to go.

Ted Kennedy survived a plane crash eight months after JFK was murdered by the Right.

RFK was murdered (by the Right) to keep him from the Presidency to keep him from the CIA files.

(Operation Mockingbird.)

Thanks Trib for keeping us informed.

They can train you to talk, listen and be hypnotized while you sleep. They can do it to any American, including a Tribune employee or their off-spring. They can convince any employee of any entity to allow them to insert chemicals in the water source or the food source - the chemicals that force people to talk openly while they sleep.

It's all done in the name of "national security and the public's safety"; that justifies everything.

Go ahead, keep it a secret. If you don't, you'll learn why so many before you never talked.

They die either from a plane crash or from getting the incorrect medicine in the hospital after they get sick to their stomachs (the reason they go to a hospital). A few commit suicide.

'Someone Would Have Talked'

I was only 8 years old when President Kennedy was shot in Dallas. Of course it was a tragic event and I can remember that day clearly even though it's been 44 years ago.

I am not big on "conspiracy theories" and I don't believe the CIA or J. Edgar Hoover would do something like that.

Still... I have a lot of questions considering the time period and about Mr. Oswald's "talents." During the period in question Oswald seems to navigate freely between the USSR and the USA. He even brings his wife out of the USSR -- an almost impossible task until the Iron Curtain fell in the 1980's, yet Oswald did it so easily. Next, you have someone who, on the surface, is at best a "mediocre" Marine, yet he manages to teach himself the Russian language on his own while living in Okinawa. It doesn't make sense.

We have all seen the film. Just take the film and leave everything else out for a moment. When he is hit in the head it goes back and to the left. Let me phrase it another way if I punch someone in the face which way will your head go... back. Now if I punch you in the back of the head which way will your head go... forward. He was hit from the front and right of the head. It shows it in the film just watch the film. No conspiracy just fact. Oswald was a man who washed out of the marines. Yet some believe he shot at a target moving away from him 30 feet or so down with a bolt action rifle. If you have evered fired a bolt action you would know how hard it is to fire 3 quick shots at a moving target. I served in Iraq and Afghanistan and I can tell you this. Your heart rate is up when you are about to kill someone. you are trained to fire on impulse. Are you going to tell me Russia took a washout and trained him to fire that way or are you going to tell me he was born that good. I don't know who or why all I know is it took more than oswald to pull that off. He also went to my high school. Arlington Heights in Fort Worth Tx. I was told by one of my teachers that he was a piss poor student. My feelings on him is he was a follower not a leader. He had no brains no balls, and impressionable. Last why did Ruby kill him. Is it not possible to shut him up. Happy Thanksgiving.

It is actually quite easy to prove the existence of a second gunman in the JFK assassination: We know that the maximum number of shots Oswald could have fired at President Kennedy is three (even the Warren Commission agrees on this). We know that one bullett missed, as it was recovered after striking a curb (as reported by the Warren Commission). Another bullett of course struck JFK in the head, killing him. Therefore, the third bullett must have caused ALL other wounds to JFK (as well as to Governor Connally). But here's the problem: We know from the autopsy that JFK was struck in the UPPER BACK, some five inches beneath the collar; he also had a wound in the Adam's apple -- which the Warren Commission claimed was the EXIT wound of the bullett that struck him in the back. But simple geometry shows this is impossible, as Oswald was firing DOWN at an angle of about 45 degrees. Therefore, it is impossible for a bullett to strike one's upper back five inches beneath the collar, and exit the Adam's apple, which is actually slightly HIGHER than five inches beneath the collar. Could the bullett have changed direction inside Kennedy's back in order to emerge at the Adam's apple? Nearly impossible, at best. But if by some unlikely physics it did, that means it would need to be travelling UP and would therefore MISS Connally, who was in front of Kennedy, but actually sitting LOWER than JFK.

To make the case even more compelling, the autopsy surgeon clearly reported that the bullett wound in Kennedy's upper back was ONLY TWO TO THREE INCHES DEEP -- and NOT a complete transit through his body.

The above discrepancies have never been explained. In my view, and in the view of many others, these facts present conclusive proof that there must have been a second gunman firing, and hitting, President Kennedy.

"George Bush, Dick Cheney and global warming are responsible for Kennedy's death." - Jim Nelson

Well, well... while Mr. Nelson was amusing himself by trying to be a smartass - he actually came closer to the truth than he'll ever realize.

Yes, the Bush Crime Family was in on things that day, with G.H.W. Bush playing a key role in the murky underworld of CIA, anti-Castro and right-wing renegades.

The evidence of this fact is both overwhelming and all around you.

And 44 years later, young Bush and Cheney have brought a once great nation to the brink of a full-blown fascist dictatorship.

And the sad part is that the American fascists have naive cheerleaders like Mr. Nelson in our midst.

At the time of Posner's book, I read a commentary describing it as 'garbage in, garbage out.' It sounds as if Bugliosi's book is more of the same.

To the person who believes that the Zapruder Film shows that the shots came exclusively from the back: Do you also believe that Paul is dead based on playing certain Beatle tracks backwards? To quote the film "JFK", "Back and to the left." (Note: I do not share in all the conclusions/suggestions within that film, so spare me the movie critiques; however, those five words describing the head shot are simple and clear).

It should be noted that there IS physical evidence disproving the findings of the Warren Commission, assuming that the laws of science, not to mention common sense, are not ignored. The bullet hole in the back of both Kennedy's jacket and shirt are approximately six inches down from the collar, six inches down and two inches to the side. These are the holes purportedly caused by the magic bullet which then somehow moved upward and came out Kennedy's neck and did all the damage to Connolly even though Connolly was facing front while Kennedy, as the Zapruder Film shows, is already reaching for his neck. Connolly testified that he thought he heard what he believed to be fireworks and began to turn around to see what was going on. This is clearly when he was hit, the Zapruder Film visually confirming it. Again, given the passage of time, common sense dictates that the wounds to the two men could not have been caused by the same bullet. Given the capability of the rifle, by this I mean the time it would take to reload and fire again, the injuries to both men could not have been caused by that weaapon, hence the birth of the single-bullet theory.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. What is clear to me is that Oswald (or whoever was firing from the 6th floor of the School Book Depository), did not act alone.

One more thing: I imagine someone, somewhere has pointed this out before, but I am not aware of it. It might be informative if people asked this question of themselves, using basic common sense. If you were hit by a bullet, would you reflexively reach for where the bullet came out or where you were actually struck? I believe the latter is the correct answer. The Zapruder Film clearly shows Kennedy reaching with both hands for the front of his neck. My money says that's another shot from the front.

One question, Why have I not ever read or seen anyting by the closest person to Kennedy on that day? MRS Kennedy have I miss this part. I do know when you ever say any thing about Israel my be involved you are automaticly considered a nut job and may even get baned. How are they looking at all of these internet sites and the comments? Just woundering.

Miami; you're way off base on your umbrella man comments. Research before you post: the umbrella man and his companion were both questioned and their reasons for being there, their actions and carrying the umbrella are well documented - if you do some simple researching.
Our government shot down the 9/11 plane in PA: really? with what? We couldn't get armed aircraft into the air and locate the 9/11 planes in the timeframe of the attack. More importantly, what if we had shot down our own plane? What choice would you have made if that were possible? A horrible and unthinkable choice, but one plane with a known number of fatalities against what unknown target with potentially much greater loss of life - especially with the knowledge of what had already happened earlier that day at the WTC.
Our country may do many things wrong, but we do a great amount of good as well. Maybe the resentment of how well we've done is reflected in the comments, theories and articles from the countries who don't do as well and seldom step up to assist those in need (hello Canada and France).
Give thanks that you can freely express yourself in our country.

Read "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner. Oswald acted alone, sloppy investigative work aside, no evidence of anyone other than Oswald has been presented. Oliver Stone's JFK is a work of pure fiction and should be labeled as such.

Look at the list of all those assassinated or attempted assassinations and you'll notice all of them were liberals from Andrew Jackson to JFK except for the occasional blip such as Reagan and Ford by idiots. What's that suggest?

And the sad part is that the American fascists have naive cheerleaders like Mr. Nelson in our midst.

Posted by: Brent Mack | November 23, 2007 2:38 AM

I saw a demonstration with the same model bolt action rifle in a vise. It was operated by a Marine that was the winner in a sharpshooter competition. There was no target, but the demonstration was designed to show that three shots could not be fired in the timespan of the audio tape that surfaced in the 1980s. The Marine could not fire the bullet in the chamber, ramp two more in and fire them as fast as Oswald supposedly did. This doesn't even take into account the fact that the target would have been moving away, past trees and other obstructions.
Oswald simply could not have done it.
But Mr. Nelson gets points for being class clown. Maybe remove the first "cl" from the description....

James Files shot JFK; read his description of the details.

Oswald was not on the 6th floor when JFK drove past the Book Depository.

It was a mob hit paid for and orchestrated by CIA.

The best evidence is the Warren commission. One Senator on that commission was murdered (IMO) by plane crash.

Why is it so important and applicable today ? Because a President is involved.

* i was 17 when jfk was assassinated. my best friend, who knew a lot more about guns than i did, knew the mannlicher-carcano was a piece of garbage.
* after the assassination, fbi sharpshooters were able to reproduce the shots from the book depository using the same gun. it only took them about 50 times before they were able to do the same thing that oswald allegedly did on the first try.
* the conspiracy film 'executive action' had an interesting ending: it showed the large number of people linked in one fashion or another to the assassination who had died, many times in very mysterious and questionable manners. for example, david ferrie died of a heroin overdose, although he never in his life used drugs.
* last of all: look at the zapruder film. jfk was hit from the front. there is no other conclusion to draw as newton's laws of motion applied on that day.
* i keep hoping that before i die, i will learn who killed him and destroyed a bright chance to have a better world. \\ free born

“those who would trade essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.” -- b. franklin, 1759

The comments show again that we will never know the details of Kennedy's assasination, but the main article anchors us to its significance.

JFK was the challenger and the champ. He understood the precariousness of his situation did not allow for many political defeats.

It is an intriguing question whether JFK, with his monumental political gifts would have been able to translate his quest for political victory into effective policy over the long term.

There are tantalizing hints that allow one to argue this question either way, but one salient fact remains:

without the change in the national emotional temperature following the assasination, it is unlikely either the Great Society or the Vietnam War would have occurred.

Without these two watershed events how different would our lives be today?

Refer to the below GRAPHIC site:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet

Frame 313 shows a shot from the rear, pushing the head forward, appr 4 inches in 1/18 sec. Then a 1/18 sec pause, Frame 314, then a the head moves slow (relative to 312-313) with no obvious bullet shot to cause the head to move back.
Where is the bullet impact that would move the head back, and relatively slow?

Terry and Jim, you guys also forgot that Haliburton and Darth Cheney also probably had something to do with JFK's assassination.

Seriously, though, there is more to his assassination than has been reported. Someday we may get the full story (LBJ, CIA, Cubans, Soviets ???) or we may not.

I'll say this for JFK, while a flawed president, he did cut taxes on all (including the rich) and he didn't undercut this country like today's defeatist Democrats do on a daily basis.

There have been a number of theories over the years. The fact was clear from the start that something was being covered up by our government when part of JFK's skull and brain were removed and disappeared just after arrival in DC. I believe in conspiracy theories when people have obviously been conspiring. That tape by E. Howard Hunt was pretty impressive. Refusing to question is not, as many Americans seem to have been convinced in recent times, a positive characteristic. Research has shown that the type of persons who do not like to question tend to think in concrete terms and are far more likely to suffer from Alzheimer's as they age.

One of the most damning facts about the Warren Commission is not what is in it but what is not there. A Military Intelligence Battalion, more than one hundred men, was a normal part for any presidential motorcade and the bulk of the President's protection. You may look high and low for mention of this unit in the Warren Commission and will find no trace of it. Except for a handfull of secret Service in the cars around him, Kennededy was essentially unprotected that day in Dallas. Who can order a military unit to stand down?
A. Vodvarka, Hartly DE

Mr. Chuckman made some very valid points. I'd like to add that in the sixties we had THREE successful assassinations and they are all different from the majority of assassinations. Most assassins shoot hand guns from up close and personal and have no political reason for doing so. These three assassins were from far away and had supposed political reasons for the killings. Oswald was a 'commie'. King was killed by a 'redneck'. and RFK was killed by an 'arab'. J.Edgar Hoover hated all these men and insisted upon being briefed on all the secret service plans for protecting the president even when he was on a trip out of the capitol. He also kept dossiers on all FBI agents and was in position to know which ones hated Kennedy also. It would only take one FBI agent who could walk up to a certain spot and keep people away and distract any secret service or police in another direction. Whole divisions of the government would not have to be involved only one or two people here and there.
Afew years ago they did a re-enactment of the motorcade from the view of the window in the book despository. Oswald would have had a fabulous target with Kennedy right under the window, with his head and torso visible, but supposedly he waited until he could only see the back of his head from far away with branches of a live oak in between. Doesn't make sense.
Also I agree with Mr. chuckman on the fact that if Oswald was a lone commie nut why does so much of the investigation have to be secret? That also doesn't make sense. Why so many years have to pass before the truth comes out? Must a whole generation who were alive then pass away before the country can hear the "truth" so they will not be alble to tell if it makes sense or not?

It is too ugly for Americans to contemplate that a government could assassinate their own leader and cover it up.

Ugly...but a BIG possibility.

America has shown herself to be capable of anything that protects, furthers and facilitates her best interests.

Who knows what Kennedy would have done with his presidency had he lived? One thing for certain; no sending troops into Vietnam - he'd already been set up by his military cabinet and got burned with the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He wasn't going to get burned twice in the same place.

You might disagree with Oliver Stone's theory of JFK's assassination (via Jim Garrison), but there were some facts that made me pause (since I was a baby when Kennedy got it in Dallas back in '63)

Can the mob send one of their own to Russia and bring him back? Defecting to Russia and renouncing your American citizenship during that time of heightened propaganda about being a communist literally got you shot on sight. This didn't happen to Oswald. At the very least, he would have been jailed for renouncing his American citizenship to become a Russian citizen back in '63 because the Cold War was in FULL EFFECT.

The mob would have gone after Kennedy when Bobby Kennedy went after THEM. The mob were protected by the cross-dressing homosexual-homophobe Hoover, along with Clyde Tolson, his boyfriend. Chew on that one.

The one salient issue in the JFK movie was the fact that defense contractors were going bankrupt, since there was no need for their products after the end of WWII. Additionally, Kennedy had already stated in September, 1963, when asked about the Vietnam conflict, that he wasn't getting America involved because it was the Vietnamese's war.

Furthermore, Kennedy, being a WWII vet and war hero (PT-109 being rammed by a Japanese destroyer in the South Pacific back in 1944) probably, as a result of his own war experiences (just 15 years' off, mind you) would have been real reluctant to lead America into a war she had no part in, or did not start. In both WWI and WWII, America only became involved when she was attacked. The recent Middle East and Iraq conflicts are ones that America initiated.

Finally, who could orchestrate an assassination of a sitting U. S. President, cover it up, and continue to create confusion for nearly 50 years by keeping any and all documents relevant to the assassination sealed from the public until 2075, and even then, it might get pushed back another 75 years?

Pre JFKennedy "The high office of President has been used to forment a plot to destroy the American freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizens of this plight." Nov.12th 1963 Executive Order 11110 6-4-63 US Notes Silver ???Skull & Bone mission for Bushs Jr & Sr to kill Kennedy Jr & Sr???
Lord Jesus Pray For US

Always the same opposing groups, and what passion! One can read the politics of the believers and doubters, the war-wagers and the peaceniks in every response.

I was eleven when Kennedy was shot, and seventeen when King went down. Since that time I have watched my government take part in the killing of millions and my fellow citizens reduced to angry, passive impotence.

We go to our private news filters and ultimately decide that everyone else is an idiot.

If this aint divided and conquered, I don't know what is.

All I know if JFK were alive today, he would have no home in the democratic party and probably would kick the crap out of his younger and drunker brother Teddy.

My favorite conspiracy theory is that JFK knew that he was going to die from Addisons Disease so he hired LHO to kill him.

I digress.
So if I am to be swayed:

18 yo Wesley Frazier who moved from Huntsville to Dallas and got a job at the TSBD was a conspirator,
Linnie Mae Randle, Fraziers' sister, who told Marina Oswald there was a job at the TSBD at her brothers place of employment, was a conspirator,
Roy Truly, who hired him and decided not to lay him off on 11/15/63 was a conspirator,
The "operative" who insisted on breaking Texas Law and move JFK's body back to DC so a proper autopsy could not be performed -Jackie Kennedy- was a conspirator,

Because if all these "operatives" didnt do their "jobs", LHO would never have been put into the position of being the "patsy" for the Grassy Knoll shooter, who was capable of shooting Connally from the front that made his lapel fly outward (Z223-224), and to shoot JFK from the front in Z313 that made his head snap forward in Z313, pause for a moment, and then roll back in Z315-316, and cover it up so that it looked like a shot from the rear so that computer re-creations 30 years after the event would "confirm" that the "evidence" looked a "rear shot".

And pin it all on a barely 24 yo CIA "operative" experienced in the fields of "order filler" and "equipment greaser" to complement his lack of a High School diploma, with a personality that would fit the profile of a political assassin 20 years later when criminal profiling was defined, who attempted to shoot General Walker 6 months earlier (that must have been a dry run for the yet unplanned JFK assassination).

How diabolical of those conspirators! How dare they??!?

We need to eliminate the CIA, NSA, DEA, and the BATF. Then we can have some privacy and a small addition of safety.

We also need a detention camp to send all of our government cheerleaders so that they can be re-programmed.

Congressman Ron Paul on 'Patriotism' :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul388.html

This "conspiracy" stuff, with a vague suggestion that perhaps Israel decided to kill the President of the United States, always comes from the same people. They are people who believe that the United States is a country that should embrace only people who think like them, and stand for what they believe. They are not the type who voted for President Kennedy or to whom his death was so searing and destructive. In other words, these conspiracy people raise these claims not out of any mourning for the President, and their claims need to be looked at with that in mind. Some guy named Lee Oswald killed the President and had someone else done it, Lee Oswald could well have been one of these conspiracy people.

lYNDON jOHNSON AND HIS CABEL KILLED jfk.

I don't think we can, at this late date, ever know who really killed the Kennedys, but it appears to me that many of the more extreme paranoid theories are purposely published to obfuscate the case further. The intent seems to be to discredit anyone who voices skepticism of the Warren Commission report by lumping all skeptics in with the crazies.

Hey smirky mcasshat, are you a paid guv'mint operative or just a dimwit by nature. Our government has a long history of lying to US. Why would you take their word concerning the cause of President Kennedy's death? Our government has a long history of having folks knocked off when it suits their agenda. Why would you take their word concerning the cause of President Kennedy's death? Our government has a long and dirty history - period. Why would you take their word concerning the cause of President Kennedy's death? A true American will always question his government and never take them at their word.

Reich Winger Nightmare,

What's you take on Vince Foster and Ron Brown?