The Kennedy Assassination Revisited

The reasons why this topic will never go away are because 1.) no one was ever convicted, 2.) the President's body was not treated as homicide victim's normally are, and 3.) the official account is so improbable on the face of it that it defies credibility. Alternative theories or accounts [although they might lack evidence] appear to the public as having more plausibility.

One of the things I like to think I've learned about life is that sometimes very improbable things happen. Sometimes coincidences occur, and sometimes strings of improbable events occur.

However, I don't think the Kennedy killing is one of those highly improbable strings of events. My personal exposure to the darker side of government life [including the subject of assassination] leaves me inclined to conclude that the Kennedy killing was directed from within the government. This conclusion is not based on the volumes of theory, and their various details [much of which I disagree with] but is based on two things, 1.) my experiences with government figures of that era informing me that such a thing was within the range of their inclinations and abilities, and 2.) my strong conclusion that such figures were highly motivated to undertake an action as grave as that.

This latter factor is now discussed, in detail, for the first time in the book,
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why it Matters
by James W. Douglass.

Of this work Danny Ellsberg [formerly of MIT] writes,

"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 him the secret distrust and hatred of hard-liners among the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA."

If there is any "key" to understanding the topic of conspiracy in this it is to be found in the profound motives of the possible conspirators, not in the technical issues. The technical circumstances, IMHO, are consistent
with a conspiracy, but they may also be consistent with a string of improbable events. By themselves they are not conclusive.

Oh god... I don't really want to have to start tearing this bullshit down too. I'm too busy for it. I must be part of the conspiracy.

There are as many different JFK conspiracy theories as there were Carter's Little Liver Pills produced during the 1960's.

I have a theory, as well. Lee Harvey Oswald wanted to make a name for himself.

Kennedy was killed by assassins from the pharmaceutical industry because he was going to spill the beans on how dangerous vaccines are.

Kennedy was killed by assassins from the pharmaceutical industry because he was going to spill the beans on how dangerous vaccines are. Originally Posted by GneissGuy

In my opinion, the only book worth reading is Jim Marrs' book "Crossfire". He's a great journalist from Ft. Worth and parts of that book have been on the History Channel and used in Oliver Stone's film, "JFK".

"JFK" is something you are referencing? Oh Lord. And Gneiss is right. It was Dr. Wakefield in the library with the candlestick

Believing anything Oliver Stone says is stretching credibility.

What I learned from the JFK death as a child is that a President is the President to all Americans.

My family didn't vote for him but my Mom was devastated. Tho BHO is not my choice, I pray for his safety every day.

Kennedy got shot???

To seriously respond to michael, I would say thet the worst place to keep a secret is the federal gov't. Look at all the stuff we would love to keep secret but can't. If the gov't had been behind this, someone would gave spilled the beans 50 years later. Magic bullet theory aside, you know that bullets, once fired, do funky things. I see nothing shocking about a lone gunman (LHO) but am not opposed to other conspiracies on this. But someone, somewhere would have talked by now. He'll, most are dead and no deathbed confessions yet. But we can't keep Abu grahb, Iran contra, whitewater, watergate, etc. Would be tough for people to keep quiet about it.

I wish i could think of the name of the documentary, but I saw a MUCH more plausible explantion than the Magic Bullet theory. Turns out the calculated angles attributed in JFK movie are all wrong.

Wellll... what I heard from reputable sources... that I cant disclose for fear of retribution, is that Kennedy did not get "shot". How ridiculous! Kennedy needed to leave public life so that he could live out his dream of Musical Theater.( Other then some work as a stand in for Marten Sheen in Apocolipse Now.)
He finished his career as a Chorus Member in "La Cage a' Fou". They say he passed away peacefully humming Brigadoon in 1999.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, believe what you want but I think the Kennedy assasination is not as complicated as some do.

Oswald was a Communist sypathetic nobody who wanted to be remembered in history for something. He chose to be remembered as the man who shot Kennedy.
He had his own motive. He had the weapon. He had the vantage point. He had the opportunity. He was a Marine trained marksman.

No one was tried/convicted because the assasian was himself assasinated by Jack Ruby. Dead men are not put on trial.

Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" was a piece of shit that was full of lies and dramatic license and sadly lacking in factual information.

The History Channel did an excellent documentary about the Kennedy assasination and the "JFK" movie. I do not recall the title but it was very enlightening and well made based on the facts. Basically it said the "JFK" movie was bullshit. I recommend watching it if you get the chance.

But if people need another conspiracy theory here's one. Kennedy was shot by Joe DiMaggio, they didn't call him the Yankee Clipper for nothing. He was jealous of JFK for doing Marilyn Monroe, his ex-wife, so he shot him and framed poor Lee Harvey Oswald. The Warren Commision didn't go after Joe because they were all Yankee fans.

Like I said believe what you want. But believing something does not make it true.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, believe what you want but I think the Kennedy assasination is not as complicated as some do. Originally Posted by Tatonka

I totally agree with the above statement. The American public has made the Kennedy assassination much more complicated than it actually was. I have always believed the murder was the work of Lee Harvey Oswald and he alone. Oswald was a very strange and quirky individual. He was an acknowledged communist during a time when International tensions between the Soviet Union and the USA were at its apex.

How can we ignore the fact that 13 months prior to the assasination, Kennedy and Kruschev were involved in a historic "blink off" on the International stage? JFK won a significant victory and the whole world knew it! More importantly, there was little doubt at the time that the history books would one day reflect Kennedy's victory! In terms of an actual motive what more did a Russian sympathizer, such as Oswald, need?

Lee Harvey Oswald had been trained to fire off multiple rounds, with accuracy, from a weapon in a few short seconds. He had the background and the motivation. Over and above that, he left the physical evidence (the rifle) behind. It was documented that he ordered the weapon used to kill the President from a mail order catalog. Furthermore, in a search of his home the authorities found pictures of Oswald actually holding the weapon. The shots were fired from the building in which Oswald worked. He had been seen in the building on that fateful day!

In order to make an informed decision, what more would a jury need? An average prosecutor could have successfully presented this case! As for the lack of a conviction almost fifty years later. As was pointed out above, Oswald died prior to ever going on trial. There is little doubt in my mind, had Lee Harvey Oswald lived he would have been convicted by a jury. In fact, I consider it a no-brainer!

As it relates to the Oliver Stone movie, I watched it and admittedly enjoyed doing so. With that said, I only viewed it from an entertainment perspective as opposed to an acceptance of the 'so called' facts presented. I found the film to be interesting, more fiction than fact and far removed from being persuasive!

It's true that many offices of government, such as the Congress and the White House, do not keep secrets well. But that doesn't apply to the intelligence and uniformed services. People in such services face imprisonment for breaking their secrecy oaths. Keeping secrets is the whole basis of what people in those agencies do, and they do it very seriously. From personal experience I know that when the last of that generation dies there will be no record of the things they did. Like most or real history it will be lost forever.

Few people believe that Oswald acted alone, and the reason for that is the highly improbable circumstances that would have to obtain for events to have unfolded as in the official narrative.

Among these unlikely coincidences is the rapidity of fire with that kind of weapon. Please try it yourself. I have been shooting rifles since I was six years old [my father was a military sniper]. It is possible to shoot three rounds from a bolt action in 7.5 seconds, but it is not possible to aim it. If you try to aim the rifle between cycles you will find out it cannot be done, and the President was a moving target going upward so the tracking is very difficult. Oswald was trained with a semi-automatic rifle when he was in the military.

I am not a conspiracy buff, and do not defend the many different theories, Oliver Stone's distorted account included [although I agree with his broader conclusion]. As I said above, my conclusion is based on personal experience with figures of that era [including Col. David Strier and our mutual CO W.Rostow], joined with the factors now outlined for the first time in the book referenced above [see Danny Ellsberg's recommendation of the work]. I agree with Danny's consideration of this matter, as I have concured with him on other subjects since 1984.

In the 1980s and 1990s [when I did my work] no one in intelligence would remotely consider conducting an assassination. It was very taboo. But that was a situation very different from what obtained in the 1950s and 1960s. Thanks to Presidents W. Bush and Obama the U.S. is back in the assassination game, and both CIA and DOD are up to their eyeballs in it. As has been reported, Obama recently signed a death order for an American citizen who hasn't been found guilty of anything in any judicial process.

My consideration of other figures who have written or spoken about JFK's death are these:

FBI Agent Don Adams - Very credible but doesn't know much.

CIA Officer Howard Hunt - Such a well documented liar on this topic his deathbed confession must be viewed skeptically.

Fletcher Proudy - A real person who knows the background but he wasn't there.

Barr McClellan - Carole Strayhorn's first husband and father of Mark and Scott, practiced law in Austin with LBJ's lawyers in the 1960s. Must be taken seriously, but his conversations with others are second and third hand. He's correct however in accusing Lyndon Johnson of criminal activity, including conspiracy to commit murder in Texas.

Select Assassination Committee Report - Testimony must be taken seriously but there is no smoking gun there. Techincal analysis ambiguous.

Mark Lane - Understands the CIA well and is on the right track.

Jim Marrs - a conspiracy theorist who draws conclusions from little evidence to sell books.