Skip to main content

View Diary: On the anniversary of JFK's assassination, a boatload of speculative what-ifs are still unresolved (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Blight's piece shows why conspiracy theories stick (9+ / 0-)

    Since JFK was gunned down the U.S. has been dragged into conflict after conflict with only a few years of peace.

    Coincidence?

    Most likely, but it sure doesn't feel that way. It feels like our peace loving nation was hijacked and turned into a war loving empire.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 01:18:32 PM PST

    •  I Have an Uninformed Hypothesis That the M-I-C (7+ / 0-)

      looked at Ike pulling out of N Korea and JFK reneging on Bay of Pigs and refusing to fight over the Cuban missiles, and it vowed to itself "never again."

      Just from a feeling, I think they may have decided they weren't going to take this civilian bullshit any longer.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 01:29:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I recently saw a Nova program on the (7+ / 0-)

      assassination itself, and came away convinced that there was probably a single shooter and that it was probably Oswald. However, that doesn't explain motivation, and whether he acted on his own, or there was more to it. So many people hated JFK and his family and there was so much mystery and weirdness surrounding the whole thing even without Oliver Stone trying to shove it in your face. We'll never really know, even if we do know.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 01:32:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I saw that same excellent show on Nova (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kovie

        and also came away convinced for the first time in my life that it was a single gunman and the magic bullet truly was "magic".

        The preceding two nights on Nova had shows on JFK's life which I also thought were well done.

        •  Not magic, but physics (4+ / 0-)

          There were three shots. The first missed, the second passed through JFK, the front seat and Connolly, and the third took off part of JFK's head and was the kill shot. All three bullets did what you'd expect them to do per their materials, design and rate and the nature of the things they passed through.

          The only mystery was how Oswald got off all three rounds so quickly with that rifle, a bolt action design that was hard to fire this rapidly, AND be so accurate on the second two shots. But he did have excellent marksmanship scores as a Marine and apparently regularly practiced dry shooting and reloading with it.

          To me, the real mystery is the backstory that led to his actions. Did he act alone, or was there a lot more to it? It's hard to believe that he did.

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 02:16:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's more than one kind of "conspiracy"-- (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Betty Pinson

            there's conspiracy to act, and there can also be conspiracy to enable.

            The evidence is pretty overwhelming that Oswald was the lone gunman and was acting on his own volition. But what hasn't been discussed enough is the possibility that J Edgar Hoover knew Oswald was stalking JFK and did nothing to alert Kennedy.

            •  LIHOP? (0+ / 0-)

              I honestly have never studied the whole thing enough to be able to decide for myself, mostly because the data and theories are overwhelming and in the end it doesn't really matter because it's already happened and we've had so many other things to deal with since. We are awash in CTs.

              "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

              by kovie on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 02:36:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I doubt Oswald even fired a shot, let alone killed (0+ / 0-)

              JFK, but I don't buy any of the CT's. Plenty of speculation, not enough evidence.

              Who killed Kennedy and why? I have no idea, and I don't think we'll ever know. 50 years is plenty of time to conceal the evidence.

              Find out about my next big thing by reading my blog. Link is here: http://bettysrants.wordpress.com

              by Kimball Cross on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 06:39:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  another mystery (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            solliges, devtob

            is that the throat wound was reported to be a wound of entry by ALL of the Parkland ER doctors, who were quite used to bullet wounds. Some had been combat MDs.

            yet another is that more than a dozen Parkland doctors and also some nurses (that's the ER they took JFK to immediately after the shooting for those who don't know)...and this is 100% of the medical people who saw mortally injured JFK....ALL say that the back of his skull was blown out with a large (about 10 x 10cm) hole in the lower back, which they said was an exit wound. They all said this when interviewed around the time of the shooting.

            In the 1990s, Clinton convened the Assassination Records Review Board. The looked through Warren Report and House Select Committee on Asssasinations (1970s) interviews with these medical people and re-interviewed the ones who were still alive. ALL of the Parkland interviews, old and new, ALL of the people, agreed about Kennedy's wounds

            Small wound of entry, R forhead/temple. Small wound of entry, throat, which was then enlarged to a tracheotomy when they were working on him. Large exit wound in right lower rear of skull.

            It's available at the ARRB (assassinations records review board) websites...

            People pronounce on the Kennedy Assasination based on the data that they have. Understandable. Problem is they often don't have all the data on which to make a conclusion. It is available, though. If someone wanted to look.

            but "Oswald did it" sources don't go into the wounds (unbiased well motivated) healthcare workers saw and what they mean about how JFK was killed.

            Why did Oswald not have gunpowder residue on his cheek if he recently had fired a rifle? He Passed that test, was negative, which in that day at least meant he did not recently fire a rifle.

            No one questions this. It is widely available. One can only conclude that people putting together documentaries books etc that will conclude Oswald was a lone gunman certainly do not want to report that he likely hadn't fired a rifle that day. Nor that all the hospital staff who worked on Kennedy when he was dying said he was shot from the front.

            I don't have any conclusions who shot JFK or from where. BUT I know that concluding Oswald was a lone gunman is not supported by the evidence. I started thinking Oswald did it and that people that believed some sort of conspiracy murdered the President were like 9/11 truthers or believed theories about area 51 and aliens.

            •  You should watch the Nova special (0+ / 0-)

              The bullets used were very unique and after much analysis behaved exactly as those bullets did in tests.

              Also, the X-rays of the skull were consistent with a bullet from the back of the head and the head exploding.

              It was a very thorough and scientific examination of the evidence.

              •  I'm persuaded that this is what happened (0+ / 0-)

                In this sort of shooting, it makes sense that the entry wound would be much cleaner and smaller than the exit wound. Bullets lose their directional and rotational stability upon impact with soft tissue, as multiple experiments show, and act more like shrapnel than bullets.

                Whether or not Oswald acted alone is a different matter.

                "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                by kovie on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 06:45:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Uh, no, just no. (0+ / 0-)

            (1) The alleged murder weapon was an Italian WW2 surplus rifle called the Mannlicher-Carcano. Its bolt caught in three places. An FBI ballistics expert couldn't fire it even once in the seconds when Oswald was alleged to have fire 3 shots. This has been well known since Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgment was published before the end of the 60s.

            (2) From Oswald's vantage point in the Textbooks Depository, he could see the motorcade come toward him before the cars turned left into Dealy Plaza. After the turn, JFK was moving away from Oswald. Why wouldn't Oswald shoot at JFK when he was coming toward him? If he missed, the target would be closer. I admit to getting this second point from Stone's JFK, but it is something to think about.

            Find out about my next big thing by reading my blog. Link is here: http://bettysrants.wordpress.com

            by Kimball Cross on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 06:32:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The empty cartridges matched the rifle (0+ / 0-)

              Oswald practiced dry shooting this rifles for weeks prior to the shooting. How many time did this expert practice? Are you actually suggesting that there was a second shooter standing right next to Oswald who did the actual killing? Why? What purpose did that serve? Why a patsy and the real shooter, to make us think it was Oswald and let the real shooter get away? Then why did Ruby shoot Oswald, to prevent him from telling us what really happened?

              Silliness upon silliness. Ockam's Razor still applies.

              "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

              by kovie on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 06:38:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  About that "marksmanship" score. (0+ / 0-)

            In the Marine Corps, there are three ratings for marksmanship. Marksman is the lowest. Sharpshooter is above that and Sniper is the highest.

            Oswald was a Marksman in that sense.

            Find out about my next big thing by reading my blog. Link is here: http://bettysrants.wordpress.com

            by Kimball Cross on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 06:34:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He got the 2nd highest ranking, not third (0+ / 0-)

              I'm guessing that the Marines have extremely high standards such that even the lower-rank is quite skilled. Plus he had years to practice, especially with this rifle, both loading and shooting.

              "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

              by kovie on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 06:40:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I saw that to.They didn't show quite a bit of (0+ / 0-)

        real evidence that shows Oswald was not a single shooter.

        Here is one simple fact available easily to check. Oswald's cheeks did not have nitrates(?)-the residue left if you fired a rifle. He PASSED that test by being negative, showing he had Not fired a rifle recently.

        Yet ,he had nitrate on his hands. That was expected of workers in a book depository because the ink has nitrates. But since his hands had nitrates it meant he had NOT washed any nitrates (gun powder residue) off his face! It would mean that the negative result for his cheek was real.

        Just a small thing I didn't notice them mentioning and explaining how the "lone gunman" never fired a rifle yet killed Kennedy, gravely wounded Connelly, and nicked a bystander on the cheek with yet another bullet fragment.

        •  Um, sorry to point out that Oswald's fingerprints (0+ / 0-)

          were on various parts of the rifle found in the sniper's nest at the Book Depository, the bullets from which were determined conclusively to have been the ones that struck JFK.

          •  I believe it was a palm print on the rifle (0+ / 0-)

            I'm sorry, I don't trust Dallas police. They had no prints, then suddenly they did.
            I don't trust them because of their report on Oswald's arrest saying he killed the President. This was in an hour or so after the shots were fired.
            How the heck was it possible to already know that then?
            Dallas was a hotbed of extreme right wing opposition and hatred toward this President.
            I don't trust that palm print as evidence. I do trust the gun powder tests because the results wouldn't be tainted because they point in the opposite direction of the finders of the test wanted...ie they reported evidence that did not support their own conclusion.

            Here is the arrest report:

            City of Dallas Archives: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/...

            Arrest Report On Investigative Prisoner, by M. M. McDonald.  Arrest  report  identifies Oswald as the assassin of President John F. Kennedy and Police Officer J. D. Tippit.  Copy marked  'deceased', (Photocopy Annotated), 11/22/63. 00002104       1 page  07  02  001  2104-001.gif
            .
            I am sure you can agree that it is very unusual that they knew Oswald killed Kennedy within about an hour. Think about even now...when does that happen when someone shoots someone without a direct eye witness?

            •  It's been at least a year since I last spent any (0+ / 0-)

              significant time on this matter (when reading Bugliosi's Reclaiming History), so my memories have grown a ltitle rusty. IIRC, though, LHO's prints (fingerprints, that is) were found in at least two places on the Mannlicher-Carcano rife: on the magazine and a partial on the stock. (Not sure about the palm print.)

              Same goes for the DPD's ID of LHO as the principal suspect so quickly. Again, IIRC, a duty roster was compiled of all Texas Book Depository emloyees and LHO was the only one who had vanished (all other TBD employees present and accounted for). Flight can show an awareness of guilt and desire to evade arrest.

              I'll have to defer to you on the nitrates and their significance (or lack thereof). Much as I think this investigation and debate are worthwhile, I cannot find the time to do it well. And if I can't do it well, I'd just as soon not do it at all.

      •  Vincent Bugliosi offers what I think is the (0+ / 0-)

        most compelling explanation of Oswald's motive(s), specifcially as they involved Oswald's romanticization of the Cuban Revolution, his anger at JFK and the U.S. government over its ongoing attempt to destabilize Castro's regime, his desire to emigrate to Cuba to join the Revolution and his crazy thought that assassinating JFK would help him curry favor with Castro so he and Marina could emmigrate. Just a month earlier, LHO tried to get a 'transit visa' to Cuba in Mexico City and was rejected.

    •  I am not sure how to take your description (4+ / 0-)

      of the U.S. as a "peace loving nation." We must have read very different histories.

      Support Small Business: Shop Kos Katalogue If you'd like to join the Motor City Kossacks, send me a Kosmail.

      by peregrine kate on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 01:41:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site