46 years ago today in Dallas

[johnnie]

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. A terrible, terrible day.

I had just missed being old enough to vote for him. Oh, God, how much I wanted to see his life and works go on...

May you rest in peace eternally, President Kennedy...

Too young, way too young...

:cry:

[johnnie]

2. Ironically enough

I think he was 46 years old..no?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Ah, johnnie...

I'm not sure just how old he was.

Could be!

I'll google it...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Wiki says yes, he was 46 years old.

Why were you wondering?

And why am I wondering?

:silly:

[johnnie]

5. Just that it's been 46 years

He was one year older than I am now...yikes. I was born 9 months to the day after he was murdered and I used to think "what the hell were my parent's thinking?'..lol. That was before I learned that 9 months isn't an absolute.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

8. Actually it's not nine months, it's ten lunar months.

Ten menstrual cycles, basically. Two hundred and eighty days.

A lunar month is 28 days.

[johnnie]

11. Yeah

That's why I said it was before I knew the reality of it.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. Oh yeah...

Funny how quickly I can forget what your OP was...oops.

Maybe your parents were taking refuge in each other to help themselves cope with the tragedy. It was truly a horrible week, I can tell you.

I was in college...I still have the newspaper that I bought that day...

[Vickers]

12. We are close in age...

...early September 1964 for me.

:)

[rury]

101. He was 46

born May 29, 1917

[stopbush]

203. What's ironic about it? At some point in history, we would be 46 years out from the

day JFK was killed. That just happens to be this year. It wasn't last year, and it won't be next year.

Had he been 50 when he was killed, we would at some point in history be 50 years out from the shooting. The odds are that such a date would be, er, uh, let me guess...50 years out from the date of the killing.

Did I get that right?

In any case, there's no irony involved whatsoever.

[johnnie]

206. Slow down hot rod

I was just saying that it happened to fall in place on the day I posted this. No big conspiracy theory for you to freak about.

[stopbush]

209. I'm just pointing out that going by the dictionary definition of the word,

there was nothing ironic about this being the 46th anniversary of the the death of a 46-year-old man. I suggested no conspiracy, just your misuse of the word "ironic" in this instance.

[Desertrose]

6. The difference a few moments can make...they are so happy here...

so ALIVE and happy. Altho Connelly doesn't look to pleased....


I'll never forget that day the ones following....so damn sad.

A loss we have never recovered from......

[Skittles]

26. "You can't say Dallas doesn't love you"

so sad

[Octafish]

58. Connally: ''My God. They are going to kill us all.''

''Oh, no, no, no. My God. They are going to kill us all''

Who's "They," I wonder?

[bertman]

88. Connally would have had a pretty good idea who "they" might be, considering that his

beloved Dallas (and Texas as a whole) was a festering boil of rabid right-wingers/John Birchers/anti-Kennedy oilmen/KKK types.

Of course, it goes beyond just Texas, but I think the Governor was honest in his appraisal.

[Octafish]

191. 'Mrs. Connally is adamant that 3 bullets, not 2 as officially established, found their mark...'

It depends on one's definition of "scrambled-egg" is.

Nellie Connally and the three bullets

Friday, October 31, 2003
RhetoricRhythmBlogspot

Nellie Connally, the wife of former Texas Gov. John Connally and the last surviving occupant of the limousine that was carrying President John F. Kennedy when he was assassinated, has finally published a book detailing her experience.

One key point she makes in her book which is discussed in this NY Times article is her insistence that three shots struck targets inside the limo on Nov. 22, 1963.

“After shots rang out — and Mrs. Connally is adamant that three bullets, not two as officially established, found their mark — the president was dead, her husband gravely wounded as she struggled to stanch his blood, and the course of history forever altered.”

The problem with this statement is that the Warren Commission official version of events states that only two shots struck the limo occupants and a third shot missed. I will discuss the significance of this in a moment. The NY Times article summarizes it thusly:

”The Warren Commission and subsequent investigations have concluded that the first shot, fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, went wild, that the president and the governor were both hit by a second bullet, and that President Kennedy alone was hit by a third shot.

Mrs. Connally is not dissuaded by this information, as well she should not be.

"Well they're wrong," Mrs. Connally said this week at the beginning of a publicity blitz for the book... "I was there, they weren't. When they argue with me, all I have to say is, `Were you in that car?' The answer has to be no because there wasn't anybody else...
“All I'm saying is there were three shots and I know what happened with each shot," she said.”

But Mrs. Connally says despite this she still believes the conclusion reached by the Warren Commission is correct.

“She said, however, that she was not a conspiracist and that she believed — and that her husband's own exhaustive study of records as Treasury secretary proved — that Mr. Oswald was the lone gunman.

"A $15 gun and a scrambled-egg mind caused all that horror," she said.”

CONTINUED...

http://rhetoricrhythm.blogspot.com/2003_10_26_rhetoricrhythm_archive.html

Here's the rest of the story:

The Wounding of John Connally – Burying the Single Bullet Theory

[johnnie]

7. I honestly don't pay attention to rec and unrec

But someone actually unrec'd this..LOL.

[Vickers]

14. I cancelled them out.

:P

[johnnie]

19. Lol...thanks

Like I said, I don't really give a crap about them, but to think that someone took the time to unrec a thread on a remembrance of JFK's assassination is just plain weird.

[Vickers]

22. Last week I had a thread that was Unrec'ed and subsequently LOCKED

What was my offensive gesture?

Giving out stars!

:crazy:

[kayakjohnny]

94. The unreccers could never unrec unless they are given the power to do so.

So who's really the bad guy? The unreccers or the people who think this function was a good idea to begin with.

[Lugnut]

10. I'll never forget that day.

I doubt that any of us who were alive in 1963 will either.

[aquart]

15. Forget the day that shaped a generation?

Not bloody likely.

[ChicagoSuz219]

48. The day we lost our innocence... :-( nt

[JDPriestly]

164. Yes. The day we lost our innocence.

[ailsagirl]

77. No. It's hard to forget a public execution of our President

Things have never been the same since.
:grouphug:

PS Not to be fussy, but it was 47 years ago today...

[Lugnut]

79. It was 1963.

I graduated high school in June and turned 18 in September. It was 46 years ago.

[ailsagirl]

96. SORRY!! My brain must be on vacation!!

:blush:

[Lugnut]

146. No problem.

The date is permanently etched into my brain because of my own personal milestones. I don't know anyone who doesn't remember where they were or what they were doing when they got the news that our president had been assassinated. The nation was glued to their television sets for a week for the first ever 24 hour news cycle. It was an unforgettable experience.

[SoCalDem]

169. George HW Bush said he did not remember where HE was on that day. (photo)

[Doctor_J]

181. Yep. He's the only American alive that day who doesn't

Despite his weepy, nelly demeanor, he's a cold-blooded murderer.

[Lugnut]

190. He had his reasons to forget where he was.

I continue to hope we'll eventually find out why.

[SharonAnn]

124. You're right. I graduated H.S. in 1963 and was a Freshman in college on Nov.22, 1963

[Manifestor_of_Light]

13. All of us who are old enough to remember are permanently scarred.

The brutality, the suddenness, the promise of a young attractive couple in the White House...culture and the arts, scientific research, even going to the Moon were in style.

I was in elementary school. I remember my parents telling me that Dallas was full of right-wing nutcases who hated him. I grew up in Houston which is a lot more liberal.

My parents were good liberals and we had three pictures of JFK on the wall. Dad cut a full page picture out of LIFE magazine and put it in a frame.

And who knows if it will ever be solved. There are many theories.

[alp227]

16. Here's video of what you would've seen on CBS if you were watching TV on that very day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKg0oEA1-pk

[Hekate]

29. 1:40 p.m., it says. We were changing classes in my high school, it must have been 9:50 a.m....

The buzz along the sidewalks between buildings -- someone called out that the president had been shot -- I've always wondered how they knew, probably a transistor radio plugged into their ear. So the news spread, and in the next class the teacher tried to quell the rumors and make us wait. There were no intercoms in my school, much less TVs. The office would have had to send couriers with notes.

What time was the assembly? I can't remember. But the entire school was called to assemble at the flagpole for the official announcement from the principal; I remember which trumpeter from the band played Taps...

I spent the next days watching the events unfold on our black and white TV. I kept telling myself, "Remember this. It will never happen again."

Again and again in the next violent decade I thought of how naive a hope that had been.

Rest sweetly, Jack and Jackie; Bobby, John Jr., Teddy. Thank you for being who you were to us.

Hekate

[TicketyBoo]

36. I was in junior high.

It was between classes, and I was hurrying to science class.

A girl who had worked as a student assistant in the office (where they kept the radio turned on) during the previous class period came running down the hallway, saying "The President's been shot!!" Now this girl was a bit on the flaky side, so I didn't actually believe it until I got to science class, and we got the confirmation there. School was dismissed.

My mother and I watched the TV coverage that weekend, riveted. On Sunday, we saw Ruby shoot Oswald as it happened.

We sobbed when John-John saluted his father's casket. That day was his third birthday, you know, and his mother went directly from the funeral to give him a birthday party. I don't know how she did it. I truly don't.

[Raschel]

61. Those of us who remember that day have seen so much.

All of that tragedy and then 9/11.

[alp227]

158. Memories? I think I have to share this...

On the day I was born, President George H.W. Bush announced "Kuwait was liberated".

When the World Trade Center was first bombed (1993 in case you didn't know), I was just a toddler.

The Oklahoma City and Atlanta Olympic Park bombings happened within the year before I entered kindergarten.

The bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the War in Yugoslavia happened during primary grades.

On 9/11/01, I had just started 5th grade. I remember the day after, my teacher was presenting a simple overview of it to us.

During 6th grade, the Beltway sniper attacks occurred, and the (fraudulent) War in Iraq began.

Hurricane Katrina hit on my first day of high school.

[JDPriestly]

165. I was a college student observing a high school class as part of an education course.

I'll never forget it. My husband and I (already married) could hardly rest for days. And oh, how much we cried. The heartache is still there when I think about it.

[phasma ex machina]

80. More CBS coverage.

Four Days in November

[sdfernando]

17. Such a sad day for the nation

I don't remember any of it being only a baby. But it was my parent's 11th anniversary that day. A few years ago I was in Dallas for a conference and I went to see Daley Plaza and the book repository and all that. It was a very strange day for me...and I recall as I was going through the Sixth Floor Museum, that I kept thinking "There's no way one bullet could do that kind of damage and still look almost new." I almost challenged the guide, but thought better of it.

edited for stupid spelling

[Kali]

18. if you are interested

tomorrow (Sunday) at 2 pm AZ time there will be a one hour special show on kxci community radio Tucson.

you can listen here: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kxci/ppr/index.shtml

[johnnie]

20. Thanks Kali

Might just do that.

[StarfarerBill]

55. My mother was working only a few blocks away when President Kennedy was shot;

but she learned of it as most everyone else did, on the radio.

[medeak]

21. Uncle Walter gave me the news on my lunch break

being a medeak back then in the 4th grade I had to walk home everyday to listen to the noon news. Uncle Walter Conkrite was my daddy that day and I cried with him.

[tblue]

23. Oh that picture is giving me chills!

I was in kindergarten. I remember coming home and my
mom was ironing and watching tv, and weeping. :cry:

[1]

24. fuck lee harvey oswald. fucking prick...

[Octafish]

59. Same to George Herbert Walker Bush

Know your BFEE: Poppy Bush was in Dallas the day JFK was assassinated.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

76. +1000 and highly recommended to click!

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

106. The presence of these various people sounds like an imitation of

Agatha Christie's novel where 12 or 13 people -- a jury? -- get together to kill one man.

Is it Murder On the Orient Express?

Howard Hunt was a novelist and would have been intrigued by that idea.

On the other hand, the takeover of power was so huge that it probably demanded these

higher ups be present.

We are still losing ground in the power game -- no one has the power yet to bring all of the

details forward.

[mistertrickster]

64. I agree. I started collecting military firearms awhile back, mainly for the history . . .

But I just can't bring myself to buy a 6.5 Carcano. That's what Oswald used to shoot JFK.

I always wondered what motivated that loser . . . he apparently seemed to like the President. Connelly had refused to reverse his dishonorable discharge from the Marines, and some people speculate he was shooting at Connelly.

But let's not get into "conspiracy theories," because they truly have no end. There's so much information and so much of it is contradictory, one can pretty much believe whatever one wants to believe and have evidence for it.

[defendandprotect]

109. Well, one of the first things ....

you should work on is that the Tunnheim Panel/JFK 1992 Classified Records Act

concluded that: "Oswald was employed by the CIA working on high level assignments

and probably also for the FBI" --

Oswald was intelligent and singled out for language instruction -- and sent to Russia

for high level spying activities.

Journalists immediately asked for his employment/IRS records which were denied.

Obviously, the Tunnheim Panel saw them -- and probably much more.

[JDPriestly]

166. Thom Hartmann and his friend have published a new edition

of Legacy of Secrecy in which they claim to have evidence that Oswald worked with Barker and that Barker worked for Hunt. I'm hoping to read the book soon.

[defendandprotect]

104. Oswald was employed by the CIA . . .

working on high level assignments and probably also for the FBI.

That was the conclusion of the Tunnheim Panel/JFK 1992 Classified Records Act --

[lib2DaBone]

107. He was a Patsie... a Timothy McVeigh...

[lib2DaBone]

108. dupe

[Withywindle]

25. I'm not old enough to remember. I was born in 1969.

The dates that are inscribed on my memory as "where were you when you heard" days are 11/18/78 (Jonestown), 1/28/06 (Challenger), and 9/11/01.

If 3/30/81 (Reagan assassination attempt) had actually killed him, I think I'd probably feel it the same way, even though I was just 11 years old and my family was die-hard against him. Assassinations, regardless of "side," are a triumph of violence over debate, of hatred over reason, of brute force over intellect, and so always a victory of the worst in human nature.

I just never want to experience that. I know at sometime in my life I probably will; we have such a violent history, and the people who've been sheltered from it for so many decades are lucky.

I'm a Pagan agnostic and I pray for Barack every day, that's all. Just not him. Please gods, not him.

[digidigido]

32. Read below and google

John Hinkley Jr. allegedly fired the shots at Reagan that almost got Bush Sr. into the Presidency before Bush Sr. was eventually elected President.The bullet that entered Reagan's body came within ONE INCH of hitting Reagan's heart. Bush Sr.was literally a heartbeat away from becoming the President of the USA.

On the night after the assassination attempt, Scott Hinkley, John Hinkley Jr's brother was scheduled to have dinner with Neil Bush, who is Vice President Bush Sr's son.

[Withywindle]

35. That is all so fucking fucked.

And obviously Bush Sr never got over the fact that his kingmaking moment went awry, and he eventually had to earn it on his (not strong, in the public eye) merits.

I guess his son did get revenge after all. Not against Hussein so much as against all of US.

[defendandprotect]

110. They say that after the assassination attempt, Bush became president . ..

[TicketyBoo]

37. Not here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Posts about so-called "conspiracy theories" are not permitted on Democratic Underground, except in the September 11 forum.

[UpInArms]

53. no conspiracy theory - learn your facts

These are responses from the conspiracy phobics, whose minds snap shut whenever they hear what they conceive of as "conspiracy theory." I’ve never figured out exactly what qualifies. It appears that anything that implies nefarious behavior is "conspiracy theory." Apparently illegal or dishonest behavior is not possible in the world view of these people – at least not among prominent politicians. They cling desperately to the "Leave It To Beaver" vision of American life.

In any case, here is a summary of the basic facts via mainstream reports.

On March 31, 1980, the day after John Hinckley had attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, The Houston Post ran an article headlined, "Bush’s son was to dine with suspect’s brother."

The article began “Scott Hinckley, the brother of John Hinckley Jr., who is charged with shooting President Reagan and three others, was to have been a dinner guest Tuesday night at the home of Neil Bush, son of Vice President George Bush, the Houston Post has learned.”

NBC’s John Chancellor also reported the “bizarre coincidence.”

On that day the Post said Neil Bush admitted to being personally acquainted with Scott Hinckley, having met him on one occasion in the recent past. He also said he knew the family and was aware of its large contributions to the Bush campaign for president in 1980. Both were oil men based in Denver. Scott Hinckley was vice president of Vanderbilt Energy of Vanderbilt Energy Corporation and Neil Bush worked for Standard Oil of Indiana. John Hinckley Jr., the shooter, lived off and on with his parents in Evergreen, Colorado, near Denver.

Neil Bush told the Post he didn’t know if he knew John Jr. or not. His wife Sharon said, “From what I know and have heard, are a very nice family ... and have given a lot of money to the Bush campaign. I understand he was just the renegade brother in the family. They must feel awful.”

In response to a question about the incident, Vice President Bush’s press secretary said, “I don’t know a damn thing about it. I was talking to someone earlier tonight and I couldn’t even remember ’s name. All I know is what you’re telling me.” The vice president, he said, had “made no mention of it whatsoever” and didn’t indicate that he knew the name.

On March 31, Neil Bush refused to take calls from the media, but then held a press conference on April 1, saying he would meet with the media once and “leave it at that.”

The Rocky Mountain News reported that Neil Bush had confirmed that if the shooting had not taken place, Scott Hinckley was going to be at a dinner party at Bush’s house that night. He said Hinckley was “a good an decent man” and he had “no regrets whatsoever in saying that Scott Hinckley can be considered a friend of mine.”

He said he did not know the shooter or his father John Hinckley Sr., who was president of Vanderbilt Energy Corp. Bush said his wife’s assertion that there had been large contributions from Hinckley Sr. to the Bush presidential campaign were not true.

On April 1, the Houston Post reported “Vice president confirms his son was to have hosted Hinckley brother.” Bush spokeswoman Shirley Green described the connection as “a bizzare happenstance, a weird occurrence.”

Later that day Bush spokesman Peter Teeley denied any campaign donations from the Hinckleys.

The Associated Press reported on March 31 that “Neil Bush served as campaign manager for his brother, George W. Bush, the Vice President’s eldest son, who made an unsuccessful bid for Congress. Neil lived in Lubbock, Texas, throughout most of 1978, where John Hinckley lived from 1974 through 1980."

There is no record of any of the Bush’s being questioned by the FBI about the contacts. There was no investigation at all. According to the memoirs of Donald Regan, Reagan’s aide, treasury secretary and chief of staff at different times, the whole idea of anyone but the “lone assassin” being involved in the shooting was dismissed shortly after Bush convened a meeting in the Situation Room less than five hours after Reagan was shot. Regan said, “the Vice President arrived with Ed Meese, who had met him when he landed to fill him in on the details. George asked for a condition report: 1) on the President; 2) on the other wounded; 3; on the assailant; 4) on the international scene...” Then, “After the reports were given and it was determined that there were no international complications and no domestic conspiracy, it was decided that the US government would carry on business as usual.”

John Hinckley Sr. was president of World Vision, a right wing evangelical association which describes itself as the largest “international Christian relief and development agency” active in the third world, beginning in 1976. He was president of the organization when Mark David Chapman was working for it, one of its lost boys. The organization has deep ties to the intelligence community and has assisted the CIA in many of its projects. Its largest contributor is the U.S. State Department Agency for International Development.

Judge says, World Vision is a far-right evangelical missionary operation that does missionary and "good work" operations in countries where there is a political purpose for it to be there. From it's inception, it was rabidly anti-Communist and it focused on refugee populations of people running from countries that had been taken over by Communism. This was from the fifties on.

World Vision had a hand in the movement of the Cubans into the United States and other refugees of revolutionary regimes. When you're a refugee you're cut loose, basically, and pretty much fair game to be manipulated by whoever is willing to give you a hand because you don't have a home or any place to stay and somebody has got to accept you.

World Vision was able to recruit out of these mercenary populations, people who could be politically turned to their intelligence purposes. World Vision served as a penetration force -- not as visible as the military actually going in or the CIA going in -- going in as missionaries and working among the people. This link between missionary and intelligence for capitalistic infiltration operations goes way back. It was part of the internationalism with the Rockefellers. It's talked about in a book called Thy Will Be Done<4> about Rockefeller, Venezuela, and Latin American Oil, the Summer Linguistic Institute, World Vision and others. But they operated in this way for a long time.

They were paid by the CIA for a long time during the Vietnam war and went into SE Asia -- Cambodia and Laos. Throughout Vietnam they were given U.S. military equipment to use. They still maintain a budget under USAID (Agency for International Development), which was just a pass-over in order to give the CIA more cover. They ran operations through USAID. The current cover replacing that is the NED (National Endowment for Democracy), which is supposed to be how we're exporting democracy around the world.

[TicketyBoo]

90. This IS

a conspiracy theory, and it is most inappropriate in a thread which was posted to commemorate the anniversary of the death of President Kennedy.

This is an inappropriate threadjacking, and, as such, is highly offensive and disruptive here.

[avaistheone1]

133. Damn it. Read our National Archives. They state JFK likely was assassinated as the result of a

conspiracy.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/

[ooglymoogly]

150. Jeepers I did not find it disruptive nor highly offensive

certainly not as offensive as your post of holier than thou summery judgment.

[JDPriestly]

167. Conspiracy theories can be true.

Mysteries are resolved because investigators, police officers and lawyers as well as scientists and archaeologists hypothesize theories, look for facts that prove or disprove them and discard the theories that don't work and develop those that do.

Read the book Espionage by Ernest Volkman. It describes various espionage conspiracies that occurred in the past. We probably would not have won WWII had our intelligence agency at the time been less adept at conspiracies.

The Kennedy assassination has never been satisfactorily explained or studied. And that in spite of all the efforts to do so.

I was alive and an adult at the time. The events that took place formed a pattern that suggests to me that the official story is not true. I can't advocate for one theory or the other because I don't have the facts.

But if you reject all discussion of conspiracy theories, then you reject the process of discovery and learning.

I think of DU as a place for the exchange of ideas. The rejection of all conspiracy theories ends that kind of exchange.

[man4allcats]

27. I have relived this tragic anniversary forty-six times now.

I remember it like it was yesterday. This day will be seared into my memory until the day I die.

RIP, Mr. President.

[Peace Patriot]

28. I recommend James Douglass' book, "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died And Why It Matters"

for complete understanding and healing. It's a hard book to read, if you lived through it, but it tells the truth--with compelling documentation, research and analysis--and brings a spiritual perspective to the trauma of that event and the traumas of the era in which it occurred, that no other work on the assassination has even attempted. Douglass is a long time Catholic Worker and peace activist, and his book was published by the Maryknoll Fathers. He is a superb researcher and writer.

In summary: There is really no question that the CIA assassinated Kennedy. Douglass is totally convincing on who did it. And their reason was that Kennedy, a Catholic, after facing potential Armageddon in the Cuban Missile Crisis, began a deep transformation from "Cold Warrior" into advocate of world peace. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff and all other "military industrial complex" players (except his brother Bobby) tried to coercive JFK to nuke Russia and Cuba. They said we would "win" if we struck Russia while we had missile superiority, and we would take "only" 300,000 casualties. Kennedy was appalled. He thought they were insane. But he was virtually alone in this view, except for his brother. He opened backchannels to Krushchev and Castro--to get around the CIA--and not only negotiated an end to that crisis, but also began negotiating mainly with Krushchev for nuclear disarmament and the end to the proxy wars (Vietnam in particular), and creation of a world in which there could be a non-military, "friendly" competition between the two economic systems. The CIA and co. considered him a traitor and they killed him for it. Three days later, LBJ said, "Now they can have their war." He was speaking about Vietnam.

Kennedy thought that the American people would be with him in wanting a peaceful world, and an end to the threat of Armageddon. And he was proved right, after his death, when LBJ, who filled out his term, ran for president in 1964 on a PEACE platform, and won by the biggest presidential landslide in history. I remember this well because it was my first vote for president. I voted for peace. The trouble was that LBJ was lying. He had already acted to overturn the beginnings of JFK's withdrawal of US military forces from Vietnam, and to escalate to a full scale war. The vote was overwhelmingly for peace. If JFK had lived, and had been running for reelection, he would have had an overwhelming mandate to end the "Cold War." And that was what the CIA was trying to prevent.

Douglass doesn't think LBJ was complicit in the assassination, but that he was complicit in the coverup, because he found out early that the CIA had set the assassination up to point to Russia as the perpetrator, to coerce him to nuke Russia in retaliation. He knew that Russia was not guilty of it and opposed nuking Russia for something they didn't do (but was not opposed to war profiteering and maintaining the nuclear arsenal in a tense "Cold War" world.) So the tracks that led to Russia were muddled over and erased, and all the other confusion, evidence destruction, witness murders, etc, in the assassination record, follows from that.

What Douglass' book makes you begin to realize is that the reason so many of us loved Kennedy and were so traumatized by his death is that we perceived his deep visionary qualities--his inner creativity and ability to change--even before hints of it began to emerge (the space program, the "Nuclear Test Ban Treaty," his speech on world peace to the UN, his support for Martin Luther King). You really couldn't tell, say from his speeches in the 1960 campaign, that, within three years, he would be planning to end the "Cold War" because, by 1963, he had SEEN where it was going--to utter destruction. Douglass discusses Ethel Kennedy's (Bobby's wife's) correspondence with the Trappist monk, Thomas Merton, whose anti-nuclear weapons writings got him silenced by the Trappist order as too controversial. This was the avantgarde of the Catholic Liberation Theology movement--the antiwar, progressive movement within the Church that led, for instance, to Maryknoll and Jesuit priests getting killed by US-supported fascists in Latin America, for being advocates of the poor, and to phenomenon like Fr. Dan Berrigan pouring blood on Draft records a few years later. This Catholic movement was very influential on the Kennedy family--on John and on Bobby.

You also realize, reading Douglass' book, how non-visionary and un-creative people like Allen Dulles (head of the CIA, whom Kennedy fired after the "Bay of Pigs" debacle) were. There were many Catholics in the CIA and MIC establishment, but they were stuck in the "Cold War," anti-communist mentality, and were unredeemed by the ability to change. Kennedy was able to "look beyond"-- to see the big picture of human life and struggle, even to reaching out to "the stars" and the human place in the Cosmos. The retro-vision of those around Kennedy--throughout the government--was also, of course, fully bolstered by the MONEY to be made from war. But they were so blind that they could not SEE what NUCLEAR war would do. It was not scientific knowledge at that time--only later established by Carl Sagan--that even a limited nuclear exchange would destroy the planet. But Kennedy had the vision to FEEL that, before it was known. He counted the HUMAN cost, even if he didn't know how big it would be.

That is what we perceived in Kennedy. That is why we loved him more than any other political leader. That is why his murder was so devastating. And that is why the devastation has lasted so long, and is such a deep wound to our society that we have never recovered from it. There are many leftist writers and analysts who take the cynical view that Kennedy was just another US imperialist president. He was not. He was in the midst of a radical transformation of his point of view, when he was cut down, and that is WHY he was cut down.

The wound and the crime are still with us. The consequences are still with us--with one unjust US war after another. And until we face what happened--as Douglass does--we cannot change our country and stop its infliction of war, poverty and oppression on others, and on ourselves. As a society, we are "in denial" and thereby prey to demagogues and delusions. We need to face the reality that our own retro-vision government did it, and WHY they did it.

[TicketyBoo]

38. Please. Not here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Posts about so-called "conspiracy theories" are not permitted on Democratic Underground, except in the September 11 forum.

[Peace Patriot]

44. This is NOT a "conspiracy theory." Please read the book.

The evidence is truly overwhelming that the CIA assassinated Kennedy. It's not a theory. 9/11 speculations may be called "theories" because so much information is still suppressed, and there is no consensus among investigators as to how exactly it happened and who did it. I wouldn't add the word "conspiracy" to 9/11 theories--because 9/11 was obviously a conspiracy (but whose?). Douglass, however, does not lay out a "theory" of the Kennedy assassination. He assembles so much old and new information about it, and his analysis of that information is so compelling, that I was completely convinced. He gets as high as Richard Helms. He wasn't able to nail Dulles. He exonerates LBJ (but not of the coverup). I think a jury would be convinced. Really. Read the book. Don't condemn something as "tinfoil" (which is what I think you mean by "conspiracy theory") when you aren't familiar with its evidence and analysis.

This is a very serious book about our society and our history. It's not just a "who done it?", or yet another detective story trailing down one of the false paths of that Byzantine event. He puts it all together, and sees the "big picture" as well--the particular crisis that our society was going through at the time, with the imminent threat of nuclear war, and our social/political crisis of becoming a more and more militaristic society--a crisis that is not over yet.

It is must reading for anyone who wants to understand this country NOW.

[TicketyBoo]

47. This IS

a conspiracy theory. It absolutely is.

[UpInArms]

60. what is your vested interest here?

give facts and links that prove what you are accusing - or leave - you are a disrupter and I am curious who is paying you to post on this board.

[TicketyBoo]

84. Right back at you.

Nobody is "paying" me to be here, and it is not I who am being disruptive.

[avaistheone1]

135. After personally interviewing witnesses and experts, after conducting studies, after examining

thousands of documents including the Warren Report, the House Select Committee on Assassinations came to the conclusion that President John Fitzgerald Kennedy likely was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy. That is our government's official finding.

What exactly do you have a problem with? This is the official finding and key part of the history of the JFK assassination. Why are you creating a fuss about this fact?

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/

[TicketyBoo]

160. Why are you bringing it up here?

This is not the time nor place.

[Octafish]

136. Daniel Ellsberg says ''JFK and the Unspeakable'' is ''brilliant.''

You heard of him, TicketyBoo?

"Douglass presents, brilliantly, an unfamiliar yet thoroughly convincing account of a series of creditable decisions of John F. Kennedy -- at odds with his initial Cold War stance -- that earned the secret distrust and hatred of hard-liners among the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA." -- Daniel Ellsberg, author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers

You also may want to read what DUer MinM wrote on "JFK and the Unspeakable":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=209x6350

[avaistheone1]

140. Good to know, octafish.

Thank you for bringing this book to our attention. That's a strong endorsement coming from Ellsberg.

I will definitely check it out.

[Octafish]

152. James Di Eugenio has an excellent review...

...Until you get the book:

JFK and the Unspeakable

by James W. Douglass

Reviewed by James DiEugenio

This book is the first volume of a projected trilogy. Orbis Books has commissioned James W. Douglass to write three books on the assassinations of the 1960's. The second will be on the murders of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, while the third will be on the assassination of Bobby Kennedy.

This is one of the few books on the Kennedy case that I actually wished was longer. In the purest sense, Jim Douglass is not a natural writer. But it seems to me he has labored meticulously to fashion a well organized, thoroughly documented, and felicitously composed piece of workmanship that is both comprehensible and easy to read. These attributes do not extend from simplicity of design or lack of ambition. This book takes in quite a lot of territory. In some ways it actually extends the frontier. In others it actually opens new paths. To achieve that kind of scope with a relative economy of means, and to make the experience both fast and pleasant, is quite an achievement.

I should inform the reader at the outset: this is not just a book about JFK's assassination. I would estimate that the book is 2/3 about Kennedy's presidency and 1/3 about his assassination. And I didn't mind that at all, because Douglass almost seamlessly knits together descriptions of several of Kennedy's policies with an analysis of how those policies were both monitored and resisted, most significantly in Cuba and Vietnam. This is one of the things that makes the book enlightening and worthy of understanding.

One point of worthwhile comparison would be to David Talbot's previous volume Brothers. In my view, Douglass' book is better. One of my criticisms of Talbot's book was that I didn't think his analysis of certain foreign policy areas was rigorous or comprehensive enough. You can't say that about Douglass. I also criticized Talbot for using questionable witnesses like Angelo Murgado and Timothy Leary to further certain dubious episodes about Kennedy's life and/or programs. Douglass avoided that pitfall.

One way that Douglass achieves this textured effect is in his quest for new sources. One of the problems I had with many Kennedy assassination books for a long time is their insularity. That is, they all relied on pretty much the same general established bibliography. In my first book, Destiny Betrayed, I tried to break out of that mildewed and restrictive mold. I wanted to widen the lens in order to place the man and the crime in a larger perspective. Douglass picks up that ball and runs with it. There are sources he utilizes here that have been terribly underused, and some that haven't been used before. For instance, unlike Talbot, Douglass sources Richard Mahoney's extraordinary JFK: Ordeal in Africa, one of the finest books ever written on President Kennedy's foreign policy. To fill in the Kennedy-Castro back channel of 1963 he uses In the Eye of the Storm by Carlos Lechuga and William Attwood's The Twilight Struggle. On Kennedy and Vietnam the author utilizes Anne Blair's Lodge in Vietnam, Ellen Hammer's A Death in November, and Zalin Grant's Facing the Phoenix. And these works allow Douglass to show us how men like Henry Cabot Lodge and Lucien Conein did not just obstruct, but actually subverted President Kennedy's wishes in Saigon. On the assassination side, Douglass makes good use of that extraordinary feat of research Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong, the difficult to get manuscript by Roger Craig, When They Kill a President, plus the work of little known authors in the field like Bruce Adamson and hard to get manuscripts like Edwin Black's exceptional essay on the Chicago plot. Further, he interviewed relatively new witnesses like Butch Burroughs and the survivors of deceased witnesses like Thomas Vallee, Bill Pitzer and Ralph Yates. In the use of these persons and sources, Douglass has pushed the envelope forward.

But it's not just what is in the book. It is how it is molded together that deserves attention. For instance, in the first chapter, Douglass is describing the Cuban Missile Crisis at length (using the newest transcription of the secretly recorded tapes by Sheldon Stern.) He then segues to Kennedy's American University speech. At this point, Douglass then introduces the figure of Lee Harvey Oswald and his relation to the U-2 (p. 37). This is beautifully done because he has been specifically discussing the U-2 flights over Cuba during the Missile Crisis, and he subliminally matches both Kennedy and Oswald in their most extreme Cold War backdrops. He then switches back to the American University speech, contrasting its rather non-descript reception in the New York Times with its joyous welcome in Russia, thus showing that Kennedy's efforts for détente were more appreciated by his presumed enemy than by the domestic pundit class.

These artful movements would be good enough. But the design of the book goes further. As mentioned above, in his first introduction of Oswald Douglass mentions the Nags Head, North Carolina military program which launched American soldiers into Russia as infiltrators. Near the end of the book (p. 365), with Oswald in jail about to be killed by Jack Ruby, Douglass returns to that military program with Oswald's famous thwarted phone call to Raleigh, North Carolina: the spy left out in the cold attempting to contact his handlers for information as how to proceed. But not realizing that his attempted call will now guarantee his execution. Thus the author closes a previously prepared arc. It isn't easy to do things like that. And it doesn't really take talent. One just has to be something of a literary craftsman: bending over the table, honing and refining. But it's the kind of detail work that pays off. It maintains the reader's attention along the way and increases his understanding by the end.

CONTINUED...

http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html

Thank you for caring, avaistheone1. It means the world to me.

[TicketyBoo]

161. I DON'T want to read this in a memorial thread.

No. But I have no choice in the matter, I see.

Not if I want to read others memories of that awful day.

I have to read the conspiracy junk along with it or just leave the thread to you conspiracy junkies.

[Octafish]

170. I don't make up the conspiracies. Traitors, warmongers and gangsters do. Read and learn...

Please show me the "theory" anywhere below. From what I see, it is fact.

Know your BFEE: Cultkeepers

Know your BFEE: It wasn’t Obama who Looted the Treasury and Banks. It was Bush and his Cronies.

Know your BFEE: John McCain, Dim Knight Errant of the War Party

Know your BFEE: Goldmine Sacked or The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One

Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

Know your BFEE: The Corrupt Bastards Club… with Lipstick

Know your BFEE: Olympic Games Show Who’s Best Friends Forever with Authoritarians and Dictators

Know your BFEE: 1984 Death of Outstanding Congressional Staffer Buried Poppy-Moon Relationship

Know your BFEE: Forget Rev. Wright! It’s Bush and His Cronies Who Owe an Apology for Rev. Moon!

Know your BFEE: GW Bush Covers Up His Lying America Into War

Know your BFEE: Bush and His Crooks with Badges Sent an Innocent Man to Jail

Know your BFEE: They Looted Your Nation’s S&Ls for Power and Profit

Know your BFEE: War and Oil are just two longtime Main Lines of Business

Know your BFEE: Bush has Killed a Million Innocent People for Their Oil.

Know your BFEE: Scions of the Military Industrial Complex

Know your BFEE: Spawn of Wall Street and the Third Reich

Know your BFEE: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ford Covered Up CIA Murder of American Scientist

Know your BFEE: Money Trumps Peace. Always.

Know your BFEE: They kill good soldiers like Col. Ted Westhusing for profit.

Know your BFEE: America’s Ruling Gangster Class

Poppy Bush brought up JFK Assassination and "Conspiracy Theorists" at Ford Funeral

Know your BFEE: Robert Gates did more than keep the doors open at BCCI

Know your BFEE: The Fellowship ‘Preys’ for America

Sink the BFEE: Foley gives us Congress. Condi sends 'em to prison.

Beat the BFEE: Poppy’s CIA warned about terror plots and did not stop them

Know your BFEE: Los Amigos de Bush

Know your BFEE: Neil Bush hangs out with Russian Mafiya Godfather

Know your BFEE: Poppy Bush was in Dallas the day JFK was assassinated.

Know your BFEE: Nazis couldn’t win WWII, so they backed Bushes.

Know your BFEE: At every turn, JFK was opposed by War Party

Know your BFEE: Lies Are the Currency of Their Realm

Know your BFEE: Cheney & Halliburton Sold Iran Nuke Technology

Know your BFEE: The Stench of Moussaoui Permeates the Octopus

Know your BFEE: Moussaoui Must Die for Bush and 'His' Government

Know your BFEE: Alito is just another word for Mussolini

Know your BFEE: Like a NAZI

Know your BFEE: The China-Bush Axis

Know your BFEE: Bush and bin Laden Clans Together in Bed

Know your BFEE: Libby Is the First Big BFEE Turd to Go Down

Know your BFEE: WHIG (White House Iraq Group) made phony case for Iraq War

Know your BFEE: The Secret Government

Know your BFEE: Reinhard Gehlen

Know your BFEE: Poppy Bush Armed Saddam

Know your BFEE: Killer Businessmen who put Power and Profit before Country

Know your BFEE: Nixon Threatened to Nuke Vietnam

Know your BFEE: Corrupt Craftsmen Hoover and Dulles

Know your BFEE: Poppy’s CIA Made Saddam Into the Butcher of Baghdad

Know your BFEE: Hitler’s Bankers Shaped Vietnam War

Know your BFEE: Merchants of Death

Know your BFEE: R. James Woolsey, Turd of War

Know your BFEE: Sneering Dick Cheney, Superturd-Superrich-Supercrook

Know your BFEE: Bush Lied America into War

Know your BFEE: James R Bath – Bush – bin Laden Link

Know your BFEE: War Profiteers

Know your BFEE: Dead Men Tell No Tales

Know your BFEE: Bush and bin Laden Clans Together in Bed

Know your BFEE: Rev. Sun Myung Moon OWNS Poppy Bush

Know your BFEE: Homeland Czar & Petro-Turd Bernie Kerik

Know your BFEE: American Children Used in Radiation Experiments

Know your BFEE: Eugenics and the NAZIs - The California Connection

Know your BFEE: The Barreling Bushes

Know your BFEE: A Crime Line of Treason

Know your BFEE: How Smirko Got Rich

Know your BFEE: George W Bush did "community service" at Project P.U.L.L.

Know your BFEE: Vote Suppressor Supreme, the Turd Bill Rehnquist

Know your BFEE: George W Bush Knew 9-11 Was Coming and Did NOTHING!

Know your BFEE: Oliver North, Drug Dealer

Know your BFEE: Pat Robertson Incorporated a Gold Mine with a Terrorist


These aren’t labeled “Know Your BFEE,” but they’re meant in the same spirit:

Poppy Bush Involved in JFK Assassination -- BFEE's Spooked!

Vietnam and Iraq Wars Started by Same People

BFEE Turd Daniel Pipes tied to DANISH CARTOONS

JFK Would NEVER Have Fallen for Phony INTEL!

Plame Affair makes clear: USA is run by TRAITORS.

How Cheney Got His SNEER: The Curse of Dick Cheney

BFEE Is More than Capable of Bombing Their Own Countrymen

Frank Church and the Abyss of Warrantless Wiretapping.


And for all my friends with those hard-to-reach areas between the ears:
A fact curiously missing from American history and any mention of the Warren Commission

A Short History of Conspiracy Theory


Note 1: The subject is a work in progress. The entries are not perfect, nor are they complete. They do provide a framework for a who's-who and what's-what and how we got here. Started for educational and historical purposes, these threads are meant to serve the public interest. What gives them a special quality are the contributions of DUers. May they also serve some prosecutor in the future.

Note 2: As no individual is totally evil or totally good, not all Bushes are evil or beholden to the BFEE. Nor are all those who gain by its existence members of the immediate or extended Bush family. Nor are the Bushes at the pinnacle of global power -- it is quite likely they serve an even wealthier class. What they all have in common is the use of the powers of the government of the United States for accumulating wealth and power for themselves, their associates and the other affiliated beneficiaries among the world's financial elite and authoritarian regimes. Always, they gain at the expense of the people and nations of the world, including the citizens of the United States and its Constitution.

BTW: When did you buy the board and decide who can post what?

[TicketyBoo]

177. You may not make up the conspiracies

but you surely do buy into them, evidently.

I read the rules of boards I join, and I abide by them.

It is unfortunate that others do not and spoil things for others.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Posts about so-called "conspiracy theories" are not permitted on Democratic Underground, except in the September 11 forum.

[Octafish]

192. Gerald Ford forced to admit the Warren Report fictionalized

Don't take my word for it, take the word of an unelected president of the United States and a Warren Commission member who fudged the report so it would match the pre-ordained conclusion:

Gerald Ford forced to admit the Warren Report fictionalized

By MIKE FEINSILBER
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (July 2) - Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford took pen in
hand and changed - ever so slightly - the Warren Commission's key sentence
on the place where a bullet entered John F. Kennedy's body when he was
killed in Dallas.

The effect of Ford's change was to strengthen the commission's conclusion
that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and severely wounded Texas
Gov. John Connally - a crucial element in its finding that Lee Harvey
Oswald was the sole gunman.

A small change, said Ford on Wednesday when it came to light, one intended
to clarify meaning, not alter history.

SNIP...

''This is the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission
report,'' said Robert D. Morningstar, a computer systems specialist in New
York City who said he has studied the assassination since it occurred and
written an Internet book about it.

The effect of Ford's editing, Morningstar said, was to suggest that a
bullet struck Kennedy in the neck, ''raising the wound two or three
inches. Without that alteration, they could never have hoodwinked the
public as to the true number of assassins.''

If the bullet had hit Kennedy in the back, it could not have struck
Connolly in the way the commission said it did, he said.

CONTINUED...

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/ford.html

Sorry the truth hurts. Think about what the treason has done to the country and planet. If you know about it, you can do something about it.

[TicketyBoo]

197. And still another

version of a conspiracy theory.
In a thread that was supposed to be a respectful memorial to JFK. A thread which has been ruined by your sort of garbage.

[Octafish]

198. Respect for JFK means Justice, not cover-up.

Gerald "Pardon Me Dick" Ford was a cover-up artiste. Moving the location of the wound in President Kennedy's back is equivalent to tampering with evidence. His "work" on the Warren Commission served J Edgar Hoover and those promoting the guilt of the patsy Oswald.

For those interested in the subject:

How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why

That is the truth. If you don't think that's respectful, that's your problem.

[TicketyBoo]

199. It's not that

I think it's disrespectful. It is disrespectful.

I give up on this thread. It's beyond the pale.

[Octafish]

200. What's 'Beyond the pale' are people who don't want to think about what the assassination means.

The nation has not been the same since November 22, 1963.
We have beome a nation where war is our principle occupation.
Ensuring that a few have as much money as they can accumulate
has become more important than building a future for all.

President Kennedy wanted us to be more than that.

Sorry if you don't like to think about it.

[Raster]

216. Here's a suggestion: Hide the thread. Here's another:

Don't read it.

Here's another:

[ooglymoogly]

151. You are just snide and creepy from being who you are then.

Goody two shoes tend to get scuffed up here. Furthermore it is you who is doing the disrupting

[Peace Patriot]

68. A careful analysis of documents and making reasonable inferences from them is not

a "conspiracy theory," if by that you mean "tinfoil"--unreasonable, crackpot, mere paranoia, like believing in aliens with no proof that your beliefs are real. If you mean a "theory about a conspiracy" --that is, an hypothesis based on actual, verifiable evidence, from which reasonable inferences are drawn--though it may not have been "proven" in a court of law, or to your satisfaction--it is not "tinfoil" at all. It is normal research and legal procedure. Douglass' book is, of course a "theory about a conspiracy" because more than one person is involved. But that doesn't make it a "conspiracy theory" (i.e., "tinfoil"). I believe the evidence he presents. I believe he makes reasonable inferences, and goes out of his way to be careful about them. I trust him as a writer and thinker. I think he nails it.

And what I am saying here is that people who are still haunted by this terrible murder need to read this book, not only to absorb the facts and Douglass' analysis of the facts, but even more than this, to gain a deeper understanding of our country then, and now.

[TicketyBoo]

82. But the fact that it is

what you "believe" makes it a theory, and the fact that this "theory" involves a conspiracy, makes it a conspiracy theory.

Maybe there should be a forum just for this type of thing in regards to assassinations (as well as 9/11).

I find such postings highly inappropriate and distasteful in a thread which was started in order to pay respect on the anniversary of President Kennedy's death.

[Peace Patriot]

93. My dear, I joined the JFK campaign when I was 16. There is no one more respectful than me.

And one of the things you do, when you are mourning, is seek closure. To have this murder unsolved is very disturbing to individuals and to our collective society. I never thought it could be solved, and gave up following the investigations because they went down so many blind alleys, and because I thought it was fruitless. If you can't solve it, then you can't end mourning, but you just have to go on. But it is not a healthy state to be in, for individuals or society.

I can't remember how I came upon this book. It was only published last year. It found me. And I found, in reading it, that I needed to read it. This is the book that puts it all together, that solves the mystery and does so in the biggest possible context--the context that many people of that era FELT was the true context--war and our war mongers, and hopes for peace--but we needed a writer with both the highest historical and human understanding, and a stickler for details and a problem solver, to assemble all of the pieces and the context.

The book has no grudges to bear. It does not have that angry, obsessive quality that (probably necessarily) drove previous investigators. It goes down the blind alleys and finds out what's at the end of them (for instance, the misdirection to Russia, and all the motives involved in that, and all the confusion that it caused). It does so calmly, deliberately, thoughtfully, constantly checking against evidence and facts. It is meticulously written and documented. And it raises the level of discourse on this subject, out of the realm of argument and into the realm of true understanding. What moved JFK? Who was he? What moved his assassins? What moved all the rest of us--to be so upset by this--four decades later? What did it mean to close participants and to others? What was in peoples' hearts and minds that caused this event to happen? The motives and obsessions, and the good and the bad, of the whole era are laid out, in the context of assassination details, documents and evidence, and the conclusions are very convincing.

My "belief" in the evidence and in this analysis does not make this work "tinfoil." If I were sitting on a jury, I would use the word "belief." I.e., "I believe that the defendant used that knife to kill the deceased, because three people testified that they saw him do it, the knife had his fingerprints all over it, he had the deceased's blood on his clothes, and he had several compelling motives to want the deceased dead." That kind of "belief" is not "tinfoil." It is reason. Sometimes you have to make judgements on the best evidence, trusting reason and your best intellectual effort. Rarely is there 100% certainty about anything.

I have great respect for the JFK assassination investigators, especially the earliest ones who faced both great danger and ridicule. I'm glad they persisted and I admire them for it, and I am grateful to them, because they laid the ground work for Douglass' book, which brings historical and spiritual understanding--understanding of the human heart and soul--to the evidence. And that's what it took to grasp the meaning of some of the details that others may have uncovered but didn't understand.

I questioned it, throughout. And I still have some questions about it. A book this important doesn't leave you alone. And I struggled with it, too. I kept saying to myself, "No, I'm not going to get sucked into this. It's done, it's over. No more 'conspiracy theories,' please. I don't want to know. What can I do about it NOW?" And so on. But I kept reading because the book wasn't just about the conspiracy, though it is compelling and convincing on those aspects of the subject. It is about what this death meant--to the people involved, to the country, to the times, to me. It strikes a deep chord. It's like one of these things you come across in life, on rare occasions, where you want to shout, "Eureka! That's it!" You suddenly understand, after long effort just plodding along, muddling through.

And now I have some sense of direction about what I need to do. Merely being able to point a finger at the culprit or culprits doesn't bring closure and healing. It is just a first step. And if a crime has been committed against you, you are lucky to get that far. And if the crime is this Byzantine, with so much effort to cover it up, including different motives for covering it up--some well-meaning, some not--you may never be able to do even that--know who did it, let alone why. An unhealed crime acts on society much like it acts on an individual. It is corrosive. It eats at you. And a crime this big eats at the fabric of society. I want to do something that helps weave our society back together. I don't know what it is yet. But I feel confident that it will come to me. And this book has ignited that desire.

[TicketyBoo]

121. It doesn't look respectful

to be posting this here.

It's rather like spitting on his grave, in fact. Just my opinion.

Whatever happened, nothing you do or say is going to bring him back.

Conspiracy theory, whether you like it being labeled that or not, that's what it is.

[OhioBlue]

149. did you start the thread?

are you a moderator?

NO?

Then give it a rest. they are not being disrespectful. you are.

[TicketyBoo]

159. Rules?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[defendandprotect]

112. And you'd like us to pay respect to JFK by ignoring the coup on him?

[TicketyBoo]

122. I'd like you to pay respect

by not fouling up a memorial thread with a conspiracy theory. (Or theories, as the case may be.)

[defendandprotect]

127. Actually, your nonsense is what is . . .

"fouling up the thread" --

It is impossible to speak of the coup on JFK without recognizing conspiracy --

Take your nonsense elsewhere.

And just why are you so busy and interested in trying to suppress discussions of

conspiracy in regard to JFK?

And 9/11, if I remember correctly?

Your complaints have nothing to do with "respect" for JFK -- they have to do with

trying to suppress discussion --

[OhioBlue]

148. you hit the nail on the head. n/t

[scarletwoman]

128. I don't know how old you are, but you're way out of line trying to impose restrictions

on how those of us who lived through this event choose to discuss it.

It's not just about the man, JFK. It's about how his assassination affected US, and our whole country.

It was a horrific event, with horrific consequences. And we damn WILL question the "official" story told by the Powers That Be.

Start your own damn "memorial" thread if you don't like this one.

sw

[defendandprotect]

129. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with his alleged respect for JFK . . .

he's also been in other threads complaining when conspiracies are alleged --

from MIHOP to other information --

The right wing is responsible for the political violence in America -- some don't

want that acknowledged.

[TicketyBoo]

163. The plain and simple fact is that

discussion of conspiracy theories are supposed to be against the rules on DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

I thought that rules were supposed to be abided by here?

[defendandprotect]

172. The plain and simple fact is that somehow . . .

and for some reason, confirming what the USHR found "conspiracy" vs Kennedy is

not something you want discussed . . .

whatever your reasons may be --

We have had almost 50 years of right wing political violence in America -- that's

the only way the right wing can rise.

We're all aware of that and are discussing it --

[TicketyBoo]

178. I don't understand

why numerous people here have insisted on destroying a perfectly lovely memorial thread to President Kennedy by posting all these conspiracy theories.

It's very disappointing.

[defendandprotect]

179. You could have simply stopped with "I don't understand..." and been correct -- !!!

Obviously, either you don't want to get it or you don't get it --

but since that also applies to 9/11, it seems more likely you're here to try

to STOP conversation about right wing political violence.

[TicketyBoo]

182. .

.

[classof56]

134. I was 25. I was working my way through college. The Cuban Missile Crisis

was still fresh in everyone's mind. The assassination was indeed a horrific event, we did not realize how horrific for a long time. It continues to be a terrible memory that just won't go away. I too will always question the "official" story. The world would have been a much different and I choose to believe better place had Kennedy not died. Tears come when I consider that.

Blessings.

[avaistheone1]

137. This is not a theory. It is the official finding of U.S .government..

Please check with the National Archives.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/

[avaistheone1]

142. You are terribly misinformed TicketyBoo. Our government came to the conclusion decades ago

via the Select House Committee on Assassinations that John F. Kennedy was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy. JFK likely died as a result of a CONSPIRACY, CONSPIRACY,CONSPIRACY. That is standing record of the U.S. government and can be found in our National Archives.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/

[H2O Man]

69. Absolute clown.

[UpInArms]

95. and a plant with no profile

and hey! glad to see you here!

:grouphug:

[stopbush]

97. You're correct, but you may as well try to howl down the wind when you're dealing

with JFK CTists.

The Douglas book is yet another rehash of imagined and cherry picked "evidence" with a big healthy dose of conjecture thrown in. He embraces the myth that JFK was killed by a shot from the grassy knoll, when all scientific and forensic evidence shows that ANY shot taken from grassy knoll impacting JFK at the precise moment it does in the Zapruder film would have had to have also killed Jackie, whose head was positioned directly in the trajectory of such a shot (forget the fact that there is no exit wound on the "Jackie side" of JFK's head). Taken as a whole, Douglas' book is a major embarrassment, even for a JFK CTist.

It's sad enough we lost this man that day without having the CTists besmirching the reputations of law enforcement and those who caught the real assassin within hours of the shooting, in effect, assassinating JFK all over again while treating that SOB Oswald - the guy who did the killing all by himself - like an innocent patsy.

[avaistheone1]

131. OMG. Don't you know that the House Select Committee on Assassinations

came to the conclusion that JFK was likely assassinated as the result of a conspiracy? I amazed that are so many people who do not know our history.

I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/

[mistertrickster]

65. Thanks for the summary. It sounds interesting. I thought I had read them all

Mark Lane, the Summers', Posner . . . but this is one I'd missed.

One of the most compelling theories--all based on physical evidence--was that Oswald fired once and missed, he fired a second time and hit JFK in the throat (which would have been fatal in itself because of the shock wave to the spinal cord).

Now comes the mysterious third shot. Eyewitnesses said they "smelled smoke." The size of the entrance wound was 6 mm, but Oswald was firing 6.5mm bullets.

The theory claims that Secret Service agent Hinkey, riding on top of the back-seat seat-rest in the convertible follow car, reached down and picked up an AR-15 (M-16) and either accidently or purposely squeezed off a shot that struck the back of the president's head.

That would also explain the X-rays that clearly show tiny pieces of molten and then re-cooled copper from the jacket of a small and extremely high powered round like that of the AR-15.

[NBachers]

155. Sorry- I'm glad all this information is here, and I'm reading ALL of it

You don't have to. Don't try to stop me from accessing it.

I remember that day. It hasn't been the same since.

A review of the past, and how it happened, has a direct relation to current events and how we can prevent it from happening again.

The "Conspiracy," as you like to dismiss it, is still with us.

Heaven help us if it happens again.

[Octafish]

195. Outstanding.

Thank you for putting it into words, Peace Patriot. Please consider making it into a thread of its own.

"If this nation is to be wise as well as strong, if we are to achieve our destiny, then we need more new ideas for more wise men reading good books in more public libraries. These libraries should be open to all -- except the censor. We must know all the facts and hear all the alternatives and listen to all the criticisms. Let us welcome controversial books and controversial authors. For the Bill of Rights is the guardian of our security, as well as our liberty." -- John F. Kennedy, October 29, 1960.

[Vidar]

30. And the CIA continues to screw us over.

[pnorman]

31. I'm looking for a photo image of the below newspaper ad.

WELCOME MR. KENNEDY TO
DALLAS. . .


. . .A CITY so disgraced by a recent Liberal smear attempt that its citizens have just elected two more Conservative Americans to public office.


. . .A CITY that is an economic "boom town," not because of Federal handouts, but through conservative economic and business practices.


. . .A CITY that will continue to grow and prosper despite efforts by you and your administration to penalize it for its non-conformity to New Frontierism.


. . .A CITY that rejected your philosophy and policies in 1960 and will do so again in 1964--even more emphatically than before.


MR. KENNEDY, despite contentions on the part of your administration, the State Department, the Mayor of Dallas, the Dallas City Council, and members of your party, we free-thinking and America-thinking citizens of Dallas still have, through a Constitution largely ignored by you, the right to address our grievances, to question you, to disagree with you, and to criticize you.


In asserting this constitutional right, we wish to ask you publicly the following questions--indeed, questions of paramount importance and interest to all free peoples everywhere--which we trust you will answer. . .in public, without sophistry.

These questions are:
.
.
.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/mrkennedy.htm

pnorman
On edit: This is what I was finally able to Google:

[TicketyBoo]

39. A larger image

(1060 x 1577 pixels) can be found at this link.

Edited because I forgot that the raw link would hotlink the image itself here. Sorry.

[pnorman]

41. Limk is "broken".

I'm not sure what the problem is with "hotlinking", but could you PM the info to me? Thanks.

pnorman

[TicketyBoo]

46. Let me try it again.

Well, I guess I can hotlink it, since I've now uploaded it to my own account. It's big though.

[pnorman]

67. Thanks! I just used it.

And it came out just the right size----full screen.

pnorman

[TicketyBoo]

87. You're welcome. n/t

[pnorman]

45. Here'something that may be more suitable for my purpose:

pnorman
On edit: Here's the source for the above: http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/wantedfortreason.htm

[mistertrickster]

66. Yup. Cons have been vicious hate-mongers for a long time.

They were trolling for assassains then, and they're trolling for assassains now.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[saracat]

34. I remember being in first grade and walking home from school in NY after being let out early.

The nuns let us know "something"had happened but said our parents should tell us.People seemed sad but we didn't really notice.We were looking forward to the holidays and excited to be out early. My mother was very grave and we watched TV together.I remember my father calling his brother in California and they talked about "Jack" their friend from school. Jack was a particular friend of my Uncle.It was a big deal for my Dad to call "long distance". I didn't know "Jack" was President Kennedy till many years later.We then went and said a rosary.We were a Catholic family.My mother thought is was significant that the President was Catholic. The big question was who did it, and will they catch him? We went to Mass to pray for him but I am not sure when.Perhaps the next day. But I remember being glued to the TV set for days! I remember watching Oswald be shot, and the shock of it.It is all still so very sad.

[era veteran]

40. 3rd grade

Heard it at recess, will never forget. He accomplished much in life, more in death. RIP

[pink-o]

102. I was in the 3rd grade too.

Just a couple weeks away from my 9th b'day. (Yeah, and that does mean that 55 is coming right up!) I remember the school principle announcing it over the PA, and my teacher, a young, just married, sweet tempered woman, throwing her book across the room and sobbing on her desk. We were stunned--old enough to know this was something devastating, but something that we knew we'd not understand until years later.

Years later for me was when I was 13 in 1968, and MLK and RFK were killed within a couple months of each other. With that, and my nascent understanding of the heinous situation in Vietnam, my liberal perceptions became set in stone.

God, I worry about Obama! So many RW nutjobs, so much anger!

[laughingliberal]

118. 3rd grade here, too

Spent 3 days bawling on the couch in front of the TV set with my mother. All the images forever etched in my mind. Utterly unbelievable to realize the little boy saluting his Daddy's coffin back then has now met his own untimely death. I think the best hope for our country died that day. We struggle to resurrect his ideals but we have not yet seen them in any successors.

[pink-o]

119. Agree totally! Perfectly said. n/t

[bdamomma]

189. I was in third grade too, my mother told me I came home crying.

I still remember those drumbeats.

[Selatius]

42. Our country never really recovered from that fatal blow.

So much potential squandered. So much hope lost. A future that could have been but never was.

Truly, the America that we know of today could not exist if JFK had lived.

[peace frog]

43. Yes, absolutely

Fatal blow indeed.

[Inspired]

49. This happened on my 5th birthday.

I remember it being a very sad day.

[RagAss]

50. Lost in all of the broadcasts was this one......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpF6HwMVZUA

[TicketyBoo]

51. Cronkite

was quite clear about that being Soviet propaganda, of course.

[RagAss]

52. Of course.

[jimshoes]

54. Sitting in Sister Bernarda's

Sixth Grade class when one of our classmates (it was our job sort of to answer the phone in the next room) came back with the news the President had been shot.

[Faygo Kid]

56. In Mrs. Burgoyne's 7th grade history class

I remember every single detail of that Friday and the next three, and Thanksgiving Day the following Thursday was the quietest ever in my family.

[XanaDUer]

57. Thank you, Johnnie

JFK and his family were very special to my family. Thank you for this tribute.

[Raschel]

62. I still find it hard to believe that John Jr. is gone.

Caroline Kennedy has been through hell and has remained a very dignified woman with a lovely family.

Jackie Kennedy was a very smart woman and raised beautiful children. The smartest thing she did was to marry Onassis. She really did get away from it all.

[MindPilot]

63. Had just arrived in England a few weeks earlier

and staying at my Gran's house. I had just passed my ninth birthday. It was evening and we were finishing up dinner and watching the BBC news coverage of the shooting. The phone on the newsreader's desk rang. He answered it, hung up and delivered the announcement: "I've just been informed that the American President has died."

[spanone]

70. i remember it like it was yesterday.

[oswaldactedalone]

71. Oswald was a crazed lunatic

at the end of his rope, and searching for fame in any way he could get it. He saw the opportunity and took it. Military bullets can rip through more than two bodies and look the way the so called "pristine bullet" looked. Sorry, but Oswald acted alone.

[ailsagirl]

99. absolutely.no.way

You need to ask yourself who benefited...

http://noolmusic.com/youtube_videos/lbj_benefited_the_most_from_jfk_assassination.php

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/23rd_Issue/breakthru.html

[defendandprotect]

113. The gun alleged to have been used was said to have killed more owners than targets . . .

Oswald did not kill Kennedy --

Oswald "was employed by the CIA working on high level assignments and probably

also for the FBI" --

That was the conclusion of the Tunnheim Panel/1992 JFK Classified Records Act.

They were reporting that to Congress in secret about the time the GOP -- "the devil with the

blue dress on" was trying to impeach Clinton!!

[johnnie]

132. "searching for fame in any way he could get it."

Yet he said he was a patsy and denied shooting anybody.

[lib2DaBone]

72. Kennedy was going to end-the-Fed and bring troops home ....

..First he was swiftboated... when that didn't work.. Papa Bush and the boys made sure he was eliminated.

Just like 911....Follow the $$$$$... works every time.

[ailsagirl]

100. Yes-- in December 1963, he had plans to start bringing the

troops home from Vietnam.

And wouldn't you know-- once LBJ became president, he quietly dropped that notion.

There were so many odd things that happened-- are you familiar with Henry Marshall? Malcolm Wallace?

Here's a good video link
http://noolmusic.com/youtube_videos/lbj_benefited_the_most_from_jfk_assassination.php

From "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"
(An English program probing the assassination. It's always
the English who delve deeply into these types of matters--
Americans are too afraid)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4QkKkXYtr4
One of the episodes, "The Guilty Men," was pulled from the History Channel because it was too inflammatory about LBJ. The episode can still be found, however.

[ljm2002]

73. It was a clear, crisp autumn day...

...the sky was as blue as it could be, the trees still had a few of their leaves that had long since turned to brilliant yellows and deep oranges. I was in geometry class, and always had a habit of looking out the window, and this has always been my favorite time of year, as it was even then...

...the teacher with his crewcut and piercing blue eyes was going over one of Euclid's proofs, when the announcement came over the loudspeaker that President Kennedy had been shot. To my astonishment, some of my classmates were gleeful, no doubt parroting the political stance of their parents...

...my family put candles in our windows, that day and all through until the funeral. I'll never forget how we felt, John-John saluting his fallen father, Caroline maintaining her composure, and Jackie's stunning grace in the face of this tragedy, as she walked in the procession, wearing a black veil; and the horses, adding to the grave atmosphere...

...and how can I forget watching the black and white television, as Jack Ruby came up and gut-shot Oswald, right there on live TV...

Yes JFK's assassination was a blow from which the nation has not recovered. The fascists took over on that day, covertly, and they have been pulling the strings ever since. It is most evident now with the fascist media, whose noxious narrative pervades our society and passes for "truth", as they lie about everything, large and small. They lie thoughtfully and with malice, to further their own aims; and they also lie carelessly, merely because they can.

I think of what might have been, and I weep, seeing what we have become.

[johnnie]

74. Good post

Thanks

[ailsagirl]

75. It's hard to believe it's been so long

I still think about him and wonder what the world
would be like had the powers-that-be had allowed
him to live-- he didn't even get to finish out his
first term.

And notice the tendency of the media not to say much
about it-- one of the most critical events of the
20th century.

Rest in peace, dear Jack

[DemBones DemBones]

78. The media has downplayed November 22 in recent years

and I've wondered why. Is it because they're all too young to remember? Surely the decision makers aren't too young even though the talking heads usually are.

We still remember D-Day, though, and even fewer people now living remember that.

[ailsagirl]

98. They've played it down, specifically, to blot JFK

from our national consciousness.

Bastards :puke: :grr: :mad:

He has not been forgotten:

ABC News Poll - #2 (after Lincoln)
Rasmussen - #6
Washington College - #4
Gallup Poll - #3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents#General_findings

[DemBones DemBones]

157. History channel was doing HITLER today. Odd choice, no?

[defendandprotect]

114. Why do they downplay "Earth Day" . . . because they're too young to remember?

They do what they're told by corporate-press elites --

Earth Day is just as inconvenient for them as JFK memories -- or JFK investigations.

Remember also that Discovery Channel which did so much work on this to let the American

public know what went down was brought down and now owned by CLEAR CHANNEL!!!

There was some lame program on last night -- junk -- and all of the stuff now is simply

right wing coverup of the coup.

[Octafish]

201. Once we're gone, ''They'' think they will have won.

"They will be wrong, again.

"You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea." -- Medgar Evers

[SeattleGirl]

81. That day is permanently etched in my mind.

I was in Mrs. White's 3rd grade class. She was wearing a flower-printed dress, and had the beehive hairdo that was popular then. One of the other teachers, an older woman, came in and whispered something in Mrs. White's ear. She was crying, and when she told Mrs. White, she started crying too.

Mrs. White told us we were excused from school for the rest of the day, but didn't tell us why. As we were walking down the hall, we passed the school office, which had glass windows. We could see the people in the office, and they were crying. I remember feeling scared and confused, because no one told us what had happened, but the adults were obviously upset.

They brought the buses in to take us home. It wasn't until I got home that I found out that the President had been shot. And like so many other people, we spent the next 4 days in front of the television set, watching everything happen.

I was only 8 years old, but I knew that what had happened was so horribly wrong, and I knew that something important had died that day, along with the President.

[Faygo Kid]

83. Amazing memories for an 8 year old. I was 12, and every detail is etched in my mind.

I won't go into the memories of that day and the next three, except to say that they are more vivid today than my memories of 9/11. Seriously. Every detail of that era would be a foggy blur without Nov. 22, 1963, and what happened afterward. I remember where I sat in the classroom, what the teacher looked like (and her tears), where the speaker was on the wall while the principal announced it, and on and on.

Nothing quite so vivid since, although I remember precisely the moments for MLK, Bobby, Challenger, Elvis and other events.

[kixat2550]

85. RIP JFK

[Shagbark Hickory]

86. Changed my mind about posting a comment. nevermind

-

[ddeclue]

89. Local PBS station is running Kennedy miniseries from the 1980's with Martin Sheen as JFK.

[scarletwoman]

91. A nation traumatized, a breaking of trust, a light snuffed out.

Eight days before 11-22-63 I had just turned 14. The memory of that day, and the days that followed, are burnt into my mind for life, like the after-image that lingers behind the eyelids after a sudden flash. This after-image never fades, will never go away.

It was like a dark hand had suddenly reached out of the shadows, tearing a hole through the fabric our collective sense of how the world was ordered. A rip in reality.

I will never see it as less than a fatal turning point for our country. The shadows have grown stronger and deeper ever since.

sw

[defendandprotect]

130. Agree with you and more traumatic to have not seen anything done about this

in so many, many years --

The private investigators have broken thru, of course. We have pretty accurate info

on the who and what of it all --

But no one has the power to bring the truth forward.

We also have to remember that it was not simply a coup on JFK -- it was a coup on a

"people's" government --

And an event staged to bring about a reversal in the fortunes of the many -- in order

to enrich the few.

[omega minimo]

92. http://www.thomhartmann.com

[defendandprotect]

115. Hartmann has some ...

distorted views/info on the JFK coup --

[omega minimo]

120. Hartmann has done the research.

What do you find distorted?

[defendandprotect]

125. Hartmann ignores involvement of elites -- government officials . ..

and as I recall dwells on Mafia?

Is that correct -- ??

Then, that would be a distorted view --

CIA controls Mafia; not the other way around.

[omega minimo]

144. Last week he had a segment on this

interviewed his writing partner on the radio, they have a new book out, addressed the questions you raise. You might be interested. Check the website or if you want I'll see if I can pinpoint the day/time of that segment.

[defendandprotect]

175. That's what I was addressing . . . the conclusions in his new book . . .

No -- I'm not interested if he is suggesting that the Mafia did this --

CIA controls the Mafia -- and many elites were involved --

I rarely listen to Hartmann -- only if I absolutely have to.

[omega minimo]

145. ,

[defendandprotect]

103. That day fascism came off the starting blocks in America - into the open . . .

Jack Ruby talked about that -- fascists and Nazis

John Mitchell told us that this country was going to move so "far to the right
that it would make our heads spin" . . .

Martha Mitchell talked about it -- fascists and Nazis

And many others who tried to tell the truth - witnesses -- were killed.

Many hugely courageous in speaking out, believing that somewhere they would be listened to.

[pitchforksandtorches]

105. If you look real close you can see Geo. H. W. Bush

the motherfucker was there that day but won't admit it.

[lib2DaBone]

111. He WAS there that day.. suposedly giving a talk to a covention of Pepsi Representatives..

[defendandprotect]

116. I think Madelaine Brown's videos on YouTube contain probably some of

the best information on the JFK coup --

Also would recommend High Treason I -- and High Treason II by Livingstone

And Jim Marrs Crossfire --

they both hold up well

Also--Oliver Stone's JFK --

[defendandprotect]

117. JFK was moving us toward peace and many didn't like it --

at the same time we had Pope John XXIII turning the RCC into a democracy --

and Kruschev helping -- a trio for peace --

They were all quickly disappeared --

[AzNick]

123. What bothers me is the whole shroud of secrecy around it

I am not a conspiracy nut, but there is not a doubt in my mind LHO did not kill Kennedy and was just a fall guy.

Hopefully we will know the truth eventually...

(Not holding my breath).

[stopbush]

126. We know the truth - LHO killed JFK.

There's no secrecy at this point. All of the scientific evidence proves beyond any doubt that Oswald did it and acted alone. All of the evidence from the WC was released years ago.

We know the truth. The fact that you and so many others won't ACCEPT the truth says everything about you and nothing about the evidence in the case. Willful ignorance posing as concern means nothing.

BTW - your terming that SOB Oswald "a fall guy" turns my stomach. HE'S THE ONE WHO DID THE KILLING, ALL BY HIMSELF! No CIA, no mob, no SS. It was him and him alone. The case is closed, closed by the overwhelming evidence that was gathered through great police work and proven out through the scientific method.

I suggest you read the book on the JFK killing written by the guy pictured to the left in this post. You'll learn the truth there, if you have the guts to learn it.

[johnnie]

138. Science proves it COULD have happened

That is a far cry from proving the truth.

[AzNick]

184. Science does not explain the head shot from the left, at level

When Oswald was on the right, at a 45 degree angle, except that someone else pulled the trigger.

That's it. You can stop there. Everything else: the slowing down of the car, the car being an open top, the ridiculously small secret service detail, Oswald being a "communist", Oswald conveniently and allegedly using a somewhat exotic caliber, Oswald killed by Ruby, and so on, and so forth, none of this matters.

Ballistics proved the head shot was not from Oswald.

[stopbush]

193. What you have written is bunk. Pure ignorance of the science and facts in the case.

There were no shots fired from the left of JFK. What source do you have that proposes such a stupidity?

There was nothing at all exotic about the caliber bullet used by LHO.

As far as the angle of the head shot, the WCR found:

it was determined that President Kennedy was shot in the head when he was 230.8 feet from a point on the west curbline on Houston Street where it intersected with Elm Street. The President was 265.3 feet from the rifle in the sixth-floor window and at that position the approximate angle of declination was 15°21'. - Source, WCR, pg. 110

15º 21'. Where you get 45º is anyone's guess. I guess you just now made it up.

You're making shit up and providing excuses for that SOB Oswald who did the shooting all by his lonesome.

[AzNick]

196. 6.5mm IS an exotic caliber

Not as exotic as a Russian caliber (back in the 60s that is) or a WWI caliber, but still very exotic in the US (223, 308, 30.06 were and still are a lot more popular for marksmanship and sharpshooting).

And I know, there is much controversy about the angle of the impact of the bullet that hit his head and there would still be plenty of disagreement was it not for the Zapruder film, which clearly shows the bullet either entering from the front or the rear (in my mind it was the front) at an angle below 10 degrees.

The projection of blood and gray matter to the front seems to be beveling effect, but it could be otherwise. Parts of his brains and skull was projected towards the rear, and that's what poor Jackie crawled to retrieve.

If anything, if it came from the rear, it was coming from under (hence the drain pipe theory, which some find laughable but was proven to be very plausible by an inspection of the drain pipe and the tunnel that led to it, which exited behind the premises, far from the commotion).

Not a doubt in my mind Oswald did not shoot Kennedy or at least was not alone and did not shoot the fatal hit.

You are convinced Oswald did it, I am convinced of the opposite, I guess we won't convince each other...

The fact that Ruby was instructed to go kill Oswald is proof that there was a conspiracy.

[stopbush]

202. All of the facts in the case prove Oswald was the shooter.

All of the evidence shows that the head shot came from the rear. You mention beveling. Surely you are aware that the entrance wound to the back of JFK's skull was beveled from the back (exterior) of the skull to the front of the back (interior) wall of the skull. That means the size of the entrance wound GREW as the bullet passed through the skull, which can only mean one thing: the shot entered from the rear.

The spray pattern of the brain material exiting JFK's head shows the vast majority of the material moving FORWARD of his head. That can only mean that the material was being blown forward from a bullet entering the rear. Yes, there was material that also moved to the rear. That is normal. Tests done on dummies constructed to duplicate JFK's head show the exact same dispersal of material from a rear shot. What is important is that the vast majority of the material exited forward.

Contrary to what you aver, based on the bullet impact seen in Frame 313, the ZF shows the bullet entering JFK's skull from ABOVE, not below. Also, the change in the position of JFK's head from frame 312 to 313 shows he head moving glaringly FORWARD as the bullet impacts from the rear.

The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming in this case. As has been said many times, this was a very SIMPLE murder case that has been blown out of proportion by the celebrity of the victim and the inability of the CTists to accept scientific fact as an answer.

BTW - it really offends the truth when CTists like you throw around the word "fact" like it had no meaning. There is no "fact" established that Ruby was "instructed to go kill Oswald." Ruby never averred any such thing. The evidence shows no such thing. Anybody making such a statement displays a glaring ignorance of the facts and circumstances surrounding that killing. I suggest you study the WCR and the timeline they established for how that incident went down.

If you are "convinced" that Oswald was innocent and that there was some grand conspiracy at play, then all I can say is that you must be a cheap date.

Finally - as far as the bullet being an "exotic" caliber: this is a typical CTist's ploy to hang a nefarious suspicion around the neck of the facts. The FACT is that Oswald purchased a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. We have the retailer's invoice of the sale to Oswald and the receipt for the delivery of the rifle to Oswald's PO Box. We have pictures (yes, multiple pictures) of him posing with the rifle pre-assassination. There is no doubt whatsoever that the rifle was Oswald's rifle.

And that means that Oswald HAD TO USE the caliber bullet that was intended to be used in that particular weapon, and THAT was a 6.5 caliber bullet. Bullets of a different caliber would not work in this weapon! What is so exotic about buying the ammunition REQUIRED for any particular weapon? What options did Oswald have as far as purchasing ammo for the weapon? Could he have purchased a "less exotic" 8-mm round and have expected it to work in the weapon he purchased? If you buy a car, that car requires a tire of a certain size. If you've purchased a car that requires an "exotic size tire," well, that's just the way it is. Your options are limited once you've purchased the car. Same with Oswald's rifle. Once he purchased the rifle, he was locked into buying 6.5mm ammo, exotic or not. Simple, no?

If by "exotic" you mean the ammo was difficult to find, that is also false. The rounds fired by Oswald were purchased from the Western Cartridge Company, an American company and a branch of Winchester. The WCR reported that the ammo was currently in production at the time of the shooting. After the assassination, over 900 rounds of this ammo were test fired from Oswald's MC without a single misfire. These rounds were all pulled from the same ammo lots as were the bullets purchased by Oswald. Obviously, this "exotic caliber" ammo was quite plentiful in 1963.

We know that the bullets that hit JFK & Connally came from Oswald's weapon. Tests on the Parkland stretcher bullet (ie: the misnamed "magic" bullet) matched it to the rifling in Oswald's MC to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. The metallurgy tests done to the bullet fragments found in the limo (ie: fragments from the head shot) matched the metallurgy of the "magic" bullet. These were the same Western Cartridge Company rounds as purchased by LHO.

Now, you can allege that the stretcher bullet was a plant. You can even aver that it was fired from LHO's rifle before the assassination to be later planted at Parkland. But to do so involves stretches of logic that are laughable. It assumes that multiple shooters must have all used Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, and that every one of them had the same rifling pattern as did Oswald's rifle (an impossibility). It posits that with multiple shooters firing at JFK, that somehow NOT A SINGLE ROUND has ever been recovered that was fired by a weapon other than Oswald's. It assumes that the conspirators knew to plant a round from Oswald's rifle within an hour of the shooting, which means that they would have had to have known that every other shooter had missed the target. it also assumes that any of these missed shots from other shooters would never be recovered from Dealey Plaza, the limo or any other innocent victims who were in DP that day. It assumes that the conspirators planting the stretcher bullet KNEW that no other bullets were lodged in either JFK or Connally from any other weapons or from Oswald's weapon. It assumes this at a time when the Parkland doctors hadn't even bothered to turn over JFK and hadn't discovered the entry wound to the back of his head. It assumes that with 85% of Dealey Plaza ear witnesses saying that they heard 3 shots fired that this planted bullet wouldn't constitute a 4th or even 5th bullet.

What if there were multiple shooters and Oswald had been the shooter that missed? What if there was a bullet lodged in JFK that came from a shooter other than Oswald? In such a case, planting a bullet from Oswald's rifle would CONFIRM A CONSPIRACY, rather than hanging the killing solely on LHO's neck.

In other words, it assumes that the conspirators had an omniscience about the shooting and about what had happened and what had not happened within an hour of the shooting that would challenge the omniscience of almighty god (if almighty god existed).

And THIS is the kind of thing that convinces you that it was a conspiracy and that that SOB Oswald was an innocent?

Like most CTists, your lack of knowledge about the facts in the case are exceeded only by your inability to take even one step past whatever aspect of the CT craziness you're embracing, and to THINK what the accusation actually means if one considers the ramifications of the accusation even a pubic hair past the accusation itself.

[stopbush]

187. And on the other side of the ledger, the CT's have no scientific proof at all.

Yet, you poo-poo the science that backs the conclusions of the WCR. Why? Are you even familiar with the actual evidence, or do you depend on Oliver Stone for such things?

[avaistheone1]

139. WRONG!!! The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that JFK likely died as the result

of a conspiracy. That is the official record of the U.S. government on the JFK assasination and it can be found in our National Archives.

I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/

[stopbush]

154. Yes, they made that decision based ENTIRELY on the FALSE belief

that the dictabelt tape recording of a fourth shot was made from the open mike on HD McLain's motorcycle, and that his motorcycle was within an 11-foot radius circle at the turn from Houston onto Elm. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

You need to keep current. The HSCA 4th shot has been long debunked. Even Wiki has a decent recap of what the evidence has shown since the HSCA made their bone-headed "finding":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy

BTW - G Robert Blakey - the head investigator for the HSCA and a major believer in the 4th shot - said that if it could be proven that McLain was not in the 11-foot circle at Houston and Elm at the time the shot was supposedly recorded, then the whole dictabelt evidence falls apart. It has now been proven conclusively that McLain was not in that circle, yet Blakey has still not admitted that he and the HSCA were wrong as could be about this hoax. Talk about participating in an attempted cover-up of evidence by willingly ignoring the truth!

Further BTW: At the time, the Justice Department asked the National Academy of Sciences to review this "evidence." A panel of scientists headed by Dr. Norman Ramsey issued a report in 1982 which determined that there was no compelling evidence for gunshots on the recording and that the HSCA's suspect impulses were recorded about a minute after the shooting happened.

I find it amusing that those who rail against the evidence presented by the WCR and who aver that agencies within our government plotted to kill JFK turn to the HSCA to support their conspiracy theories, calling it an "official record of the US government on the JFK assassination." Well, then what's wrong with the WCR? it's also an "official record" of the US government, is it not.

[AzNick]

183. I too am a marksman

LHO was a marksman as well, but not a sharpshooter. There is a huge difference. He did not have impressive shooting skills, but could have pulled it off. The rifle is much better than what people like to say, often making insulting comments about the Italian gun industry.

But the only way this can be done by a shooter in this position was if it had been rehearsed several times, in the same conditions. He had 3 bullets on target (if by target you mean the car) and a head shot. The probabilities of Oswald being the shooter are very slim at best.

They also slowed down the car to the point it was ridiculously slow and had JFK ride an open top. At thing point, it's obvious there was a conspiracy.

Also one of the infamous shot to the head was from a projectile coming from the front left side of the vehicle. It could come from the sixth floor of a building to the left.

I am 40 years old and have been fascinated by the case since I was 10.

Don't get me started.

[stopbush]

186. Oswald qualified as a SHARPSHOOTER during his first USMC test.

That fact is well established and is reported on at some length in the WCR. He hit a target at 200 yds to 98% accuracy.

In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship. During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger. He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course. After familiarization with live ammunition in the .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.

Following that training, Oswald was tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a "sharpshooter" in a scale of marksman--sharpshooter--expert. In May of 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a "marksman." The Marine Corps records maintained on Oswald further show that he had fired and was familiar with the Browning Automatic rifle, .45 caliber pistol, and 12-gage riot gun. - Source, WCR, pg 191

The kill shot to JFK's head was from a distance of 88 yds, well within LHO's abilities. The USMC testified to the difficulty of the shots made by Oswald:

Four marksmanship experts testified before the Commission. Maj. Eugene D. Anderson, assistant head of the Marksmanship Branch of the U.S. Marine Corps, testified that the shots which struck the President in the neck and in the head were "not ... particularly difficult." Robert A. Frazier, FBI expert in firearms identification and training, said: "From my own experience in shooting over the years, when you shoot at 175 feet or 260 feet, which is less than 100 yards, with a telescopic sight, you should not have any difficulty in hitting your target. I mean it requires no training at all to shoot a weapon with a telescopic sight once you know that you must put the crosshairs on the target and that is all that is necessary." - Source, WCR, pg 190

Representatives from the USMC testified to the WC that Oswald was a "better than average shot.":

Major Anderson concluded:
"I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better than or equal to--better than the average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot."

When Sergeant Zahm was asked whether Oswald's Marine Corps training would have made it easier to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, he replied:
"Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds."

After reviewing Oswald's marksmanship scores, Sergeant Zahm concluded: "I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot." - Source, WCR, pg 192

Oswald scored as a Marksman on the shooting he test he took right before he left the USMC. Why conspiracy theorists cite this lower score and ignore his ability as a sharpshooter escape logic.

More important, Oswald practiced his shooting after he left the USMC. He joined a shooting club in Minsk and went hunting with his brother and others when he returned to the USA. Marina testified that he also took shooting practice.

As far as "rehearsing" the assassination, LHO did just that - look up the tale of LHO's attempt on the life of Gen. Walker.

The Zapruder film shows that LHO had 8.5 seconds to make his three shots. The clock starts running when he takes that first shot as the first round was already chambered. That means that LHO had almost the full 8.5 seconds available to him to chamber and fire the final two shots. Shooters hired by the WC to duplicate LHO's feat were able to fire the 3 shots WITH ACCURACY in as little as 4.4 seconds.

So, you're "40 years old and have been fascinated by the case since I was 10." Yet in that 30 years, you haven't been fascinated enough to read the WCR and to avoid making yourself look stupid by saying that Oswald was a poor shot and wasn't a sharpshooter. Maybe you don't want to know that LHO scored higher than did you.

[johnnie]

207. Here is a guy who knew him

He says Oswald sucked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKZbSUm2eFY&feature=related

Can you disprove him?

[stopbush]

208. Give me a break. You'll take anecdotal hearsay put forward after the fact

by a jerk with an ax to grind (and money to be made) to support a crazed CT over hard evidence, and lots of it.

The USMC records speak for themselves. They have the power of scoring Oswald's shooting abilities dispassionately, ie: when he was just an unexceptional cog in the wheel. No axes to grind, no assassination theories to advance pro or con, no looking at Oswald through the prism of history and the sudden notoriety Oswald gained by killing JFK, just the normal evaluation process and rating system that was applied to every other Marine during that time. That process rated Oswald as a sharpshooter. Case closed.

Or, perhaps you believe the plot to kill JFK started back in 1956 when JFK was a Senator, and the USMC got busy falsifying Oswald's shooting records to cover up the fact that "he sucked," thereby providing yet another excuse to hang the assassin moniker on poor, innocent Oswald 7 years in the future. Is that your story?

I don't have to disprove him. The entire record disproves him, most significantly in the fact that Oswald was a good enough shooter to have killed the president. It's hard to argue with proof like that, isn't it?

It's really pathetic to watch you guys grasping at straws. Your hatred of science and the scientific method that was used to gather and evaluate the evidence in this case gives the creationists a run for their money. What I can't understand is how and why you feel such compassion for Oswald, the SOB who did the killing, while simultaneously blaming everyone and anyone else who had nothing at all to do with it.

Like I said, pathetic, to which I would add, childish.

[johnnie]

210. Where is this "science"?

That one tv show that was on Discovery or whatever it was. Someone's book? Have you done the science or are you easily led to believe anyone who claims they have "scientific proof"?

"It's really pathetic to watch you guys grasping at straws."

No, what is really pathetic is someone who doesn't have anything else in life to do than to be obsessed with the JFK assassination.

[stopbush]

211. The science would be the forensic evidence gathered, including the

autopsy report, ballistics tests etc. You know, the normal and usual science that the civilized world employs to establish facts in a murder case. The Warren Commission Report is absolutely littered with the science that led them to their conclusions.

Of course, you have never bothered to read the WCR, so you wouldn't know that. You'll just have to take my word for it. Or, maybe you owe it to the memory of JFK to quit the BS and read the summary report of the WC, at least once. It's right here: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/ if you care to read it. You'll be astounded to learn how little you know about the Report that you so easily criticize. What have you got to do over the holiday weekend that's more important than getting a handle on the basic facts of the case?

BTW - I'm hardly obsessed with the JFK killing. I'm just one of the few DUers who takes the bit of time needed to shoot down the ridiculous fantasies of the CT crowd. This post took under a minute (plus a bit more on edit).

When AzNik writes above, "LHO was a marksman as well, but not a sharpshooter," are we all to let that obvious falsehood stand with nary a peep? I thought that's what the republicans did when urban legends were trotted out as facts. I expect better from people supposedly interested in the truth.

I feel that I owe it to DU and the memory of JFK to present the truth when the science deniers get on their childish soapboxes. If you prefer the myths surrounding the JFK shooting to the facts, then I can't help you. Besides, in a week or so, the JFK killing anniversary will pass and you can move on to believing in some other urban legend, like the War on Christmas.

[johnnie]

212. Actually, I have a copy of the report, but admit I never read the whole thing.

If you want to believe what they tell you to believe then go ahead, no skin off my nose. There were many people that were there and saw things differently than the WCR says happened. People standing 12 feet away that saw and heard things differently. Of course you will just say that they are full of shit and the politicians that got together to prove a theory they already had is much more reliable.

By the way, science isn't as far as it will ever be. New science is turning up all the time so it is wise to have an open mind instead of putting down people who have the ability to look beyond science from the mid 60s.

[stopbush]

213. You have a good point about new science turning up all the time.

In the case of the JFK killing, all of the new science supports the WCR findings. Funny how facts are biased that way. Amazing how the conclusions reached by the WC using science from the mid-1960s have stood the test of time, nay, that have been reinforced with even greater detail and nuance by the new science that has emerged.

Of course, the HSCA also found itself in agreement with the WC in the mid 70s, until a bit of "new science" was introduced at the 11th hour that convinced the HSCA that a 4th shot was fired. That new science has since been overwhelmingly disproved, yet people still cling to the HSCA finding of a conspiracy. Even G Robert Blakey - chief investigator for the HSCA - said that if it could be shown that HD McLain's motorcycle was not in an 11-ft radius circle at the corner of Houston & Elm to record that supposed 4th shot, that the "new science" of the dictabelt recording would fall apart. Well, it has been proven to a certainty that McLain was more than 100ft behind that spot at the time, but that hasn't led Mr Blakey to recant his support for the 4th bullet theory. I only mention the HSCA to remind you that the science used to investigate the JFK killing has not been limited to that which was available in the 60s. I'm all for any and all new science being applied to the EVIDENCE in this case, but that's a different position than CTists hoping that science will some day give weight to the FANTASIES they spout. it's a bit like the religionists jumping on some scientific finding to support their faith-based belief system. Besides, the CTists never embrace the new science on the JFK killing. They just view it as a more-sophisticated addition to an ongoing cover up.

As far as "many people seeing things differently" - well, you're certainly correct there, but then we're into the realm of eyewitness evidence, and eyewitnesses are not as reliable as forensic evidence, which is why forensic evidence trumps eyewitness evidence in a court of law. But even if we were to stipulate that eyewitness evidence is important, and that it is important in the JFK killing, then we're still stuck with the fact that 77% of the ear witnesses in Dealey Plaza that day heard THREE SHOTS, and that fully 54% said that the shots came from the TSBD, while only 34% said they came from the grassy knoll. Even from the perspective of "people seeing things differently" the numbers are on the side of the WCR (which is why they reached the conclusions they did).

It would seem that having an open mind and being able to look beyond the science from the 60s hasn't changed your mind, nor your ability to separate fact from myth in this instance.

You admit you own the WCR but haven't read the whole thing. I guess that explains your contention that there's no scientific basis for the conclusions reached by the WC. Explains it, doesn't excuse it.

[johnnie]

215. Ok, you know everything about it

With the exception of the Warren report, where did you find your information? I would seriously like to know. And please don't tell me to read Bugliosi's book. He was the one who came up with that nonsense he called Helter Skelter. I don't take anything away from him as a prosecutor, but he is a goofball.

I don't know who killed JFK, but I haven't seen enough evidence to say LHO did it alone. I will agree that there are a lot of nutty theories out there, but I find it hard to believe that so many people have had so many different experiences disproving the "official story" that they are all bullshitting.

How do you explain the people who saw different head wounds, different caskets, different people shoot Tippet, heard shots from other places? How about he people who testified they knew Oswald at certain times but documents show Oswald in a different place at those times.

I was watching a show on National Geographic tv the other night and it was nothing but film footage of those few days. In the Tippet part they showed a cop holding a revolver and the newsman was saying that it is believed to be the gun that shot the officer. How do you explain that? It was footage from that day. That is just one small detail that makes me wonder what really happened.

[stopbush]

217. I would say that you would know more facts about this case or ANY case

if you would take with a huge grain of salt any statements made by anybody in the heat of the moment.

You ask: "How do you explain the people who saw different head wounds, different caskets, different people shoot Tippet, heard shots from other places?" It's simple - some people make honest mistakes, and some people just make shit up.

Specifically, CTists go on and on about what the emergency staff at Parkland "saw" when they were working on JFK. Yet the fact is that none of these people ever turned JFK over to see that there was an entrance wound on the back of his head. These people weren't trained pathologists, let alone people whose job and responsibility it was to do a forensic examination and an autopsy to determine the facts in the case. Their only job that day was to tend to JFK. And the FACT is that there was in no way unanimity among the doctors at Parkland as to what they thought they saw. That just happens to be NORMAL. That's why there are autopsies - to arrive at the truth, irrespective of what eyewitnesses thought they saw/heard.

Did you happen to know that research has shown that competent ER doctors misidentify bullet entry and exit wounds 52% of the time? It's a fact. Look it up. Yet you along with other CTists say that we're supposed to take the fleeting observations of ER personnel as if they are the absolute truth. And this in a day and age where we wouldn't accept as absolute truth a real-time, heightened anxiety situation, eye-witness call of your typical NFL ref in a run-of-the-mill football game. We demand an instant reply from 10 different angles to believe the right call is being made in a sporting event, yet the JFK CTists absolutely discount the equivalent of the instant replay - ie: the forensic evidence - when it comes to who killed JFK. You don't find that strange?

You write, "I was watching a show on National Geographic tv the other night and it was nothing but film footage of those few days. In the Tippet part they showed a cop holding a revolver and the newsman was saying that it is believed to be the gun that shot the officer. How do you explain that? It was footage from that day." Indeed, it was footage from that day. But why do you find it to be so mysterious (or nefarious) that a cop could make a mistake in thinking he had recovered the weapon that was used to kill Officer Tippet? Had the bullets been recovered from Tippet's body by that time? Had said bullets been scientifically processed and matched to a murder weapon? Had ballistic tests been done on the revolver in question to determine if it matched the rifling patterns found on the recovered rounds? I'm going to go ahead and guess that the answer to all of the above is a resounding "no." That's the simple, logical explanation - the officer was SPECULATING that this was the gun Oswald used to kill Tippet.

I really don't see what's so hard about that.

You ask where I found my information with the exception of the Warren Commission. In the main, I am in the same cart as is anyone who researches the JFK assassination, whether pro or con the CTs, and that is to say that every one of us is dependent on the information provided by the WC and the HSCA. They are the ONLY agencies that have ever been allowed to look at, touch and examine the physical evidence in the case. They are the people who performed the autopsy. Every conspiracy theorist out there is just as dependent on information provided by the WC as is Vince Bugliosi or Gerald Posner, or any one else who concludes that Oswald was the killer and that he acted alone.

The only difference is that the people who push the conspiracy angle cherry pick and ignore reams and reams of information from the WCR to advance their theories. This ignoring of the facts bleeds into the minds of people like johnnie, who also ignore the evidence.

So, we have a person in this thread parroting the commonly held CTist belief that Oswald was a poor shot and that he barely qualified as a marksman, and that the shots fired from the TSBD were of incredible difficulty. Some even aver that no one has ever duplicated these shots.

Yet, if one looks at the testimony and evidence presented in the WCR, one sees that Oswald was classified as a sharpshooter by the USMC in 1956; that representatives from the USMC testified that he was an above average shot when compared to other Marines, and an excellent shot when compared to civilians; that the shots taken at the president weren't particularly difficult; and that numerous shooters employed by the WC were able to not only duplicate Oswald's feat but to better it by half.

[kskiska]

185. Also, Oswald's brother has no doubt

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/interviews/oswald.html

[LLStarks]

141. 3 spent shells and a rifle at Oswald's perch is hard to ignore. The Warren Comm isn't gospel though.

[avaistheone1]

143. The Warren Commission's conclusions were disproved by the House Select Committee on Assassinations

I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/


BTW This would not be the first time the CIA/FBI or the Mob have planted false evidence like spent shells, now would it? Also keep in mind the paraffin test proved Oswald had not fired a rifle.

[stopbush]

156. Paraffin tests are BS, and the FBI knew that at the time of the shooting.

That said, the paraffin tests on BOTH of Oswald's HANDS came back POSITIVE. That only proves he had something on his hands that the tests reacted to. It doesn't prove he shot the rifle or the pistol (there's other proof for that, overwhelming proof).

The test done on his CHEEK came back NEGATIVE. There's a simple explanation for this: the firing chamber on LHO's rifle (ie: the area of the gun nearest his cheek) was SEALED, and no gun powder escaped from it when he fired. Testing someone's cheek with a paraffin test is more of a waste of time than checking their hands.

You're trying to exonerate Oswald by saying the paraffin test was negative on his cheek. You fail to admit that they came back positive on both hands.

The REAL issue is that paraffin tests were BS. They were used for one purpose only: to intimidate suspects into making confessions, the same way lie detector tests are unreliable but are used to intimidate people into confessing to things.

Bottom line: the paraffin tests didn't PROVE or disprove anything, whether they came back positive on Oswald's hands or negative on his cheek.

[defendandprotect]

173. Yes . . . all neatly arranged . .. including the shells lined up!!

Also the "nest" --

The rifle was also notorious for killing its owners rather than targets!!

And a comedian who visited the 6th floor book depository pointed out, any shooter

would have had to have hung out of the window by his knees in order to actually

fire on JFK.

Further, there is no "magic bullet" --

The wound in JFK's throat had "no outlet" as per the autopsy report --

therefore, it was a wound of entry.

The wound in JFK's back was actually in his right rear should blade --

and it was also a wound with "no outlet" according to the autopsy report

where it was repeatedly probed with instruments and fingers.

THAT wound was made at a 45 degree downward angle!!!

Now, put that on paper, and see where you come up with a "magic bullet" --


For more reliable info try JFK movie --

High Treason I and High Treason II by Livingstone -- probably at your library

Crossfire by Jim Marrs -- also probably at your library.

[kurtzapril4]

147. 46 years ago in Dallas...

I was 4 years old. We lived in Covington, KY, at that time.

I was in my play-pen. Me and my mom were watching horse racing on the TV. They broke in with the news. Mom started crying and shut off the TV. I was bewildered, LOL!

My mom revered JFK foreverafter! She made me take his portrait to many show-and-tells, LOL! As I got older, and learned more about him, I didn't revere him so much.

Now when RFK was assasinated a few years later..THAT was a different story for me. The birth of a cynic.

[Historic NY]

153. Never forget there are factions today that promote the same violence...

We lost our innocence that day. I remember, I never forget.

[JDPriestly]

162. In my gut, I have never believed the official explanation.

The various conspiracy theories about it may be wrong. Hard for me to say which one might be "right."

But I am reading a book which has persuaded me more than ever that we cannot simply reject conspiracy theories because they are complex and involve a lot of people or appear impossible to carry out.

The book is entitled "Espionage" and was written by Ernest Volkman. It contains a series of simply written accounts of various true stories about espionage. It is not particularly dramatic, just simple and written in a matter-of-fact style. It describes case after case in which intelligence was gathered, codes were broken, events were planned and executed by groups of well-organized people sometimes not all that small carrying out their missions in silence and secrecy.

We probably could not have won WWII had we not been capable of complex conspiracies. Thus, now, in addition to the unsettled feeling in my gut about the Kennedy assassination, I am convinced that the same organizations that broke codes and fooled the Germans in WWII could have organized a coup against our own government. I hate to say that. But history shows that conspiracies do succeed and are not all that rare.

Here are a couple of examples:

HARRY WILLIAMSON, parachuted into Britain in 1940 as Wulf Schmidt to spy for Germany in the run up to the expected invasion. He was rapidly rumbled and spared the noose after being “turned” by MI5. For the next five years he fed false information to his controllers in Hamburg . The Danish-born double agent so impressed the Nazi authorities that he was made a naturalised German by radio and awarded the Iron Cross First and Second Class in absentia.

To his British spy chiefs Schmidt was known simply as “Tate” - he was thought to resemble the music-ball comic, Harry Tate. His value to Britain as a master deceiver was incalculable. He set false scents and traps for U-boats and misled the enemy to expect heavy D-Day assault across •the Straits of Dover on the Pas de Calais. . . . .

http://www.oldwillingham.com/History/Spy/Tate_Spy.htm


Here is another fascinating story of espionage and deception by conspirators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Sebold

Of course, we know about these cases because the men who spied for the Allies are our heroes. But think of the secrecy and organization -- the conspiracies -- that made these men successful.

The Volkman book tells more details of these stories and many other such true tales of conspiracies.

[stopbush]

214. Like you, I never believed the official story in my gut.

Then, I realized that my "gut" was being influenced by things that a whole bunch of conspiracy buffs were saying.

At that point, I thought that it might be better to chuck my gut feeling and to use my own mind: which led me to read the WCR and many books on the assassination, including Bugliosi's Reclaiming History.

That intellectual exercise has won out over my gut feeling over the years. How could it not? The facts in the case are cold, dispassionate and sad: an American president was felled by a lone and insignificant SOB looking to make his mark in history. That fact is much harder to deal with than believing what I wanted to believe - the fantasy that there was some grand conspiracy involved to bring down JFK. But based on the facts, believe it I must.

[Mimosa]

168. Another rec: James Douglass' book, "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died And Why It Matters"

The answers are there. Many have been available for years. Douglass brought older info together with newer research. Very readable style, deserves a Pulitzer IMO.

[defendandprotect]

174. Thanks for the recommendation . ..

my library doesn't have this --

and I was in Barnes and Nobles recently looking to see what was new given the

upcoming anniversary and I looked for it there and didn't see it --

It is fairly new, isn't it?

Meanwhile, can you give us an idea of what Douglass concludes?

[Mimosa]

204. Defend and Protect, here's a link...

Defend and Protect, I'm can't synopsise the content of a great book as well as some excellent Amazon reviewers. Here's a link:

http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/dp/1570757550/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259138787&sr=8-1

I think there's a sinister reason this superb book is unusually unavailable at libraries and even local bookstores. I bought it from Amazon.

[VOX]

171. A horrible, shocking day. A straight line can be drawn from 11/22/63 to today's right-wing menace.

JFK's death begat LBJ
Who begat the phony Gulf of Tonkin Incident
Which begat a fake war (save Vietnam from communism
Which begat "law and order"
Which begat Richard Nixon
Who begat an economic downturn, a wage and price freeze, and disgrace to the presidency
which begat Gerald Ford
who begat "Whip Inflation Now," gas shortages, energy shortages
Which begat Jimmy Carter
Who begat a Middle East peace but a losing battle with inflation,
Which begat Ronald Reagan
Who begat many of the same players who signal-call for the right wing army of today: Bush I, Cheney, Rove, etc. In fact, Bush I, then a CIA official, was in Dallas the day JFK was assassinated.

[Doctor_J]

180. You forgot a couple things

Bush I negotiating with Iranian terrorists to hold the hostages until after election day 1980

Tim McVeigh's inspirations - Limpballs and others - going unpunished for OKC and other acts of domestic terrorism in the 1990's

But yes it can all be traced back to Nov 1963

[Mimosa]

205. Yes, it was a coup

James Douglass book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" put together the pieces and not in a tin foil hat away.

http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/dp/1570757550/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259138787&sr=8-1

[Doctor_J]

176. The rhetoric by the wingers isn't much different today

Probably worse. By not laying waste to the right wing in the period after 11/22/63, we signaled that we would tolerate anything, including murder, and have been suffering for it ever since.

[bdamomma]

188. terrible day

can you imagine if both JFK and RFK lived??

and I believe in the "grassy knoll" theory too.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

194. Ex-President Harry Truman's open letter in the Washington Post, one month later

One month after the assassination, Harry Truman wrote a letter published in the Washington Post warning America about the CIA and the fact it had gone out of control and needed to be reined in. I wonder what prompted him to make these claims so soon after the assassination of President Kennedy.

http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman's%20CIA%20article.html

In pertinent part:

"...But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.

We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it. ..."