Home > History, Politics, Uncategorized > The JFK Conspiracy – 50 Years Later And Still No Answers

The JFK Conspiracy – 50 Years Later And Still No Answers

Rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of Pr...

Rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President John F. Kennedy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy passed us by a few days ago. Rightfully so, his death was heavily commemorated in the media. There was reminiscing over what was during Camelot, what was accomplished, and rumination over what may have been had he lived to serve two terms. Of course, along with the examination of the Kennedy political machine came the rehashing of the endless conspiracy theories that have abounded over the past five decades over what really happened. With my blog titled as it is, I would be remiss not to throw in my two cents worth of conspiracy theory as well.

I was born in the spring of 1965, about a year and a half after the killing of JFK. It would be nearly a decade after I was born that I would fully understand the Kennedy assassination. However, when I came to comprehend what happened, I spent a lot of my time reading about his death, his history and legacy, as well as the countless theories over why he died and who was responsible. Through all of my research and understanding, here is what I believe to have happened. Keep in mind, this is merely opinion I give based on what is known: My conclusions are not new nor ground breaking. It is a theory that is both popular, well discussed and written about. In my opinion, the CIA is responsible for the death of JFK, either with or without the help of the Mafia, and Lee Harvey Oswald was not the lone gunman, as concluded by the Warren Commission. I’m not really sure how anyone in their right mind could actually believe that Oswald could be solely responsible.

Believing that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman is akin to believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I, for the life of me, do not understand how anyone can conclude that Oswald, although an expert sniper trained by our military, could possibly squeeze off three precision shots from such a long distance with his view partially blocked by a tree. Furthermore, I can’t fathom that he was able to accomplish this with a twenty dollar bolt action rifle in under what? Thirty seconds? No one has been able to replicate his shots from the school book depository where he fired from. They either can not perform the actions necessary with a bolt action rifle to fire and reload the chamber three times in that short amount of time, or they can’t achieve it with any kind of accuracy. It’s not doable, it’s just not. You also have to consider this: the wounds taken by Kennedy, as well as John Connally, who was also shot while riding with Kennedy that day were not consistent with the trajectory of the bullets. In fact, films taken of the assassination show Kennedy lurching forward after the first hit, and then violently arcing backward with massive amounts of blood spraying from behind and from the side of his head, indicating that the kill shot would have come from in front of him. So no, Oswald was not alone. He worked in tandem with another shooter, both of whom acted under the orders of the CIA. Why the CIA you ask? Stay with me, I’m getting to that.

The fact of the matter is, by the late fifties/early sixties, the CIA was an operation that reported to no one. They had developed complete and unabashed autonomy. They were directing covert operations throughout the globe, including south east Asia and communist controlled Cuba. The Kennedy’s, both John and his brother Robert, detested the CIA for their actions. They fought them at every turn and rightly believed that if anyone could bring down their administration, it would be the CIA in either a bloodless or bloody coup. They were painfully correct. The history of the malevolence between the CIA and the Kennedy’s is very compelling, which leads me to believe that they were responsible for not only John’s death, but possibly Robert’s as well.

First off, the CIA was furious over Kennedy’s actions (or inactions) during the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. For those of you not familiar, here’s the Bay of Pigs in a nutshell. Not long before Kennedy took office, lame duck president Eisenhower approved a CIA plan to over throw Fidel Castro, and put in place an American friendly government. This invasion was to take place shortly after Kennedy took office, and if needed, military support would be provided. While the invasion did take place, it went horribly wrong, and Kennedy refused to provide the much needed air support to turn it around in the CIA’s favor. In short, the Bay of Pigs was a fiasco, a black eye for the CIA, and to add insult to injury, CIA director Alan Dulles was removed from his post by Kennedy days after the failed coup attempt. Kennedy wanted peace, and he understood that any movement toward Cuba (as well as South East Asia, and Eastern Europe) would not only heat up the Cold War: It would most likely move us into full blown nuclear war with the Soviet Union. As a side note, I find these nuggets interesting: At the time, George H. W. Bush was an assistant director at the CIA. The code name for the Bay of Pigs operation was Zapata (now known as the Harbinger Group), which also happens to be the name of the oil company that Bush owned. In addition, hours after Kennedy was shot, there was a meeting in CIA headquarters in Langley. One of the few attendees of this debriefing was George H.W. Bush.

The next strike from Kennedy against the CIA came in his refusal to provide 140,000 ground troops to Laos. At the time Laos was run by a puppet government controlled by the agency. When this government came under attack by the communist Pathet Lao guerillas, the CIA as well as right wing war hawks demanded that Kennedy provide troops as well as nuclear weapons. His stead fast refusal would lead to the fall of the CIA controlled regime, infuriating both the hierarchy of the CIA and the joint chiefs of staff. Laos was just the tip of the Asian iceburg: Kennedy would vehemently clash with the CIA over Vietnam as well.

The CIA wanted full blown war in Vietnam. They wanted this in order to halt the spread of communism in order to control financial interest for corporate America. Kennedy wanted peace, he had no interest in promoting war for corporate interest, and he wanted nothing more than to end the Cold War and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Kennedy was interested in cooperation with the communist, not competition. He wanted nothing to do with other countries civil wars, and had no wish to see Americans die in someone else s fight. In the latest edition of Rolling Stone Magazine, Robert Kennedy Jr writes of this: He describes how his uncle would only consent to sending a handful of military “advisers”  to South Vietnam in order to assist the South Vietnamese army. Upon learning that 100 Americans had died in battle in 1962, JFK swore that American involvement would be reduced to nothing by 1965.

Further infuriating the CIA was Kennedy’s motions toward ending the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Without the Cold War, the CIA would probably have been de-funded and ceased to exist. The CIA’s sole purpose at the time was to fight communism and protect American financial interest abroad. Without the Cold War, why would the CIA be needed? While war hawks such as Alan Dulles and Barry Goldwater railed against communist aggression, Kennedy was quietly building trust with Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev. They corresponded regularly, and were covertly working together to form alliances and peace, not competition and war. Of course there were those in Soviet government who thought like the america right wing extremist at the time. Within a year after Kennedy’s death, Khrushchev was removed from power, and replaced by party puppets Leonid Brezhnev and Alexei Kosygin. The CIA would live on to subvert other governments, and the Cold War would live on another 25 years after the death of JFK and removal of Nikita Khrushchev. Meanwhile, those who were heavily invested in the finances of the Cold War machine would become filthy rich. Go figure.

So there you have it: My opinion on who killed Kennedy, and why. Like I said earlier, it’s just my opinion based on what I’ve read in the past. I have no proof, and my thoughts are nothing that haven’t been presented before. However, I do feel as if I’m presenting an opinion based on logic. JFK detested the CIA and wanted to bring it to the ground. The CIA hated Kennedy, and had every motivation to remove him from office – remove him for a more CIA friendly president by the name of Lyndon Johnson, who coincidentally hailed from the state of Texas and hated Communism. Hmmmmm.

What are your thoughts? Do you believe that Oswald acted alone? Do you think the Mafia did it? It’s also a plausible theory when you consider that John and Robert were out to destroy the Mafia. Or do you prescribe to another theory? I would love to hear your opinions on the subject!

By the way, the Warren Report is complete and utter bullshit. It was a charade played out in order to placate the public, and bring closure to a horrific and traumatizing event. How can anyone take such a report that was manufactured by a commission in which Alan Dulles sat upon seriously? Chew on that for a minute and get back to me.

Advertisements
  1. Sedate Me
    December 11, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    Probably more on this later, but for now…

    I agree that many folks had a motive to kill JFK, the CIA being near the top of the list. The mob, specifically the mobster who was banging the same girl as Kennedy, had both personal and professional motives. Oh, yeah. Cuba & the USSR had motive too, seeing as WW3 would’ve taken place if JFK had listened to worthless, homicidal, motherfuckers like Curtis Lemay.

    However, as high ranking Lone Nut Theorist, Bela Lugosi (sic) says to discredit Conspiracy Theories, “motive doesn’t equate to guilt”. So, how do you prove guilt? Well, you do it in a trial where the suspect is innocent until proven guilty. I know that in an era where everyone is considered guilty, often even after proven innocent (see: surveillance cameras, NSA, etc, etc, etc) “presumed innocence” is a quaint, old fashioned, notion. But in JFK’s day, it was still the supposed standard (at least for white-on-white crime).

    That’s why my starting point is to consider myself a jury member in a trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. Does the evidence allow me to convict him of being the Lone Gunman beyond a reasonable doubt? If so, can I then convict him of being the Lone Nut the Warren Commission claimed he was? That is to say, a guy who acted without any assistance, flew completely under everyone’s radar screen, and who couldn’t be stopped in the normal course of events.

    I consider Lone Gunman & Lone Nut two very different things. But if you can’t convict on Lone Gunman, you can’t convict on Lone Nut. The 3rd question is the easiest to answer, “Was there a conspiracy?” (Actually, the only question there is “What kind of conspiracy, how deep, & by whom?”)

    So, let’s start with the CLOSEST thing Lee Harvey Oswald ever got -and may EVER get- to a fair trial. This is the 1986 mock-trial which was arguably the last-best-chance to get a legitimate conviction. In fairness, participation was voluntary and that may have resulted in some evidence (on both sides) being left out. It also predates the ARRB declassification of documents triggered by Oliver Stone’s JFK, which only would have helped the defence’s case.

    Few people have ever even heard of this trial. It’s very long, but I consider it MANDATORY viewing, no matter what one’s opinion on JFK’s killing. That’s because, unlike the Warren Commission, it doesn’t start from a preordained conclusion and then searches for evidence to support the conclusion. It allows you to put yourself in the mind of a juror trying to establish legal guilt or innocence. Anything short of that standard is purely speculative, regardless of the pedigree of those saying it. (ie Warren)

    Watch that trial! I’m not going to ruin things by saying what the verdict was. However, even though I think the defence fumbled at the goal line, I personally could NEVER have voted “guilty” in the case presented here. Not only can you objectively see the weakness in the prosecutor’s case, the strengths of his case underline the weaknesses. (ie the amount of evidence presented for Oswald’s rifle firing two bullets vs no evidence saying Oswald pulled the trigger) You can also see the defendant’s lawyer, not just raise sufficient doubt, but question the very validity of key evidence in the prosecution’s case. Only a hanging jury could ever convict Oswald. I think the Powers That Be knew it. They may not have killed Oswald, but they sure as hell were glad Ruby did.

    Near the end of the trial, the defence’s case starts looking stronger than the prosecution’s case. Of particular note is Part 20 that featured James Hasty, the FBI agent who was -according to the official version- the ONLY government official paying any attention to Oswald. Additionally, Part 21 featuring Edwin Lopez becomes even more important after ARRB de-classification.(more on both another time) By Part 22, it’s become obvious the prosecutor has turned into a defence lawyer trying to create reasonable doubt in the Defence’s case because he knows he’s losing.

    You can see Bela Lugosi’s frustration growing as he realizes he’s losing and he ups his game. I think this is what drove the writing of his famous Lone Nut Theory book. And anytime you see him talk about JFK today, you can still see the anger.

    So, Oswald as Lone Gunman can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The very best supporters of Lone Gunman can claim is “most probable”, therefore the Lone Nut Theory of the Warren Commission is even less likely. The best case that could ever be made was at the time of the Warren Commission. Why? Because it was a dog & pony show in which contradictory evidence was buried. Nothing newer than the Warren Commission is going to help their cause. Newer evidence can only weaken it. (See: Zapruder film.)

    Like

  2. December 18, 2013 at 11:27 am

    Good stuff! Thanks for sharing the video. For me, I can’t help but be stuck on the fact that there is no way that Oswald could squeeze off three successful shots from that distance with obscured vision in such a short amount of time. Considering the fact that he had a cheap bolt action rifle makes it seem even more miraculous of a shot. I believe his grades as a marksman were fair to middling in the short time he was in the armed forces. Your right, the question to me is not if he was the lone gunman or not. Of course he wasn’t. The circumstantial and what hard evidence there is seems to compelling. The question is who engineered the conspiracy and for what reason? All evidence, at least for me, points to either the CIA, or Sam Giancana and the mob. What if the mob and the CIA worked in tandem? That theory would seem to fit as well. They both had interest in Cuba, and the mob would certainly at the time be able to perform some actions with resources that the CIA may not have had. It’s a thought.

    Like

  3. Sedate Me
    February 9, 2014 at 5:45 pm

    All but a couple of 50th Anniversary specials were nostalgic video compilations, or shows that refused to take any non-official version remotely seriously. There were a lot of attempts to “prove” the Lone Gunman Theory through ballistics, recreations and fanciful CGI. A couple were mildly plausible, provided you forgot that the ballistic boys were shooting stationary, boneless, corpses made of jello and the shooting re-creations were preformed by top-of-the-line marksmen shooting in ideal conditions. One marksman who actually pulled the shooting off said there was NO chance Oswald could have done it in a real-world shoot with his skill level. (I’ve now seen 2 guys who pulled off the shoot say the same thing.)

    The Shoot:

    1) Shitty rifle. You’d figure an attempt on the President would garner at least the 2nd worst rifle in a mail order catalogue.

    2) Yes, Oswald was a decent shot early in his military career. But that career ended several years before the Kennedy shooting. Remember, Oswald was a radar/communications guy, so his skills were degrading while still in the military. It’s important to note that he had never fired at a human before the Gen. Walker shooting. Oswald was no perma-frosty member of Seal Team 6. (Unless the Powers That Be are hiding the fact that Oswald was a fake-defector intended to be a spy/assassin but was turned into a Manchurian Candidate.)

    Let’s compare the Walker shooting to Kennedy’s. In the Walker shooting, he had all the time in the world & had no risk of getting caught BUT HE STILL MISSED! The Kennedy shooting was the highest pressure shoot imaginable. Oswald had one seconds-long window in a stadium-like atmosphere and the odds of getting caught/killed were high. Yet we’re supposed to believe Oswald had his best day ever. Oh, but we’re also supposed to consider him a loser who never succeeded at anything. A “failure” who got better the tougher the shoot? That does not compute.

    3) Where the fuck is the first bullet? It had the longest preparation time and the shortest distance to travel, but it magically disappeared without hitting ANYTHING. The 2nd bullet created (what?) 7 wounds, including a bone hit, then it bounced off Sputnik and landed in a hospital stretcher with nary a scratch? Sure! The 3rd bullet, fired from the greatest distance and in the shortest prep time was the most accurate? Yeah, and it blew into a million pieces while bullet #2 stayed intact. Even if this firing sequence is theoretically possible, there’s still too much suspension of logic required.

    Official Misconduct:

    1) Just how the fucking fuck does a military guy defect to the Soviet Union and be allowed to come back to America (with a Russian wife!) at the height of the Cold War??? How could this unrepentant Marxist roam freely without being trailed 24/7 so soon after the Red Scare, when even piddling Hollywood writers were being spied on?The fucking NSA knows which sock I put on first in the morning. But we’re expected to believe the ONLY person in America who paid ANY attention to Oswald was one, lukewarm, FBI agent? Oh, did I mention that FBI agent (in the above mock trial) testified he was ordered by his boss to destroy evidence?

    How can Oswald go on TV & radio defending Public Enemy #1, Castro without consequence? How can he get into a public fight (ending in arrest) with a member of a DRE, a CIA front organization, without drawing CIA attention? And how could Oswald attempt to “infiltrate” the DRE? Curiously, DRE was led by the very same agent that later became the stonewalling CIA liaison for the 70’s House Select Committee on Assignations. (Oh, no conflict of interest there!) But we’re supposed to believe that the CIA file on Oswald was thinner than an Ethiopian. BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!!!

    2) This single shocking (and quite confusing) story puts the lie to everything the CIA has said. At the very least, it proves there was at least one conspiracy (with FBI help) to manipulate/destroy/bury evidence. Unless the CIA comes clean (HA!) we’ll probably never know the full story. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/oswald-the-cia-and-mexico-city/

    Either way, Oswald WAS on the CIA’s radar 6 weeks BEFORE the assignation. They had evidence of him, an imposter, or both, at the USSR & Cuban embassies in Mexico. Phone tap recordings existed of Oswald, or an imposter, trying to arrange passage to Cuba and requesting a meeting with a well known KGB assassin. Yet the CIA insisted they didn’t even know who Oswald was, never mind that he visited Mexico. By the way, just who the hell would impersonate a supposed insignificant nobody to appear as if he was doing something very suspicious just weeks before doing something very significant?

    Very interestingly, J Edgar Hoover clarified an earlier discussion regarding Oswald’s “completely unknown” Mexican trip with LBJ just 22 hours after the shooting and long before the Warren Commission was even formed. Even with today’s tech, that would be suspiciously fast.

    Conclusions & Random Thoughts:

    1) Even IF it’s findings were 100% accurate, the Warren Commission was created to be a complete Dog & Pony Show with a predestined conclusion, aka Lone Nut. It was full of unwilling participants, bullshit testimony, missing testimony, unexplored theories and may have even been presided over by some of the Conspiracy’s architects.

    2) If the shooting wasn’t a conspiracy, (I think it was, if only to look the other way while it unfolded) I have NO doubt whatsoever there were multi-layered conspiracies of cover-up. Even high ranking Lone Nut Theorist, Gerald Posner, claims the CIA, FBI, Secret Service & others deliberately lied and destroyed/manipulated/buried evidence. Priority #1 was ass-covering and keeping their dirty little secrets.

    3) The CIA proved it doesn’t deserve to exist. In fact, all these super-secret, totally unaccountable, Military-Industrial-Spy-Complex outfits are completely untrustworthy. Outfits that keep secrets, spy, sabotage, lie and murder for a living are -shockingly- not good for democracies.

    Like

  4. February 10, 2014 at 5:04 am

    Yup, one would have to be completely entrenched under a rock to believe the Warren Commission’s findings. There is just no way that Oswald acted alone.

    Like

  1. November 26, 2013 at 7:28 pm
  2. November 26, 2013 at 9:50 pm
  3. November 27, 2013 at 5:20 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: