[ul]
[li]In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that there were probably multiple gunmen firing at President Kennedy, and that his assassination was likely the result of a conspiracy. The HSCA reviewed evidence and witnesses that the Warren Commission did not, most notably the assassination footage of Mary Muchmore and Orville Nix.[/li][li]In 1985, a jury in Florida found Liberty Lobby not guilty of libel in charging that Howard Hunt was in Dallas the day of the assassination and was complicit in its planning.[/li][li]It was reported in the July 1973 edition of Atlantic Monthly that Lyndon Johnson, who had died that January, “expressed his belief that the assassination in Dallas had been part of a conspiracy. He never believed that Oswald acted alone, although he could accept that he pulled a trigger.”[/li][li]The weight of the Warren Commission’s findings rests on the testimony of three people: Oswald’s wife Marina, who was threatened with deportation if she did not testify (he stated repeatedly before and after her testimony that she believed her husband to be innocent); Howard Brennan, who claims to have seen Oswald “smile with satisfaction” while shooting from the sixth-floor window, but could neither pick Oswald from a lineup nor replicate his feat in a reconstruction of the assassination; and Helen Markham, who claims to have seen Oswald murder Officer Tippett, yet whose story about the shooting clearly contradicted known facts (she said the car window was down and Oswald held a prolong conversation with the dying man; the window was up, and Tippett died instantly). She also had trouble picking Oswald out of a lineup.[/li][li]A bullet ricocheted from the sidewalk beneath the overpass, leaving a mark on the pavement and wounding a passerby with shrapnel. This bullet could not have been one of the three said to have been fired by Oswald.[/li][li]There is voluminous evidence to indicate that both Oswald and Jack Ruby had worked in some capacity with federal intelligence agencies.[/li][/ul]
Given all this, is it possible that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in the assassination of John Kennedy?
And, well, if someone is not proven guilty of libel beyond a reasonable doubt, that obviously proves that they were telling the absolute truth, right? :rolleyes:
According to the movie “Executive Action,” it was the usual conspiracy of Republicans, the “right wing,” Big Oil, the CIA, and the military. I don’t remember whether or not organized crime was involved.
I think “beady-eyed dickhead-at-large” Ed Lauter in one of his early roles played the gunman on the grassy knoll.
Counter-question: Does it preclude them telling the truth? Seems more likely than if they’d been found liable, hmmm? ‘Specially when the trial brings to light “CIA agent Marita Lorenz, who accompanied two cars full of guns and assassins from Miami to Dallas and, under oath, names all of them, then tells of a follow-up talk with the proud top assassin who pulled off ‘the really big one…we killed the president…’” All I’m sayin’ is, shouldn’t all this be taken into consideration when forming conclusions about the Kennedy assassination, instead of just taking the Warren Commission report as dogma?
I’m on record here on the SDMB as believing LHO acted alone, and yet I have never read the Warren Report. Besides the fact that I’ve never been able to find a copy of the damn thing (Where DO you get one?), I decided Oswald acted alone because I examined some of the evidence myself (well, pictures of the evidence) and it points to one guy acting alone, most likely Lee Harvey Oswald.
The Zapruder film is the best evidence of all. I don’t care what Oliver Stone or anyone else says, it’s clear to me from that film alone that all the shots came from above and behind JFK; not ONE shot came from in front of him. And I don’t care how many eye-witnesses have faulty recollections or who won or lost a libel case. None of that affects the physics involved in two men being shot from behind by a high-powered rifle.
As for that alleged CIA agent, people have been known to take credit for things they didn’t do, craving attention, fortune and glory.
“1963 - … U.S. President John F. Kennedy gets assassinated, from the Grassy Knoll, by Space Aliens under mind-control from Elvis who are working with the Bavarian Illuminati to get Jackie Kennedy pregnant with Bigfoot’s love-child. That wacky Warren Commission!”
Okay. How 'bout his intelligence background? Why does the fact that Oswald was obviously involved preclude there being other participants? The House Select Committee on Assassinations reviewed more evidence than either you or the Warren Commission; do their conclusions carry no weight with you?
If it’s clear to you that all the shots–and you know how many there were from watching a silent clip of the film, right?-- came from behind, that’s cool. It’s not as clear to most people. And it doesn’t necessarily explain why most everybody–Governor Connally included–looked to the front of the president after the first shot was fired. Nor does it explain the bullet ricocheting beneath the overpass. Or the Muchmore and Nix films, which offer a different vantage point that seems to show the president hit from the front. You’re basing your convictions in this case solely on your own perception of the Zapruder film, unreliable eyewitnesses and evidence to the contrary be damned? Honestly, jab, that’s not like you.
So she fabricated the story whole cloth? She didn’t say she killed the president, remember. And her story looks to be consistent with known facts, unlike much of the “lone gunman” hypothesis (you know the day Oswald is supposed to have picked up the mail-order rifle? He was in Mexico City). Look, I honestly don’t believe the story of Marita Lorenz or disbelieve it…let me do a little more reading, and I’ll come to a conclusion. As I’ve said before, I’ve got no pet assassination theory–I just want to make sure that the accepted explanation has taken into account possible discrepancies…and it clearly hasn’t, yet. (According to the AP, Gerald Ford admitted to “fictionalizing” conclusions in the Warren Report in order to “clarify” things, for Chrissake!)
I have a mild question for those who believe in the conspiracy:
Why bother?
JFK was not a particularly effective president. He was a vibrant leader, using the “bully pulpit” to good effect (launching the space race, launching the Peace Corps, and strong-arming the steel/labor settlement), but his record on legislation was not very good. He did not try to pull off any true social engineering. All the Civil Rights legislation he suggested was bottled up in committee by the Dixie-crats until Johnson used his immense personal power (and an appeal to JFK’s memory) to strong-arm them to the floor in the following year.
Why would anyone bother to kill him? I can see a Castro connection, but why would the CIA bump him off to please Castro?
The Mob/Chicago/“We gave him the election” routine makes no sense, given that he would still have won without Illinois. (If the mob was mad at the Kennedys, taking out Bobby, who was actually the AG would make more sense.)
Big Business had no serious beef with him. Aside from the steel strike, the Kennedy administration was not notably anti-business (and even that situation had more to do with supporting business by not letting steel problems shut down the auto, aircraft, shipbuilding, and soda-pop industries).
JFK was not stopping the CIA from doing anything else it wanted to–witness the Vietnam activities with the brothers Diem.
I have never heard a plausible (much less likely) reason to go to all the effort to kill a president who could have been removed by a vote in just over 11 months. Every group of conspirators I have heard named (except Castro) had the ability to screw up the economy to the point where Kennedy would have lost the next election. Why bother?
(Side note: the HSCA was at least as politically motivated as the Warren commision. While they may have turned up interesting information, their conclusions were dictated by the polls.)
Like I said, I’ve got no idea who’d want to kill Kennedy, or for what reason. I’d just like to know how people who believe Oswald acted alone can assimilate the points I’ve presented into their hypothesis–particularly the inadequacy of the Warren Commission, and the intelligence backgrounds of Oswald and Ruby. I appreciate the insight into the HSCA; I’m sure your analysis is accurate. My question is–what about the interesting information they turned up?
There were several groups that HATED Kennedy. With a passion. The ex-patriot Cuban Community hated him for withdrawing air cover at the Bay of Pigs. They saw it as betrayal.
According to many reports, the Kennedys backstabbed the Mob, appealing to them to help get union votes before the election, then starting a crackdown on organized crime after.
I’m not suggesting that there was a conspiracy, just that there were plenty of people who would gladly have pulled the trigger.
Demystifying the post-assassination legend, there was no reason for the “powers that be” to kill John Kennedy. He was a highly political man who gave every appearance of being a part of the system. If anything, the military-industrial-intelligence-Mafia-alien-Illuminati network enjoyed the full support of Kennedy and gave him its full support in return.
Then, out of the blue, Lee Oswald kills Kennedy. Not only did Oswald kill a prime Network agent, but he also showed the world that the Network’s control isn’t perfect. Oswald is the worst enemy the Network has; a single person who by his actions proves that one person is capable of changing history. The Network has to take action.
They quickly decide that the best defense is a good offense. They will make people believe that they wanted Kennedy dead and planned his death. This way instead of revealing their vulnerability, Kennedy’s assassination will be proof of his power.
The first step is obvious; they have to silence Oswald before the evidence of his guilt is presented in an open forum. The next step is to form the Warren Commission in such a way that the evidence will be discredited. Do you think it’s a coincidence that an incompetent like Jerry Ford was placed on one of the most critical investigations ever held?
After the first few months, the job becomes easier. It’s just a manner of inventing new “evidence” and “theories” and releasing them to the public via Network dupes like Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, or Oliver Stone.
So of course there was a conspiracy; a conspiracy to conceal the fact that Kennedy’s death was not caused by a conspiracy.
I have had a Dream, a Vision. In it the 2nd coming occurs, and the Messiah comes down to Earth, in all His Glory. Many ask him questions about the great mysteries of the Universe. Finally, someone asks Him about the JFK Assassination. The Lord, in all his Majesty, intones- “Oswald was the sole killer”. Immediately after, all the Conspiracy theorists say “AHA- so HE was in on it too!”.
Plainly and simply : If you believe in the Lone Gunman theory then how do you explain
1 : the reports of sercret service agents behind the Grassy Knoll, but the secret service denying this was the case?
2 : the bullet hitting the curb by the underpass?
3 : why the motorcade took the root it did when it was contrary to basic protection rules?
These are just a few questions which to me say that LHO wasn’t the only one involved although he may have been something to do with it.
All I am asking is for someone to answer these points rather than making out that anyone who doesn’t believe in the lone nut theory is a loony who will believe anything to make the world interesting.
Okay, than answer this. Virtually everyone who was present (including the filmed evidence) agrees that three shots were fired. Oswald was witnessed firing three shots at Kennedy. If the was a second gunman, why didn’t he shoot?
As for Oswald’s intelligence background, I can’t refute that until I know what it supposedly is. Oswald was a former Marine and he may have worked peripherally on some U2 missions (he was assigned to bases where U2 flights were conducted). Considering the long-standing “links” between Groom Lake and UFO’s, you could with equal plausibility use this as evidence than Oswald was an alien.
The House Committee based their entire conspiracy conclusion on the last minute evidence of the recording from a single police radio transmission. The recording was later found to have taken place miles away from the assassination sight.
As for LBJ, who cares what he thinks? Lots of people believe Kennedy was shot by a conspiracy, that doesn’t make it a fact.
The fact is that if there was a real conspiracy that was half as powerful as it would have to be to perpetrate all that is alleged to it, it would have been able to kill Kennedy anytime it wanted to with no evidence of foul play.
Oswald was NOT witnessed firing three shots. This conversation’ll go nowhere until you realize that.
As for his intelligence background, he had a CIA file (before the assassination) which filled a couple of boxes. There’s record of him being on the payroll of both the CIA and FBI, not to mention the suspicious circumstances surrounding his admittance within and subsequent egress from the Soviet Union.
I can give more details, but real life calls. Can someone else fill in till I get back?
Oh, and the HSCA findings most certainly weren’t based solely on a single transmission. For one thing, they took a hell of a lot closer look at the conflicting autopsy reports than did the Warren Commission.
Last thing. You say:
That’s just about the most specious piece of logic I’ve ever heard. Sometimes ‘argument from authority’ is actually valid, you know.
I heard an interview on Dallas radio last summer with either Zapruder’s lawyer, or somebody who worked in the law firm. This person (name escapes me) swears that what is now commonly believed to be The Zapruder Film, is an edited, and poorly at that, version of the footage that Abe Zapruder actually shot.
One Hoover-vs-Kennedy Conspiracy Theory show on either the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, or PBS (!), claimed that the Mob knew that if they killed Bobby Kennedy outright, JFK would just turn around and nominate a new Attorney General who was even tougher on Organized Crime than RFK was – but if they instead took out JFK himself, LBJ would appoint one of his own stooges as the new Attorney General, thus squeezing out RFK.
This had the nice storyteller’s ring of tying the JFK assassination together with the RFK assassination 5 years later. Unfortunately, real life events usually don’t fit together this well.
Daniel, aha is going to be really ticked that you spelled his name wrong - again. And do you mean to tell me that he took time out from touring with The Five Americans to shoot JFK?
Re Oswald’s intelligence background - in one of those JFK assassination shows (I think the one on A&E), it was pointed out that Oswald spoke Russian so well that when Marina first met him in Moscow, she thought he was native Russian. The presumption is that his superb fluency in Russian was the result of special training he received while in the Marines, and that his time spent in the Soviet Union was actually part of an intelligence operation of some sort. How else could he “defect” to the Soviet Union and then be allowed to return the states, when the Cold War was in full swing?
I agree with Gadarene that there is likely more than meets the eye here. However, I sincerely doubt the full story will ever emerge.
