JCC Half a century later there (still) was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination

So comforting to hear the same old come on the radio.

Don't worry, I understand it's endurance since it has been relentlessly pushed by the lone gunman apologists in every medium for half a century.

A little repeat but I'll address this again...
Uninformed armchair psychology has nothing to do with a murder case.
The President, Attorney General, 3 Warren Commission members themselves (LOL), Chief Counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Dallas doctors, Dallas police, etc. etc.
These people just might have based their opinions on the things they saw or learned in investigating the case rather than baseless psycho-analysis by people decades later.

And once again, the obvious flip side is that the LG defenders can't accept that people got away with murdering the President of the United States.

Edit: Thanks for the post BTW. That is just an old per peeve of mine on this whole thing.

 

As long as the Assassination Record Review Board has come up, let's hear from the head of it who is happy tell you he's not a conspiracy theorist.
Nevertheless, he can't help noticing the interesting questions that are raised as he sees al these documents.

He served as director of research and general counsel, later as its executive director.

Some highlights...

Full article...
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/10/243981006/inconsistencies-haunt-official-record-of-kennedys-death

 

The argument that "creating conspiracies eases a troubled mind" probably is valid for those arguments which vault into omniscience about events, attempting to lock disparate groups or institutions into one coherent narrative, placing JFK's assassination at the centre or the climax of that narrative. Those sorts of Grand Unified Theories are dismissable mainly because they depend too strongly on everyone involved -- conspirators and witnesses alike -- being overly competent compared with human norms. Conspiracies, real conspiracies that is, generally don't hold together because people have much looser lips than you'd expect, and because people, even our most competent, are dumb.

On top of that is that people sometimes take credit for things that had nothing to do with them; consider Pierre Plantard's adroit harnessing of the folklore around the Templars to imply a connectedness between himself, the Merovingians, the Templars, and Christ and thereby giving pretty much the previous two thousand years of Catholic Church history a plot-driven narrative -- enough to hoodwink two researchers enough to making a laughing stock of themselves with Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Or consider how often terrorist groups take responsibility for acts not actually attributed to them; terrorism in general is a publicity stunt, so it's understandable one group would take the opportunity to usurp another's act if possible. It would not surprise me in the least if Castro was in some way involved in disinformation suggesting his regime had something to do with JFK's death; it makes him look more of a badass to his peers and not just a tinpot dictator who's run out of spare clothes.

The JFK assassination does not require that level of plot-driven narrative for one to demonstrate something seriously wrong with the "official", i.e. Warren Commission, version of events. The Warren Commission's own work was hideously flawed, and as time goes on it becomes more and more apparent it was a whitewash, whether that whitewash was to simply reassure the American public in a general sense, to cover up ludicrous incompetence by the Secret Service, or to disguise anything more sinister.

It was, therefore, the government who created this mess for itself: had the Warren Commission been a real fact-finding body in the vein of a Coroner's Court or similar, it probably would have looked into what actually happened and the allegation of conspiracy to hide the truth would have been no more sustainable than it is against any average Coroner or inquisitorial jurisdiction. As it is, the government's had to try and deal with the Warren Commission's errors roughly four times in the past fifty years, simply because the Commission's report is so glaringly bad that its errors keep coming up.

As it is, the problem with any proposition that tries to rehabilitate the Warren Commission's findings on what happened has to then contend with the glaring inconsistencies in both the forensic and witness-based evidence that arose out of that Commission, of which Kiki-Gonn has been describing some absolute clangers. For anyone who would rely on the Warren Commission's findings as proof of Oswald's sole guilt, those inconsistencies have to be answered conclusively because of the maxim which is a corollary to a presumption of innocence: proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies. The Warren Commission is, in effect, the prosecution's case against a dead defendant. Blowhards like Vincent Bugliosi (who of all people should know better since he was a prosecutor himself) like to forget those things, and Bugliosi in particular uses the freedoms of the page to engage in the sort of theorisation that would have him laughed out of any criminal court had he tried the same sort of behaviour on when trying a man for murder.

In passing, in a criminal court it is not enough for a prosecutor to simply say "Probably" or "What else could it possibly be?" in relation to circumstancial evidence, which is the highest that the evidence against Oswald as lone shooter goes. If the case against a suspect is circumstancial only, then all it requires for a person to be acquitted of a charge is for a person to present a reasonably possible explanation consistent with innocence on the facts. It does not require that it be proven, since you cannot be forced to prove your own innocence; it is for the prosecution to disprove your innocence. The benefit of the doubt belongs to the accused. That is also in keeping with the proposition that it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, not to the point where you have a reasonable doubt but convict anyway.

The forensic and photographic evidence that remains of the JFK assassination does not compel towards one undeniable sequence of events which implicates Oswald and only Oswald as involved or culpable. At least two possible explanations are available, only one of which points to Oswald as the sole gunman. Eyewitness testimony as I've said is inherently unreliable, but even taking those unreliabilities into account there are serious breaks with reality -- or at least with the Warren Commission's official version of events -- that are not explained by the objective evidence, if not indeed the subjective. On top of that is the government's obfuscation over the release of documents, and indeed destruction of documents in the case of the Secret Service at least.

This is probably the best reason for the quote in Stone's much-maligned film: "Justice be done though thy heavens fall". It doesn't have so much to do with ripping down J. Edgar Hoover or Earl Warren so the little guy has a chance of beating the system at the justice game. It has more to do with the festering wound that JFK's assassination has left in the American psyche. Because the original investigation and findings were half-assed, it has cost America literally millions over 50 years in repeated investigations of the JFK assassination, with decreasing chances of ascertaining the truth, when a proper initial one indifferent to saving the political careers of bureaucrats and the Secret Service would have averted that cost. In that respect, even the Kennedys themselves asking for the investigation to be over quickly and quietly should have been ignored: JFK was not just an overly rich son of a bunch of Irish immigrants who really shouldn't have ticked off a gypsy, he was an American President, the literal figurehead of a people and possibly a generation. If such a man did not deserve the truth, then who does?

 

Once again great stuff Saint. I really enjoy reading your even handed thoughts on the subject.

Glad I'm not the only one wise to his game.
He adds nothing to the discussion and in every documentary is simply bent on disparaging the opposition or saying things that have no factual basis (reading Ruby or Oswald's mind, etc.).

 

We'll never get out of the freaking plaza.

One of the big ones... Lee Bowers who, without question, had the best view of the railroad yard (e.g. behind the grassy knoll).
He says,
1. Separate cars scoped out the area
2. One guy seemed to be talking into a mic
3. The last two shots, in his opinion, were too close to come from the same gun
4. Something attracted his attention right behind the fence during the shooting
As far as I know, he died in a single car accident in Midlothian (still a one horse town, I've been there). Obviously some find that suspicious, there's clearly not enough info to say however.


Here's former Army Ranger and WWII combat veteran C. Brehm who was very close to the limo at the fatal headshot moment. Note despite his proximity and combat experience he was not called to testify by the WC...


The Willis Family, love the dad

 

I've never seen Brehm's testimony before, but just as a continuing comment on witness testimony and the malleability of memory, let's look at a couple of things about his video.

The substantive portion of the interview, where he is describing in detail what happened, takes place presumably in roughly 1966 or later -- three years after the assassination. To his credit, Brehm doesn't allow the interviewer to put words in his mouth and says "whatever it was" that came flying off the limo. But it is three years down the line, in a scenario where presumably Brehm has had substantial portions of his time when he isn't turning his mind to precise recollection of the events in question.

In particular, contrast Brehm's testimony on interview against the other portion of film that's put into that sequence, which presumably is the file tape from the TV station that interviewed him on the day of the assassination. He doesn't have the same level of cool objectivity or detail provided then, and despite being a veteran of two wars -- Korea and WW2 -- he is visibly overcome with emotion when recalling events.

That military service also bears some comment as well. Firstly, there is no doubting Brehm's bravery. If he was part of the Rangers and served on D-Day as his Wiki file suggests, he was dropped into the Omaha beach sector, which was the biggest meat grinder of Normandy mainly because the Allies were dumb enough not to give anyone on that beach tanks to work with. The Rangers were light infantry, sorta-kinda-commandos who nonetheless cleared out a lot of guns covering Omaha beach. And given his bio, Brehm was all of 19 years old at that point. As said, he also served in Korea.

However, if he mustered out at the war's end or shortly thereafter, that would mean he was almost 10 years out of the armed forces when he witnessed Kennedy's assassination. And that service would not necessarily mean he was trained as an observer or that any training he had remained or became instinctive. Some instinctive responses to certain stimuli would remain -- for example, his assertion that he knew a bullet had passed him close by because he remembered the same experience from wartime - but it is not unsafe to assume he might well have fallen out of practice if indeed he was ever trained to observe. Remember, the Rangers are a vanguard unit, trained to maneuver and keep their eyes open in combat situations. Dallas was not a combat situation, especially for someone more than ten years out of practice. In short, military training exposes you to experiences that a civilian would not gain, and therefore that you're more likely to recognise those experiences than a civilian -- but saying "Rangers and combat veteran" does not make you more qualified at observing per se.

For me, though, the most frustrating part of Brehm's evidence is how it follows the same old fallacy that one sees in every criminal trial: the fallacy that our recollection of events gets better with time, that Brehm's cool clarity three years down the line evinces a better recollection than he had on the day. In fact it's the reverse. Memory degrades over time, it doesn't get better. Brehm's recollection for the cameras on the day of the assassination is probably a closer fit to what he actually saw than what he thought he saw.

Also, it has to be noted that Brehm believed much of what he said to Mark Lane -- if that's him -- was misrepresented. A small obituary given waaaaay back in 1996, when Brehm passed away, by a researcher named Greg Jaynes who interviewed Brehm three weeks before he died, goes as follows:

One day, I asked him where he thought the shots came from that struck the President. He said, "I'll tell you just like I told the police, the shots came from one of the two buildings at the corner of Houston and Elm". What about a shot from the grassy knoll, I asked. "No.", he replied.

Charles Brehm was a WWII veteran. He was a Ranger in the U.S. Army. He was badly wounded on Omaha Beach during the D-day invasion.

Brehm would discuss the "single bullet theory" with you if you liked. As soon as someone ridiculed the possibility of the SBT he would show them the scars on his body where he was wounded. He had been shot in the right arm near the elbow, the bullet coursed up his arm across his chest and then down his left arm and exited near the left elbow.

 

I'd agee with just about all of that. If someone has actual combat experience it's certainly worth noting is all.

I almost put in a complimentary video on him where he complains about Lane but decided this short vid speaks for itself, with no twisting of his words.

Also, unfortunately a lot of the interviews are from a few years afterwards when the WC report started to fall apart under examination. I would have loved for the WC to video the testimony they got but no such luck.

Edit: and I'd wager that bullet was a tangled mess when it came out.

 

I'd also just note that this isn't simply an issue of observation. It also has direct bearing on memory formation and retention. Context specific cues and learning aides can make a huge impact. For instance, chess masters can remember chess board layouts more thoroughly than can non-masters, and they also perform less well on memory tasks of equal complexity that are not chess-related. If a veteran's mind processed the Kennedy assassination in the way it did past combat experiences, then all else being equal, he is likely to have produced a higher quality memory than did the civilian.

 

Okay, recap…

The final shot has been fired. JFK is on his way to Parkland Hospital. Many people, including police, head to behind the grassy knoll to look for a shooter. The depository is quickly occupied by police but the defense is porous. After coming all the way back from Parkland an FBI agent was able to enter without being challenged by anyone.
It was in that chaos that Oswald (and I’d say others) waltzed out.
Oswald exiting leads us to a strange chapter in the assassination saga, that of decorated Deputy Sheriff Roger D. Craig.

This is a bit of a detour into Oliver Stone-esque can’t corroborate conspiracy land, which you might notice I try to avoid. I like concrete things you can see and judge for yourself or a preponderance of observations that at least give you a trend. Still, as long as we’re doing a grand tour you can’t skip Craig.

Craig was the department’s Man of the Year in 1960 I believe and seems quite reasonable when you watch him on video (which we did above). The problem is he says multiple things that contradict the official story. He did not back down from these allegations and even helped Jim Garrison in his (in)famous investigation. Was he mistaken, craving attention, brain washed by conspiracy theorists? Don’t know.

We already saw him describe the finding of a German Mauser (far superior to a Carcano) rifle in the TSBD. He’s not the only cop, fellow officer and former owner of a sporting goods store Weitzman signed an affidavit swearing to the same discovery. Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone also said the same in two written reports he submitted that day. I might note that the Dallas Morning news reported the rifle as a Mauser as well as Walter Cronkite. Of course this could come down to an initial misidentification getting passed on. Nevertheless, if there was another rifle found in the depository we’ll never know so we certainly can’t say it conclusively.
He also said he spoke to a witness who saw two men on the sixth floor.

Back to Oswald exiting. Craig says that he saw Oswald running down the grassy knoll to a waiting ‘light colored/light green’ Rambler station wagon with a luggage rack. The driver looked Hispanic with dark wavy hair (60’s style). It was a whistle from the car that got Craig’s attention.
Now Oswald’s odyssey from the building via bus, then taxi, to his boarding room looks relatively solid (he did have a bus transfer stub, etc.) so this really is an anomaly.
I definitely don’t insist that Craig’s story is true but he’s oddly specific. He says Captain Fritz challenged Oswald with Craig’s tale and Oswald said (not verbatim), “That belongs to Mrs. Paine, you leave her out of it, she has nothing to do with this.” The DPD denies the claim, Fritz said only that an unidentified Deputy Sheriff came up and told him the station wagon story but the man was not in Oswald’s presence. Later a picture that seems to refute the DPD claim came out but it’s debatable (and can’t be found easily online, sheesh).

We are not going to examine the different pieces of evidence on whether this story is credible or not, that’s an epic journey but I will say a fair appraisal of both sides means you can’t dismiss it out of hand.
Anyway, in reading a refutation of the Craig station wagon story I was kindly led into Ruth Paine’s WC testimony and found this interesting…
(asked to describe car) “It is a 1955 Chevrolet station wagon, green, needing paint, which we bought second hand (emphasis added)…”

The light green/light colored Craig version vs. the Paine “Green, needing paint” description of her car seems to match up interestingly to me and I may be the first person to point that out.

Anyway, we’ll sadly never know the truth but Craig did himself no favors by sticking to his stories. He was ostracized, eventually fired, etc. One has to wonder what exactly was in it for him go against the grain so strongly.
Lastly, and this is one thread I have NOT researched… the multiple supposed attacks on him before he finally committed suicide. I will point out that lone gunman sites, in their always present section on Craig, like to jump past the alleged attacks and straight to his suicide with a, “Pft, see he committed suicide, no mysterious death. Nothing to see here.”

Here’s a recap of the alleged attacks…
“In 1967 Craig went to New Orleans and was a prosecution witness at the trial of Clay Shaw. Later that year he was shot at while walking to a car park. The bullet only grazed his head. In 1971 Craig wrote When They Kill A President. In 1973 a car forced Craig's car off a mountain road. He was badly injured but he survived the accident. In 1974 he survived another shooting in Waxahachie, Texas. The following year he was seriously wounded when his car engine exploded”

Should you care to go down this strange rabbit hole, here is part 1 of Two Men In Dallas.
If nothing else it has hilariously bad 70's production value. Again, this does not represent part of my argument.

 

Is this really the first time that's been posted? If so, we've all failed.

 

Okay, been busy with Thanksgiving houseguests. We will conclude our tale shortly but, as a holdover, here are some pics from this weekend...
Where the motorcade made the right turn onto Houston. Taken from inside the courthouse museum...

After the left turn onto Elm. Note, Oswald's first bullet would have been aimed to my left yet struck the underpass at the bottom of the hill.

From the railroad overpass

From behind the picket fence...

Actual newspapers from 11/23/63

Just for you guys, while my son was napping today (how did parents get their kids to nap before the automobile), the Paine household where LHO spent the night with his family before going to work on 11/22. Can't believe I've never swung by before; it's not far from where we lived in our dirt poor post college years.

 

I wouldn’t continue if I didn’t see enough fresh views whenever I do a post so this is really your fault.

Not gonna lie people, I’m going to go off memory for the JD Tippit Murder. I’ve been furiously cross checking pro and con conspiracy sources for most of my posts but I’m pretty solid here on the basic facts and I want to wrap this up now that Dec has hit.

Officer JD Tippit was the second man killed on 11/22/63 in Dallas. The WC, of course, concluded that Oswald did it. Reasons this isn’t a crazy conclusion…
1. It happened in the area Oswald was fleeing through.
2. He was killed by a .38
3. Oswald had a .38 on him, which he used to try and shoot police with, at the Texas Theater
4. The bullets and the gun were linked (kind of sort of, ugh)
5. Eyewitnesses, while somewhat useless (e.g. couldn’t positively ID Oswald) did see just one assailant

Hopefully by now you’ve realized the one thing I would truly like to convey with the avalanche of words from page 1 of this thread to now… almost nothing in this case is simple! You can certainly choose to believe the LG theory if you want but anyone who buys the, ‘easy as pie’ argument from Posner or any of the other LG apologists is acting the fool just as much as someone who thinks high level people in the mob, CIA, FBI, US military, Dallas Mayor’s office, LBJ, Nixon, George H. Bush (seriously), Texas oil barons, etc. all planned this out together.

So, why question Oswald’s guilt in this (other) murder? 1st of all, I am perfectly willing to believe he killed JDT. It would fit with my theory of the life and death of Lee Harvey Oswald in fact.

Still…
1. The shells from the shooting scene (4) don’t match the bullets in Tippit’s body ‘exactly.’ 2 of the shells were manufactured by Winchester, 2 by Remington. Meanwhile 3 of the bullets were Winchester and 1 Remington. Wha??? Yeah, that’s a problem. One that causes some comedy in the Warren Report but let’s be generous to them on it not being insurmountable.
2. Oswald had to cover 9/10’s of a mile (city walking, cross traffic, etc.) in his slacks and jacket in somewhere between 7-10 minutes. You could stretch that time factor out to 12 if you wanted to, and the FBI certainly did, but it’s fair to say this guy by himself had to lightly jog or walk with a damn purpose over those streets to get to JDT’s murder on time. The entire city was looking for a single white male roughly matching Oswald’s description so it is (sorry) logical to wonder what would be gained by pounding the pavement by yourself like that if you had, as the song said, no particular place to go.
3. The murder. JDT pulled over a random stranger, presumably because he was by himself and matched the rough description out there. The suspect approaches the police car from the passenger side and rests both forearms on the roof of the car to lean into the window and talk. That’s a pretty casual posture from my perspective. Anyway, JDT did not radio to say he was pulling someone over (as he should have), he still doesn’t even though he’s seen enough to get out of the car and draw his gun. The suspect then, from across the hood, pulls out a .38 and shoots JDT three times from the hip, not missing a shot. He then calmly walks around the car and makes sure the job is done gangland style by shooting poor JDT point blank in the head. He empties his shells (great way to leave evidence for the police, WTF?) and runs off.

The ballistics evidence gets complicated but basically the FBI is satisfied they link Oswald’s gun to the shooting. The gun however, is also noted for having it’s barrel altered in some way that makes the ballistics difficult to trace.

Other factors to consider:
-(Big one) The housekeeper (or landlady, can’t remember) reported that a police car drove up to Oswald’s place, honked the horn twice, waited and then drove away slowly.
-Oswald was last seen waiting for a bus minutes (see times above) before the shooting.
-JDT was seen after the assassination running into a store (can’t remember which kind… record?) without radioing in that he was leaving his car, as he should have. He orders people out of his way, he’s in such a hurry to get to the phone at the end of the counter. There he dials a number and waits for an estimated 8 rings before giving up and rushing back out. Remember, he was under no special orders at that time, he was just supposed to patrol his area.
-JDT did not respond to a radio call after the assassination asking for his location.
-JDT was outside of his patrol zone when he was killed.
-JDT was seen speeding away from one spot his patrol car was parked in, for no apparent reason.


So, to be brief (too late, I know)…
Even if Oswald pulled the trigger there is some strange stuff going on.
-The gangland style of the shooting- Oswald is not known to have ever fired that .38 before. At least he supposedly went shooting with the rifle by the Trinity River. To me the murderer seem to be a real pro, outdrawing a policeman and putting 3 bullets in his chest from across the hood. Then he walks around and puts one straight into the head to make sure the job is done.
-The gun barrel having being altered in some way, making ballistics matching tougher. That sounds to me like a pro’s gun.
-The mystery police car at Oswald’s boarding house and all of JDT’s strange movements.
-Oswald’s movements. He was clearly waiting for a bus and decided it was taking too long (granted conjecture but seems pretty safe) so he hoofs it at a very purposeful pace. I do not argue, like many, that he could not have gotten there without assistance but both he and JDT seem to be moving somewhere with a reason.

I don’t know what the hell happened in Oak Cliff that day and unlike many I won’t accuse JDT of being a dirty cop because there isn’t anywhere near enough proof but the true LG version seems a little naïve (even if Oswald’s guilty) and leaves a lot out. Simply put, the murder makes much more sense if we allow for any of the following…
1. Oswald and JDT knew each other (they were seen at the exact same restaurant at the same time once, not together)
2. JDT was there looking for Oswald (or whoever else)
3. There’s more to Oswald than just lone nut (ding ding)

Believe it or not I left out a lot, the jacket, a detailed breakdown of the time estimates, the supposed mystery wallet (I should really look that one up again), etc.

 

Tippit's murder to me is also one where if Oswald were being tried in a present-day court the prosecution would not be walking in with a slam-dunk assurance of a jury convicting. Had he been tried at the time I've no doubt he would've been convicted in roughly five minutes, of course.

Let's look at what basically would be the prosecution's case against Oswald, as Kiki points out:

1. It happened in the area Oswald was fleeing through.
2. He was killed by a .38
3. Oswald had a .38 on him, which he used to try and shoot police with, at the Texas Theater
4. The bullets and the gun were linked (kind of sort of, ugh)
5. Eyewitnesses, while somewhat useless (e.g. couldn’t positively ID Oswald) did see just one assailant

I've ruled out 1, 3, and 5 for different reasons.

(1) is ruled out because whilst it's a piece of evidence that contributes to inculpating Oswald, it is still a piece of circumstancial evidence as relates to Tippit's murder. Here we are focusing on the proposition that Oswald was fleeing. A smart defence lawyer would at least try to have Oswald face the charges of assassination of the President and the killing of Tippit separately, mainly because in general proof of commission of one crime does not automatically prove commission of another. Flight from assassination of a President, I would have argued, is not probative of guilt of murder of a police officer. Indeed the prosecution would probably have to prove Oswald guilty of the Presidential assassination before it could use his "flight" as a piece of evidence against Oswald; because if Oswald was not guilty of JFK's killing, logically he could not be fleeing that crime when Tippit was murdered and thus has no reason or less reason than another person to kill a police officer. More particularly, it's also ruled out because it really is a restatement of item (5). Oswald's presence in the area is circumstancial evidence only, but if there is a reasonably possible explanation consistent with innocence -- i.e. Oswald was misidentified as being the killer -- then the benefit of the doubt is Oswald's.

(3) is ruled out because again this may not be circumstancial evidence probative of Tippit's murder. Oswald for example could be guilty of JFK's murder and be brandishing a weapon at police officers to avoid capture for that crime, not for Tippit's murder. It again is an attempt to use Oswald's behaviour on arrest to prove a prior crime. And again, it would be a flawed reasoning channel to rely on for a conviction: circumstancial evidence requires the only possible inference from the whole set of circumstances is guilt in relation to the crime charged. If a jury were invited to consider whether Oswald had brandished the gun because of a guilty mind over JFK's murder, or because he just didn't like cops and was paranoid, they would have to consider whether that was a reasonable possible explanation consistent with innocence in relation to Tippit's murder.

(5) is ruled out mainly because even if the eyewitnesses did testify to one assailant, without positive and solid identification evidence that testimony would be meaningless and would not allow a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Again, even identification from a lineup is dodgy, and there are innumerable tricks and traps police officers have used to influence or induce false identification, whether it's as obvious as putting one black guy in a lineup of whites or as subtle as putting one guy in bright colours and the others in drab. I don't remember much material on this point, but Westminster courts these days take immense pains to point those issues out to juries; so much so that a single eyewitness identification is invariably hit with a warning from the judge called a Domican or Turnbull warning -- to the point that a judge will flat-out tell a jury that a single eyewitness ID is an unsafe basis on which to convict. And indeed it's been legal experience literally as far back as the 1800s that multiple witnesses can all misidentify the same person; once again, ponderantur, non numerantur, testes. And from what I understand, Oswald was never picked out from any of the lineups, and the eyewitnesses who did testify to seeing him had serious issues with the circumstances of those identifications (such as ducking away or averting their eyes from the shooter they just saw, or not even seeing the shooting at all.)

This pretty much leaves us with the gun and the bullets. And on that we are left pretty much with possibility, not certainty. The Warren Commission originally heard from the FBI that they couldn't trace the bullets fired to Oswald's revolver but that it was certainly possible. That is, they could not exclude all other .38s in the US -- of which there were literally hundreds of thousands -- as having fired the bullets in question. The Warren Commission rejected that view and got its own consulant -- Nicol -- who said one bullet, and one bullet only, matched Oswald's weapon conclusively to the exclusion of all other weapons. They then relied on that material.

The House Select Committee which reviewed the Warren Commission findings hired an entire team of ballistic experts. On that score, each and every one disagreed with Nicol and agreed with the FBI that it was scientifically impossible to match the bullets from the revolver, although they agreed the bullets could have come from Oswald's gun. People who point at HSCA's support for the FBI are therefore twisting the truth, because it is a truth that does not provide proof beyond reasonable doubt of Oswald being Tippit's killer. Similar con-game shiftiness happens a lot in DNA cases when a forensic scientist says that a suspect "cannot be excluded" from having provided the DNA in question: maybe the suspect can't be excluded, but neither can the millions more people who also fit the DNA markers recorded.

The evidence that inculpates Oswald of these five comes down to: "Oswald was in possession of a .38 on arrest, and the bullets fired into Tippit may have come from the same gun." If that is all the real evidence -- as opposed to circumstancial material which has an explanation consistent with innocence -- against Oswald, then I don't think Oswald would have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is how defence lawyers are trained to look at and destroy prosecution theories: one strand at a time.

 

Enter Sparky Part 1:

Time to meet one of the strangest characters in Dallas history, Jack Ruby.


“There was no one living in Dallas in 1963 who didn’t know Jack Ruby was mob” Old timer told to Kiki at Dealey Plaza years ago

Ruby of course came to fame when he jumped out of a crowd of reporters and killed LHO, providing us with the first televised killing in America (live).


Known as Sparky for his quick temper, Ruby was quite eccentric. He was a health nut who didn’t smoke despite practically living in nightclubs. He acted as his own bouncer, beating up an unruly drunk and throwing him out at the drop of a hat. He was diagnosed as a psychotic depressive after his arrest. He admitted he always carried a gun. Ruby was always where the action was, well known to the police and media in town.

The case for Ruby’s mob ties…
Originally from Chicago and working for Al Capone’s organization in a minor capacity as a kid, Ruby moved to Dallas later in life and opened up a variety of nightclub/strip joints. One thing that’s important to understand is that clubs like Jack’s were gateways for prostitution and the illicit drug trade, both money makers for organized crime.
-Add that Ruby always made a point to be very friendly with police (free drinks, etc.) and it’s not hard to surmise that he was more than a simple entrepreneur.
-It only took Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General of the U.S. and the man personally leading the war on organized crime, less than a day to discover Ruby’s mob ties after the Oswald killing.
-The Dallas organized crime family, the Campisi’s, visited Ruby in prison. Now if you were a member of the Dallas mob you’d think you’d want to keep from attracting attention to yourself in the wake of the murder of the century. I won’t dwell on the naiveté it takes to assume they risked unwanted attention from the police, FBI and media to visit Ruby for personal reasons.
-I’ve previously posted the interview with one of his dancers in ’63 where she mentions him not liking Bobby Kennedy. Another of his dancers, who went by the stage name Gail Raven, confirms this, “He was not in love with the Kennedys and he did NOT like Robert Kennedy by no means.” As discussed, Robert Kennedy was personally leading the crusade against organized crime in the U.S. and was loathed by the mob for it. So much more so because they helped elect his brother President.
-RFK Jr., interviewed by Charlie Rose in Dallas recently, “…when they examined Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald’s phone records… they saw…an inventory of the Mafia leaders that they had been investigating….” (see below).
-Trips to Cuba. According to the HSCA vol 5, Jack Ruby, “Entered Cuba from New Orleans on August 8, 1959; left Cuba September 11, 1959; re-entered Cuba from Miami on September 12, 1959; and returned from Cuba to New Orleans on September 13, 1959.” Sounds like a real leisure trip to me. Cuba of course, was the golden goose for the mafia until Castro kicked them out after the revolution.

Sticking to Ruby, here are people he spoke to in 1963 (quoting bios from JFKfacts.org, a very sober conspiracy site run by a former Washington Post reporter):
1. Barney Baker was a boxer, ex-convict and “one of Hoffa’s best known associates during the McClellan Committee investigation.” RFK was the chief counsel to that committee, which “detailed Baker’s role as Hoffa’s personal liaison to various Mafia figures, as well as to a number of well-known syndicate executioners.” As counsel to the committee, RFK noted that, “sometimes the mere threat of [Baker’s] presence in a room was enough to silence the men who would otherwise have opposed Hoffa’s reign.”
2. Dusty Miller was another Hoffa assistant and head of the Teamster’s southern conference
3. Lenny Patrick was a capo under Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana. He was, according to the HSCA, “one of the Chicago Mafia’s leading assassins and was responsible, according to Federal and State law enforcement files, for the murders of over a dozen victims of the mob,”
4. Dave Yaras, like Patrick, was a childhood friend of Ruby from his old Chicago neighborhood, and “was overheard in a 1962 electronic surveillance discussing various underworld murder contracts he had carried out and one he had only recently been assigned
5. Lewis McWillie moved from Dallas to Cuba in 1958 to work in the Havana gambling casinos owned by Meyer Lansky and Santos Trafficante.
6. Irwin Weiner was a Chicago bail bondsman and close associate of Hoffa and Giancana and was described by investigative journalist Jack Anderson as “the underworld’s major financial figure in the Midwest”
7. Nofio Pecora was an associate of an associate of Carlos Marcello. He was friends with Emile Bruneau, the man who bailed Oswald out of jail when he was arrested in August 1963
-Two assistant counsels to the Warren Commission felt that Ruby’s ties to organized crime and Cuba specifically needed to be explored. Let’s look at some of their missives to the commission…
1. “We believe that a reasonable possibility exists that Ruby has maintained a close interest in Cuban affairs to the extent necessary to participate in gun sales or smuggling.”
2. “We believe that the possibility exists, based on evidence already available, that Ruby was involved in illegal dealings with Cuban elements who might have had contact with Oswald. The existence of such dealings can only be surmised since the present investigation has not focused on that area.”

 

The great irony being that not one person has ever been successfully convicted of a crime in relation to JFK or Oswald's murder. Ruby's conviction was overturned on appeal and he died awaiting a new trial. Oswald never faced trial. Clay Shaw was acquitted (the latter probably reasonably so as Jim Garrison was a nutcase.)

 

Enter Sparky: Part II

So there’s Jack; ‘nutty, violent low level mob affiliate in Dallas’ is a pretty good summation. Mob members don’t carry ID cards that say, “Mafia” so granted we can’t say that definitively but, yeah, I feel comfortable going with it.

We’ll skip the following rabbit holes…
-Did Ruby and Oswald know each other? A possibility since they lived very close to each other, a singer (of questionable credibility) from the Dallas strip club circuit says she saw them meet at the Carousel Club (Jack’s Club of course). A law enforcement officer even related that one of Ruby’s strippers claimed the two men were lovers. Speaking of sexual orientation…
-We won’t follow that thread either! There’s reason to believe both men were willing to play for either team if you will but whatever floats your boat. Fun fact- General Walker (UBER-conservative, favorite of the Christian right, etc.), who narrowly survived Oswald’s assassination attempt on him was firmly in the closet as well. Ugh, I said we weren’t going there (because there’s more).
-Was Ruby part of the (assuming there was one) conspiracy ‘pre-shooting?' We’ll focus on his potential part in the ‘post-shooting’ phase.

Ruby’s Actions in the wake of the assassination:
-Ruby could not have been part of any conspiratorial action taking place during the actual assassination as he was at the nearby Dallas Morning News headquarters most of the time (score apologists!)
-Dallas reporter Seth Kantor told the WC that he saw Ruby at Parkland Hospital after the assassination. Ruby meanwhile, was adamant that he never went to Parkland. Stuck with this choice the WC of course went with the hood instead of the journalist. Judge for yourself…


Regardless, things get way more interesting at night…
Ruby bought 8 sandwiches and sodas and tried to use them to get into the Dallas Police Headquarters, where Oswald was being held. This attempt failed when he called with his offer and was told the officers had already eaten.
-Undaunted, went to the station anyway.
-He finally got in. Let’s read the WC’s own witness testimony on how he successfully snuck onto the 3rd floor of the station where the action was (Homicide Bureau)...
“I saw Jack and two out-of-state reporters, whom I did not know, leave the elevator door and proceed toward those television cameras, to go around the corner where Captain Fritz's office was. Jack walked between them. These two out-of-state reporters had big press cards pinned on their coats, great big red ones, I think they said "President Kennedy's Visit to Dallas--Press", or something like that. And Jack didn't have one, but the man on either side of him did. And they walked pretty rapidly from the elevator area past the policeman, and Jack was bent over like this--writing on a piece of paper, and talking to one of the reporters, and pointing to something on the piece of paper, he was kind of hunched over.929”
More from WC itself…
“Detective Augustus M. Eberhardt, who also recalled that he first saw Ruby earlier in the evening, said Ruby carried a note pad and professed to be a translator for the Israeli press.” Note- Ruby was Jewish.
“This page reproduces COMMISSION EXHIBIT No. 2424: Photograph of Jack Ruby at press conference in basement assembly room about midnight November 22, 1963. (Jack Ruby is the individual in the dark suit, back row, right-hand side, wearing horn-rimmed glasses.)” Note- Ruby did not normally wear glasses.
-Ruby then went from the 3rd floor down to the basement when it was announced that Oswald would be shown to the reporters at a midnight press conference.
-Famously, Ruby then corrected Dallas DA Henry Wade when he incorrectly said that Oswald belonged to the, “Free Cuba Committee." Ruby at the press conference...


So, in the first night we have…
-Ruby trying multiple times to get into the police station, sneaking in on his second attempt.
-Holding a notepad/wearing glasses could be seen as an attempt to blend in (I mean really, what else, taking notes for his own personal use?).
-Lying to a police officer about having a legitimate reason to be there.
-Instantly knowing a relatively obscure fact about Oswald that the DA had wrong.
-Going out of his way to be where Oswald would be.

Next, the end of the Sparky trilogy because yes, there’s MORE

 

Enter Sparky Part III

And it keeps getting better/more suspicious!

Ruby was all over the place during the couple of days between JFK’s assassination and Oswald’s murder. It would take a thread just to give the straight rundown on all the conversations he had with different people, places he went, etc.
He said nutty things (“I have to leave Dallas”), he did nutty things (insisting a friend bring a Polaroid camera to take a picture of a right wing extremist Impeach Earl Warren billboard). He was seen at his apartment, club, a TV station at 2:00 AM, Dealey Plaza, the police station (again), the courts building, etc.

Let’s go back to the WC itself for a particularly juicy tidbit…

So let’s think about that. Ruby uses a public phone in a garage rather than his own to make calls that include the police chief’s name, inquires about Oswald’s transfer-insisting he’ll be there, etc. He also omits the garage stop in his testimony to the Warren Commission.
Everything I’ve posted so far is enough to solicit a healthy dose of suspicion about Ruby’s supposedly innocent (LOL) role in all this.
Particularly though the WC’s own evidence destroys the no conspiracy side’s adamant contention that Ruby walked into the police basement parking garage on the absolute spur of the moment prior to killing Oswald.

The official story and it’s apologists have insisted for half a century that Jack just happened to be walking by the ramp that led down into the basement where Oswald would be transferred, when he would be transferred. He then sauntered down the ramp on impulse; saw Oswald and MURDERED HIM, yes on impulse (again).

Let’s not stop there though, how about the Dallas police offer who insists Jack Ruby called in to the DPD the night before he killed Oswald and warned them that Oswald would be killed if they didn’t change their plans?

Speaking of the person who desperately wanted to get out of his assignment to kill Oswald without angering his mob bosses, here’s what FBI Special Agent J. Gordon Schanklin told the congressional FBI Oversight Committee (on video but it’s long so I’ve transcribed)…
Question: On Saturday night when you got a phone call from someone telling you they were going to try and kill Lee Harvey Oswald. Can you tell me who that phone call was from?
Gordon: I don’t know. The (FBI) office got the call… I came on back down (from his house) because they said they couldn’t get a hold of the police chief… I said I wanted to talk to Chief Curry and finally at about 8:00 the next morning they got him and I told him I wanted to report this directly to him… He said he had everything taken care of, he had two armored trucks.
Question: You were never able to determine who the call came from?
Gordon: It was an anonymous call… the same call I later found out, the same individual called the sheriff’s office”

Note, these aren’t random, “I’m going to kill that guy for what he did” threats. This is the FBI asserting that the same person who called the DPD and tried to get them to change their transfer plans made the same call to them. And a DPD officer, who knew Ruby personally, says it was Ruby’s voice.

Now let’s hear from another DPD officer who has no reason to lie (unlike the WC that had several documented reasons), Don Archer observed Ruby in his cell after the Oswald killing. He also delivered the news of Oswald’s death. Oddly enough he’s under the impression that Ruby was greatly relieved by the news that he would now be up on murder charges instead of attempted murder. Judge for yourself…


But wait, there’s more! We talked about how the innocent Ruby/2nd Lone Gunmen theory leans quite heavily on Ruby’s spur of the moment descent down the garage ramp.
Problem 1: A police officer was guarding that ramp. I worked in downtown Dallas for years, that ramp like all others in the area is barely wide enough to admit a vehicle. The officer swore he didn’t let anyone through. He was given a polygraph and passed.
Problem 2: You can see for yourself on video the reporters (on live TV at the time) discussing where Ruby came from in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. “He came from that green corridor,” “He came from that corner.” Not one reporter mentioned the ramp. REALITY TIME- Ruby did not take the ramp but a much more circuitous route which involved entering a different building, descending below ground level and getting to the police basement via an unguarded underground tunnel (downtown Dallas has a network of such tunnels, they’re really cool). His route alone speaks to premeditation which the WC could by no means tolerate. That’s why they insisted portly Ruby ninja’d his way past a cop guarding a narrow ramp in broad daylight despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Ruby tended to say, and write, a LOT of crazy things. He implicated LBJ more than once (something I don’t buy at all), said he killed Oswald to prove, “That a Jew has balls,” because he felt sorry for Jackie, that his people (e.g. Jewish people) were being persecuted for the assassination, etc. so let’s not put much stock into his words.
Nevertheless we’d be remiss to not let him get in the final word.

So here he is saying no one will ever know the real reason for his actions. The video is also correct in stating that he repeatedly begged the Warren Commission to take him to D.C. where he could speak freely but was ignored.

 

Super Important!
There is a Star Wars JFK Assassination link.
Ruth Paine, whose house Marina lived in and who got Oswald the job at the depository, taught Russian at St Mark’s in Irving (where I did a karate demo once). Her only student was Porkins!!! Mind blown.





Goodness, that’s going to have to do for Ruby. I guess I’ll add how the cop who wrestled him down after he got one bullet off says Ruby kept repeatedly pulling the trigger as he vainly tried to keep the gun trained on Oswald while he and the cop wrestled over it. It didn’t fire because of the pressure on the chamber. It’s almost as if he was really desperate to make sure he finished the job.


Let’s get back to Lee. When last we left LHO the JDT shooting had just occurred.
Sigh, I guess I should mention the mystery wallet. On video you can see the DPD looking over a wallet found at the crime scene. Not surprisingly there’s no clear answer on who’s wallet that was 50 YEARS LATER in the most picked over criminal case in history.
The Lone apologist side insists this is LHO’s wallet, linking him of course to the murder. For the 50th a nice big splash was made claiming it is now definitely Oswald’s wallet. Hurray!


Problem 1: The official DPD report says Oswald’s wallet was on him at the Texas Theater. Uh, that’s an issue; listen to how flimsy the reason for that is in the video above. A DPD officer lies in his report over where the wallet was found why again?
Problem 2: Oswald was found with $13 on him at the theater. That’s $100 in today’s terms. So Oswald didn’t keep his money in his wallet…?
Problem 3: The eyewitness description of the killing does not have the suspect ever taking out their wallet or anything like that. So at what point does Oswald accidentally drop his wallet? You know, the one he doesn’t keep money in.
Problem 4: If it was Oswald’s wallet, see above. If it wasn’t, who’s was it?
So we are forced to ask if the wallet was purposefully dropped at the scene of the killing to lead the police to Oswald. This is the kind of shadowy stuff I like to avoid because you don’t need it to discredit the lone gunman fairy tale but there you go.



Anyway, LHO was of course arrested at the Texas Theater a bit later. Can you believe I’ve never been there, missed a live MST3k show there once
Remember when I said nothing in this case is simple? Here we go with the funny business at the theater…

-LHO did not pay for a 90 cent ticket despite having $13 on him (meh but I’ll mention it)
-Much more interesting. There are about 24 people in a large movie theater (capacity of 900 I think). He goes out of his way sit right next to someone. Before long he gets up and moves to sit next to someone else. Then he gets up yet again and moves to a 3rd location. He also gets up to buy popcorn (despite not buying a ticket). So he’s probably annoyed the hell out of everyone in the theater by now.
If you’d killed JFK and were trying to hide in a theater, it wouldn’t make much sense to draw attention to yourself, would it?
Remember, he gave up on a bus leaving his boarding house and jogged (necessarily) to make it to the area of the JDT shooting/Texas Theater. Could the rush from his house to this area be explained by trying to get to a theater rendezvous on time? This would also fit nicely with the abandoning of his bus in favor a taxi when he went from Dealey Plaza to his neighborhood immediately after the shooting.
I know secret, pre-arranged meetings in a darkened theater sound dramatic but his actions make much more sense that way than otherwise.
You really have to stretch your rationalization muscles to explain him wandering around an almost dead empty theater to sit right next to people when he should have been doing his hardest to blend in the with the wall.


I find Oswald’s behavior the most telling aspect by far but I really can’t leave out the precarious, but not impossible, timeline.

Let’s listen to the man who sold Oswald popcorn estimate when LHO entered the theater…

1:07 at the latest?
That presents a problem since JDT was killed 7 or 8 blocks away anywhere between 1:12-1:15. Keep in mind he had a handy milestone to judge time by, the start of the movie showing.
And that’s not all he tells us either, per his WC testimony Oswald had to go straight up to the balcony when he first entered the Theater. So now we can add sitting up in the balcony to Oswald’s seating tour.
That’s four different places on two different levels he sat in at the theater, all within 30 minutes. But you know, it couldn’t possibly be that he was looking for someone.

More timeline…
JDT was murdered 7-8 blocks from the theater, that’s nearly a mile (8 blocks = 1 mile). So Oswald covered a mile, or nearly so, in a few minutes. Once again he’s covered a stretch of ground at what would require a run through suburban streets when his description had been broadcast with no one seeing him.
It gets better though, here’s the official timeline…
In 23 minutes maximum, and that by the official LG timeline, LHO ran (because walking would make it impossible) 15-16 blocks, stopped to walk before being seen by the witnesses of the JDT Tippit shooting. Talks to Tippit, Tippit gets out, Oswald shoots him from across the hood, walks around and delivers the point blank head shot, drops his wallet, reloads his gun and takes off. Stops in a parking lot to take his jacket off and hide it under a car. Walks (not runs) up to the shoe store where he is spotted by Johnny Brewer.
I’ll be kind and give 5 minutes for all the interruptions. So Oswald had to move at faster than a run (< 10 min/mile) across a couple of miles of city streets without being seen, luckily stopping to walk just before being seen by JDT and the shoe store employee. Also, the only movie theater employee who actually saw him (popcorn purchase) up close has to be dead wrong about what time they had their encounter.
None of that is impossible mind you but seems fairly remarkable.

 

I will not try to list and trace out the many, many Oswald sightings in and around Dallas that cause problems for the LG theory. Obviously there’s no concrete proof (pictures, etc.) and you have to just take each one at a time, wade through the pro and con websites/arguments for each one, etc. Suffice it to say there’s some interesting reading there if you’re for it. Even windbag Vincent Bugliosi is forced to admit the Sylvia Odio incident (yet another Cuban connection) seems credible but enough.





So, I’m going to have to employ the time machine now to dovetail LHO and Ruby’s tales. We’ve essentially caught Lee up to Ruby if we jump back to my last Ruby post. That’s where he kills Oswald, the one murder where there’s no question who did it (50% ain’t bad?).

This takes us to two medical facilities, Parkland Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital.



Parkland:

As discussed, if JFK’s throat wound was an entrance wound, the LG theory is dead. The only medical professionals to see that wound called it an entry wound.

-Let’s see what two of the doctors, including the one who focused on the throat wound, said to a Dallas reporter





-Here’s Dr. Crenshaw with no ambiguity about what he saw…





-Here’s Dr. Robert Livingston who took the trouble to call the autopsy team at Bethesda and tell them ‘you will not know that’s an entrance wound because we performed surgery over it.’ He’s very clear on what the wound was as well. He also mentions how the FBI abruptly put an end to the call. Wouldn’t want the autopsy team to know important things like that you know.





-Just as importantly, the doctors consistently describe a very large exit wound at the back right of Kennedy’s head. I showed the WC exhibit that shows the same; they describe it as well. So you’d think there’s no confusion about this but of course there is. One of the autopsy pictures seems to show absolutely nothing on the back of JKK’s head except a very small entrance wound. Other autopsy photos do seem to show something going on with the back right of the head. The HSCA didn’t really show a large wound in the rear at all (we’ve done all the pictures). Hell, I already showed how the HSCA couldn’t even agree with itself on bullet paths. Of course the body had long been buried (and the brain stolen from the National Archives). So the bottom line is that the observations, evidence and conclusions on the fatal head wound are so contradictory as to defy all logic. You either believe this is coincidental, human error, etc. or the sign that the investigations were thwarted from figuring out some of the basic facts like, “Is there a giant hole in the back of his head or not?” (e.g. facts: military personnel did not allow the autopsy to proceed normally, the brain was not sectioned/has disappeared, original autopsy records were burned in a fireplace, etc.).



That takes us to Bethesda where three unlucky men had no idea they’d be performing the autopsy of the century until the body was on its way from Texas.

As noted,

-They never got to see the throat wound

-They were not allowed to perform multiple procedures that would normally take place in an autopsy

-The man in charge destroyed all his records that night in his fireplace

-Paul O’Connor, one member of the three man team autopsy team said on video that, “There has been a monstrous cover up of the medical evidence”

-Much of the medical evidence sent to the National Archives from Bethesda has disappeared.



Again though, you’re crazy if you find these things suspicious so just stop. It’s only because of (insert uninformed physcobabble) that people would question these Mack truck worthy logic holes.



Well I ended up tracing this out chronologically yet after the fact as I was challenged (more than welcome) back when the thread was hot and heavy.



If all you’ve ever done is read a book or two, or watched a similar number of TV specials (they really are awful) then you might not believe me when I say there’s plenty more. That when I say, “Scratched the surface” I absolutely mean it. Nevertheless I’m amazed I still get decently into double digit views with each new post so it’s time to end this as the date and moment have passed. And so, next comes WHAT I THINK HAPPENED.



But first let’s throw out a few random pieces of candy before dessert.



Here’s Dan Rather proving…

1. He never actually saw the Zapruder film before making this report (making him a liar)

2. He was part of the cover up (no, I DON’T believe that)

3. He can’t do half as good a job of explaining what he saw in that film as any functioning adult off the street could

Take your pic, unless you want to go with his laughable explanation. Anyway…





Speaking of Dan “I’d Rather you don’t ask me what I really saw”, here he is doing us a solid. You all know how Oswald presumably took his rifle from the Paine house in Irving to the depository in brown paper wrapping, telling the coworker giving him a ride that it was a set of curtain rods.

Here’s his coworker saying exactly how Oswald carried the package (under the armpit to his cupped hand), a story he never deviated from...



And here’s Rather with the same type of disassembled rifle wrapped up. Good God that thing is huge, doesn’t seem compatible with the witness testimony







Now let’s watch the Dallas Chief of Police refusing to just spit out the company line…





Lighter fare, just one of a trillion instances where Oswald is seen in places he couldn’t have been according to the official story. I said I’d stay away from this stuff but I’ve got links burning a hole in my pocket…

http://youtu.be/QmGhmWaY_0c

 

Just in case you thought anyone wasn't still reading, Kiki, I should say I still am. This is intriguing stuff, but at the same time I wish I had more opportunity to go through any of the countervailing explanations that might have been raised to some/all of these points over the years. Not that I disbelieve you, of course, I'm just interested in the spin/context that's put on it by others.

 

I am also reading with great interest. Please continue.

 

Well due to overwhelming (?) support, I have been goaded into going a bit further.

In that effort I’d like to rant and educate. Just about every single person who has ever snidely brushed away any and all conspiracy talk is grossly ignorant of the assassination’s historical context. Off the top off my head I’d say every lone gunman defense (TV special, book) skips this except for the ones that propose there was a conspiracy but LHO was the lone shooter. That’s telling.

One does not, of course, have to believe there is a direct link between the early 60’s Cold War and the assassination itself as many including myself do. Recall I’ve listed the very long list of political insiders from the time (highlighted by LBJ and RFK) who felt that link very much did exist. They did so for a reason.
So, let’s enter the world of…

Cold War Craziness Part I

It might or might not be difficult to a imagine a time when…
-Gov’t agencies repeatedly tried to assassinate an extremely high profile world leader without bothering to tell the president of the United States, knowingly risking full scale nuclear war in so doing
-A proposal was made to the president for a pre-emptive,full scale nuclear war. I don’t mean in the abstract, I mean they gave him the pitch and wanted to do it before the calendar year expired, projecting of course tens of millions of casualties (70 I believe).
-The U.S. military fired ‘test’ missiles at the enemy in an apparent attempt to provoke a full scale nuclear war
-Leaders in the military felt not pre-emptively attacking a foreign country, with a full scale nuclear war almost certainly resulting, was the equivalent of the infamous appeasement of Hitler at Munich.
-The CIA blatantly contracted out assassinations to the leading mafia dons in the country
-Large paramilitary camps of foreign guerillas were run on U.S. soil and directed by the CIA to disregard orders/directives from the president
-The head of the FBI insisted that no such thing as organized crime even existed
-Guns were secretly run by organized crime, at the behest of the U.S., to guerilla fighters
-Civic leaders in a major U.S. city (Dallas) begged the president through intermediaries not to visit because they felt the danger was so great
-A presidential motorcade was cancelled on the very day scheduled due to security concerns (Chicago, same month as Dallas)
-The president was moved through part of a major U.S. city by helicopter instead of car to due to the security concerns of the police (Miami or Tampa, I’d have to look it up)
-The Vice President of the United States was told (as a joke) that the president’s coming visit to Dallas would result in a funeral. I’m talking out loud, at a public event and to the whole crowd
-A retired, very high profile, U.S. general led his civilian followers in a deadly all night battle with federal law enforcement sent out by the president in a major city, returning to a hero’s welcome at his own (Dallas)

-The day after an overnight stay at a relative’s house by said general and some of his followers, said relative calls the authorities to warn that the president is in imminent danger
-Organized crime heads were wire tapped repeatedly talking, in the abstract granted, about whacking the president of the United States, how he needed to be whacked, etc.
-Law enforcement would basically refuse to investigate multiple acts of domestic terrorism (bombs, burnings) and assassinations against a minority group (African Americans)
-Law enforcement (Ft. Worth, sister city to Dallas) would whip African American detainees, forcing them to choose which cop could hit the hardest
-Law enforcement (Dallas) referred to unidentified black murder victims showing up in the river, woods, etc. as a TND (Typical ‘N’ Deal) and, of course, not really investigate
-Law enforcement officers were sent out to forcibly resist mandates of the president (more than once, including in Texas)
-A nationally prominent African American civil rights activist was chased through downtown streets (Dallas) by the gun wielding police captain
-A presidential appointee (UN Ambassador) was subjected to the following in a major U.S. city (Dallas)… taunts during a live TV speech, having his car violently shaken by an angry mob, physically attacked (police tackled the man before his punches could land, he responded by spitting in their face), hit over the head with a wooden sign
-Uber conservative and rich businessman would fund many of the above activities
-The owner/editor of a major newspaper (Dallas Morning News) insults the president to his face in the White House, as an invited guest.
-That newspaper allows this ‘ad’ to be run as the President visits the city…

-Locals answer a tourist question about finding the site of the recent presidential assassination by saying, “You mean where they shot that son of a bitch?”


That’s just a taste of the what JFK found himself trying to control as President (except for that last one of course). More importantly every assault on presidential authority listed above was of course directed at him. Wondering how things as disparate as the civil rights struggle and military/intelligence chiefs dreaming of WWIII for Christmas can possibly tie into the events of 11/22/63? Or how domestic civil rights counts as a Cold War issue (in this context). Not a problem.[/i]

 

Woof this was a lot of reading, but it was entirely worth it. This thread has been really interesting!

 

Cold War Craziness Part II: “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”



As the sampler list above indicates, JFK faced more insubordination and threats than any president since the days of the Civil War. This isn’t something you hear enough regarding the Kennedy presidency.

To add yet more. From CBSMiami…

Back to the Cold War…
-America’s ultimate boogie man, Communism, was in full force. The fate of the world literally (in many people’s minds) hung in the balance of this good vs. evil struggle.
-Worse, the (literally) godless commie tyrants weren’t just on the other side of the world. 90 miles from Florida’s shores was a man every bit as hated and feared as Khrushchev, Fidel Castro. We really cannot overstate how intolerable this situation was to the hardliner U.S. Cold Warriors.

So, the apocalyptic nature of the struggle was, IMO, directly proportional to the level of ‘victory at any cost’ justification. Just as the specter of 9-11 gave birth to black sites, endorsements of torture, pre-emptive invasions, etc. so much more did the threat of global communist domination allow for serious proposals for pre-emptive nuclear war and other unthinkable things (hint hint). And stop right there before you make an Oliver Stone reference, this isn’t about people at the top ordering anything, it’s about the environment they fostered.
When your own Commander in Chief is seen by the high command (U.S. intelligence, military) as the biggest liability in your war with Satan, then the ground is fertile for someone somewhere in the food chain to decide it’s time to act.

Remember how I said I’d tie in the civil rights struggle to the Cold War narrative? Just do some reading from the time and see if black activists like MLK aren’t constantly tied to the red menace by the hard right. The enemy was not ‘just’ as close as 90 miles away, he was inside the castle walls. McCarthy may have been done by this point but McCarthyism was still going strong via the John Birch Society. The only good commie was a dead commie and if you showed weakness in the fight or agitated for change from the inside (civil rights) then by God you must be red. Or, close enough, the dreaded ‘pink.’

So there you have the fear… commies in the woodpile, with a nuclear arsenal, with a country just offshore, stirring those pesky blacks into revolt, etc.

(Man, I’m really going to condense this) Enter John Kennedy. He’s…
-young (uh oh)
-cosmopolitan (really uh oh)
-gives speeches about how we and the Soviets share the same earth, love our children, etc. (damn hippie)
-willing to negotiate with the commies (triple uh oh)
-proposing nuclear disarmament, voluntarily stopping nuclear testing as a show of good faith, signing test ban treaties (get the barf bag)
-refusing to commit combat troops to Laos where the commies are taking over
-refusing to commit combat troops to Vietnam, even making moves to back out (plan to pull 1,000 advisors out now, all of them by ’65)
-The fatal sin, refusing to back up the CIA’s Bay of Pigs ‘invasion’ with U.S. forces, thereby losing our chance to get rid of Castro
-The fatal-er (sic) sin, compromising with the Soviets in the Cuban Missile Crisis

The Cuban Missile Crisis is considered JFK’s shining moment by many but not by the hardliners of the time. This Richard Nixon special was sold by the CIA to Kennedy and he would never trust them again. They told him the invaders would be hailed as liberators, a spontaneous revolt against Castro would result. Realistically they just wanted to force his hand into backing it up with U.S. military might, something he said he didn’t want to do (and to their surprise didn’t).
Not only that but he responded by firing the head of the CIA (future Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles!) along with the two other highest ranking CIA heads in charge of the Bay of Pigs.
He did, just as the often whacky movie JFK stated, say he wanted to, “Splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind.”
Not enough? He put in plans to continually reduce the CIA’s funding. He cabled all U.S. Embassies undermining the CIA’s authority in all overseas operations.
Back to Cuba- the CIA’s paramilitary foot soldiers (Cuban exiles) felt beyond betrayed. This was their chance to regain their homeland. It gets worse for them, Kennedy moved directly against them (to their eyes), forcing a shutdown of their raids on Cuba. To add insult to injury, he did it to appease Fidel and his overlord, Khrushchev.
The Cuban conflicts were also the mafia’s chance to regain the goose that laid the golden egg. And they already despised Kennedy for his war on organized crime (another betrayal given the Kennedy clan’s roots and IL voting ‘irregularities’).

It is not a conspiracy theory but a fact of history that some elements from all three of those groups (organized crime, CIA, Cuban exiles) worked on the same goal, killing a head of state (Castro) and overthrowing his government.
Once they felt Kennedy would not back them up, once they saw him as colluding with the devil, once they even saw him as an existential threat (war on organized crime, will end our operations against Castro, will gut our agency, will surrender the entire damn world to the commies), did someone in that working group decide enough was enough? Obviously I think so but first we have to see how that strange creature born of the Cold War links to a man named Lee Harvey Oswald.


Next- beatniks, barons and drag queens... seriously