Can We Agree On A Consensus Statement Regarding Conspiracy?

[Don Jeffries]

Reading over the recent posts involving David Lifton and Jim DiEugenio, and keeping in mind all the past disagreements between so many good researchers on this subject, I would like to know if it is possible for us all to agree on anything about the assassination at this point. Leaving aside the arguments over minutiae dear to the hearts of specific researchers, can we find a consensus here?

Those of us who know the official story is impossible should be able to come up with a platform expressing our collective thoughts. So, I have drated the following, and wonder if the research community could find a way to rally around something like it:

The Warren Commission, FBI and Dallas Police did not solve the mystery of who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The House Assassinations Committee of the late 1970s left more questions than answers behind them. Despite the fact a real investigation has never been conducted, the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin, and was framed by others for the crime. On the verge of the 50th anniversary of the most significant political assassination of the 20th century, it is more important than ever for there to be an open and independent inquiry into the matter for the very first time.

Can we all agree on the wording in that statement? Call it a general press release if you like. If we could just provide a united front, and coalesce behind the central theme which I assume keeps us all coming to forums like this, then wouldn't we instantly become a more viable, powerful force to be reckoned with?

Edited May 1, 2013 by Don Jeffries

[Thomas Graves]

Reading over the recent posts involving David Lifton and Jim DiEugenio, and keeping in mind all the past disagreements between so many good researchers on this subject, I would like to know if it is possible for us all to agree on anything about the assassination at this point. Leaving aside the arguments over minutiae dear to the hearts of specific researchers, can we find a consensus here?

Those of us who know the official story is impossible should be able to come up with a platform expressing our collective thoughts. So, I have drated the following, and wonder if the research community could find a way to rally around something like it:

The Warren Commission, FBI and Dallas Police did not solve the mystery of who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The House Assassinations Committee of the late 1970s left more questions than answers behind them. Despite the fact a real investigation has never been conducted, the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin, and was framed by others for the crime. On the verge of the 50th anniversary of the most significant political assassination of the 20th century, it is more important than ever for there to be an open and independent inquiry into the matter for the very first time.

Can we all agree on the wording in that statement? Call it a general press release if you like. If we could just provide a united front, and coalesce behind the central theme which I assume keeps us all coming to forums like this, then wouldn't we instantly become a more viable, powerful force to be reckoned with?

Don,

IMHO, Oswald was either involved in the assassination conspiracy or was totally innocent. I, like most people here, don't think he could have done it by himself.

--Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

Reading over the recent posts involving David Lifton and Jim DiEugenio, and keeping in mind all the past disagreements between so many good researchers on this subject, I would like to know if it is possible for us all to agree on anything about the assassination at this point. Leaving aside the arguments over minutiae dear to the hearts of specific researchers, can we find a consensus here?

Those of us who know the official story is impossible should be able to come up with a platform expressing our collective thoughts. So, I have drated the following, and wonder if the research community could find a way to rally around something like it:

The Warren Commission, FBI and Dallas Police did not solve the mystery of who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The House Assassinations Committee of the late 1970s left more questions than answers behind them. Despite the fact a real investigation has never been conducted, the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin, and was framed by others for the crime. On the verge of the 50th anniversary of the most significant political assassination of the 20th century, it is more important than ever for there to be an open and independent inquiry into the matter for the very first time.

Can we all agree on the wording in that statement? Call it a general press release if you like. If we could just provide a united front, and coalesce behind the central theme which I assume keeps us all coming to forums like this, then wouldn't we instantly become a more viable, powerful force to be reckoned with?

Don,

I, like many people here, don't think Oswald could have done it by himself.

IMHO, he was either: 1) involved in an assassination conspiracy, or 2) totally innocent.

How does one go about making a "formal statement" that reflects those two near-opposites?

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Edited May 1, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Anthony DeFiore]

Reading over the recent posts involving David Lifton and Jim DiEugenio, and keeping in mind all the past disagreements between so many good researchers on this subject, I would like to know if it is possible for us all to agree on anything about the assassination at this point. Leaving aside the arguments over minutiae dear to the hearts of specific researchers, can we find a consensus here?

Those of us who know the official story is impossible should be able to come up with a platform expressing our collective thoughts. So, I have drated the following, and wonder if the research community could find a way to rally around something like it:

The Warren Commission, FBI and Dallas Police did not solve the mystery of who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The House Assassinations Committee of the late 1970s left more questions than answers behind them. Despite the fact a real investigation has never been conducted, the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin, and was framed by others for the crime. On the verge of the 50th anniversary of the most significant political assassination of the 20th century, it is more important than ever for there to be an open and independent inquiry into the matter for the very first time.

Can we all agree on the wording in that statement? Call it a general press release if you like. If we could just provide a united front, and coalesce behind the central theme which I assume keeps us all coming to forums like this, then wouldn't we instantly become a more viable, powerful force to be reckoned with?

HERE! HERE! In complete agreement to find the truth, and stop any and all pissing matches! TD

[Ron Ecker]

Sounds good to me.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin, and was framed by others for the crime.

I agree wholeheartedly and would add that the evidence proves that he was also framed for the Tippit murder.

but many researchers seem to hold the Garrison view, that Lee was a conspirator

and conspired to frame himself.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

In my opinion the JFK assassination was solved a long time ago and it is not a mystery. Like Vincent Salandria, I believe that it is obvious that the "national security state" murdered JFK. Unlike Salandria I think it is important to "name names" and Lyndon Johnson is at the top of the list of those invovlved in JFK's murder.

Want a summary of the JFK assassination? LBJ himself said it was Dallas, TX oil executives (“the fatcats” in his words) and US intelligence who murdered John Kennedy. I focus on LBJ because there is more implicating Lyndon Johnson in the JFK assassination than any other single person.

I think Air Force military intelligence was involved, too, and not just the CIA … The murder of JFK seems a classic case of the outside shadow government of business oil elites (think H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, D.H. Byrd, possibly Nelson & David Rockefeller) using the inside govt of military/CIA to achieve an objective.)

Just like the oil companies did in Iran 1953; United Fruit did in Guatemala 1954, ITT and the Rockefellers in Chile 1973 and many, many other examples. The JFK coup should be seen in such a context.

Even without all that one could read the first 3 volumes of Caro (and even the 4th) along with Sylvia Meagher’s “Accessories After the Fact” (published 1967) and have a prima facie case proving LBJ’s involvement in the JFK assassination. And by 1967 Lyndon Johnson was in full blown lunatic mode – Moyers and Richard Goodwin by then were seriously concerned about LBJ’s mental condition and McGeorge Bundy later commented that LBJ reminded him of Stalin in his last days working for him.

Not only that, but in my opinion, and I feel strongly about this, Lyndon Johnson personally engineered the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, and LBJ wanted to murder all 294 Americans on board and blame it on Egypt and use it as a pretext to attack, bomb & take out Nasser of Egypt who had for 10 years drifted into the Soviet.

My personal opinion is that Lyndon Johnson was as depraved as Hitler or Stalin and was a "functional lunatic" just as some "functional alcoholics" are somehow able to hold down a job.

Check out Judy Morris' essay on the USS Liberty and read the book "Operation Cyanide" when you have the chance:

http://judymorrisreport.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-most-incredible-story-never-told.html

Imho, both the JFK assassination and the attack on the USS Liberty were classic Operation Northwoods operations in reality - inside jobs, false flag attacks, however you want to describe it.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Robert Morrow

[Dawn Meredith]

Reading over the recent posts involving David Lifton and Jim DiEugenio, and keeping in mind all the past disagreements between so many good researchers on this subject, I would like to know if it is possible for us all to agree on anything about the assassination at this point. Leaving aside the arguments over minutiae dear to the hearts of specific researchers, can we find a consensus here?

Those of us who know the official story is impossible should be able to come up with a platform expressing our collective thoughts. So, I have drated the following, and wonder if the research community could find a way to rally around something like it:

The Warren Commission, FBI and Dallas Police did not solve the mystery of who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The House Assassinations Committee of the late 1970s left more questions than answers behind them. Despite the fact a real investigation has never been conducted, the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin, and was framed by others for the crime. On the verge of the 50th anniversary of the most significant political assassination of the 20th century, it is more important than ever for there to be an open and independent inquiry into the matter for the very first time.

Can we all agree on the wording in that statement? Call it a general press release if you like. If we could just provide a united front, and coalesce behind the central theme which I assume keeps us all coming to forums like this, then wouldn't we instantly become a more viable, powerful force to be reckoned with?

Don,

IMHO, Oswald was either involved in the assassination conspiracy or was totally innocent. I, like most people here, don't think he could have done it by himself.

--Tommy

I hope that is not supposed to be a serious reply.

Don I agree with your words.

Dawn

[David Von Pein]

...the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin, and was framed by others for the crime.

The "available evidence" in the JFK murder case, of course, shows conclusively the exact opposite to that of what Don Jeffries has stated above.

There is not one single piece of physical evidence in the whole case that even suggests the existence of an assassin other than Lee Harvey Oswald. And that includes the so-called "Malcolm Wallace fingerprint", which has never been proven to be Wallace's and, more importantly, is a print that has never ever been proven to have been lifted off of a box that was located in the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository. And the verbiage that can be found in Commission Exhibit No. 3131 provides additional information to indicate that the "Wallace print" is nothing but a hoax.

So for a conspiracy theorist to say that "the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin" is pretty much akin to saying that the available evidence regarding a study of the sun conclusively proves that the sun is not hot, or that a study of water conclusively proves that it isn't wet at all.

And regarding the JFK case, I want to know if Mr. Jeffries is really suggesting that it is truly more reasonable to think that all of the evidence is fake and phony, vs. believing that ANY of it is legitimate and non-phony? (After all, if even a tiny percentage of that evidence IS legit, then Lee Oswald is almost assuredly guilty. Wouldn't you agree with that assessment, Don?)

Furthermore, from Don Jeffries' point-of-view, would it even be possible to fake so much evidence after the assassination (or before) and make it all come together in the perfect "It Was Oswald" pile that even Don must admit is where all of the evidence falls in this double-murder case (including J.D. Tippit's murder)?

If Don answers "Yes, it was possible" to my last inquiry, I'd sure like to hear Don's theory about HOW all that fakery was accomplished in a short period of time after the assassination? (Or was it all faked and planted before the assassintion?)

In other words, is there any chance that a conspiracy theorist, just for once, can actually put his money where his mouth is, and PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that ALL of the evidence against Lee Oswald was faked and/or manufactured in order to frame an innocent Oswald for the murder of JFK?

I agree wholeheartedly and would add that the evidence proves that he was also framed for the Tippit murder.

Which means ALL of that evidence is fake and phony too, right Raymond? From the four bullet shells that littered Tenth Street and Patton Avenue...to the dozen witnesses who fingered Oswald as either the lone gunman of Tippit or fingered him as the person they saw fleeing the immediate scene of Officer Tippit's slaying.

An all-encompassing "Let's Frame Oswald For TWO Murders (Not Just The One On Elm)" plot.

And yet the conspiracy theorists say that it's lone-assassin believers like me who are rewriting the history of the JFK assassination.

"Guys like DVP are committed to a false reality. .... I really do believe he's

just a garden variety xxxx." -- David S. Lifton; July 2011

Incredible, isn't it?

Edited May 1, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Martin Blank]

here's my take:

Who killed JFK?

That question is the Gordian Knot of modern America. Undo it and we shall have the answer to the question that still haunts us almost 50 years later. Sadly, we have been unable to unravel it ourselves and have not yet found an Alexander the Great to complete the task for us. As we have sought to untie this knot and recover what its fashioning has robbed us of as a society and a country, we have pulled many threads that proved to be false and misleading and meant to deter us from our course. Through the years, we have been thwarted by planted, faked, altered and disappearing evidence; misinformation; media manipulation; intelligence agency shenanigans; shoddy investigations; mountains of shredded and withheld paper; preconceived notions and presumptions of guilt; coerced statements; falsified statements; witness tampering; official blindness; murder; and more.

From this mix we have been left with the failed concoctions of the Warren Report and the HSCA report. And yet amidst all of the chaos and confusion that has been sown, we have found hope. Several of the threads we have pulled have been connected to the truth. We have been able to follow some to their ends, a process which has yielded a complete piece of the puzzle. I believe we now have enough pieces of the puzzle to give us an honest and accurate – though incomplete – picture of what happened on November 22. That picture though is still unfinished in many respects. There’s a fuzziness to it that can only be sharpened through the discovery of additional threads that lead to the truth. It will take more painstaking work to discover their secrets. I believe that when enough additional pieces are found and added to the puzzle we will clearly see the word “Conspiracy” along with the faces of men such as Allen Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, Carlos Marcello, Curtis LeMay, E. Howard Hunt, David Phillips, Santo Trafficante, Guy Bannister, David Ferrie, Lyndon Johnson, David Morales and more.

Patience, while often lauded as a virtue, may be our enemy in this endeavor. Mortality is daily thinning the ranks of witnesses, suspects and others with information to share. Agencies remain recalcitrant in releasing files they have been ordered to hand over. Something must be done and done soon if we are to mount a legitimate investigation of the crime even at this late date. If the country is to be saved by the light of truth, true patriots must be preared to soldier on even while awaiting the appearance of Alexander and his purposeful sword.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Martin Blank

[Ron Ecker]

This thread is specifically intended for "Those of us who know the official story is impossible" and the possibility of a consensus statement that those people might can agree on. What is the point or purpose of people trying to hijack it by insisting, for the umpteenth time, that Oswald did it or that LBJ did it?

[Guest Robert Morrow]

" Despite the fact a real investigation has never been conducted, the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin, and was framed by others for the crime."

Precisely because Oswald was US intelligence, I think he was involved in the JFK assassination. He certainly was hanging out with the wrong crowd: David Atlee Phillips, Guy Bannister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw. I don't think Oswald shot anyone, I think he was instead the fall guy for the JFK assassination and probably in on the plot in some way.

[Paul Brancato]

Apparently we cannot agree on the simple statement, which I think is clear enough and with which I agree, that leads off this thread.

[Thomas Graves]

Reading over the recent posts involving David Lifton and Jim DiEugenio, and keeping in mind all the past disagreements between so many good researchers on this subject, I would like to know if it is possible for us all to agree on anything about the assassination at this point. Leaving aside the arguments over minutiae dear to the hearts of specific researchers, can we find a consensus here?

Those of us who know the official story is impossible should be able to come up with a platform expressing our collective thoughts. So, I have drated the following, and wonder if the research community could find a way to rally around something like it:

The Warren Commission, FBI and Dallas Police did not solve the mystery of who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The House Assassinations Committee of the late 1970s left more questions than answers behind them. Despite the fact a real investigation has never been conducted, the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin, and was framed by others for the crime. On the verge of the 50th anniversary of the most significant political assassination of the 20th century, it is more important than ever for there to be an open and independent inquiry into the matter for the very first time.

Can we all agree on the wording in that statement? Call it a general press release if you like. If we could just provide a united front, and coalesce behind the central theme which I assume keeps us all coming to forums like this, then wouldn't we instantly become a more viable, powerful force to be reckoned with?

Don,

I, like many people here, don't think Oswald could have done it by himself.

IMHO, he was either: 1) involved in an assassination conspiracy (and "patsied"), or 2) totally innocent (and "patsied").

How does one go about making a "formal statement" that reflects these two near-opposites?

Sincerely,

--Tommy

bump

Edited May 2, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Tom Wilson]

Though little is agreed upon here and throughjout the research community, I do think the majority agree with Don's statement. I certainly do.