Evgenia Plotnikova-Doumerc

John, thank you very much for this answer. It was very interesting to read. My only doubt over this question is still the fact that Khrushchev seemed to ''plan'' to remove those missiles from Turkey (As you wrote, Earl E. Smith suggested that logically this would be Krushchev's next step). So, if that was Krushchev's objective when he was putting the missiles in Cuba, could this mean that he would not let the crisis to go down to war? Perhaps, even if he would not reach his plans over missiles in Turkey, he would still negotiate as the war was not his original objective? Please, correct me if I am wrong; perhaps, I just do not understand this part of the crisis well. I also have got another question. In my school in Tolouse we were doing an activity of ''advising'' the President which decision he could take and offering all kinds of solutions (like the ones you posted), as if we were part of the Executive Committee of the National Security Council. When we discussed all the solutions to the crisis I thought that I would advise negotiation with the USSR, as I thought that option had the least risk of war. So, I wondered if there was a lot of members in the Committee who suggested this option. Was it refused because it would look like not taking the concrete action against possible attack? Thank you!

I have got a question over a certain period of the Cold War - Cuban Missile crisis. Once when still being in International School of Toulouse, I had to write a test that conatined a question on ''seriousness'' of the Cuban Missile crisis. I argued that despite during this crisis the war seemed more likely than ever, the crisis was not as serious as it seemed at the time. In the favour of this argument, I wrote the following: First of all, Kennedy himself was not very likely to risk the war. This can be proved by the fact that when American U-2 spy plane was shot down while flying over Cuba, Kennedy was advised to take immediate action, but he decided to try peace talks with Krushchev. In additon, when the accident was almost repeated - another U-2 flew over Soviet region, Kennedy apologised publicly. Secondly, Krushchev also would not risk the war with USA. Some sources say (unfortunately I cannot recall where exactly I read it) that the orginal aim of Krushchev was to remove the missiles from Turkey, which means that he would not let the crisis to come down to war, but will try to bargain as he actually did with the telegrams. As he agreed to remove missiles even though the conditions outlined in his 2d telegramme were accepted by Kennedy only in private, it proves that he at this point he would not risk the war. That's what I thought at the moment of writing the test. However, after it, my history teacher, Mr Jones-Nerzic, told me that he would argue the opposite. With time my opinion also changed a bit to the point, where I am not very sure which position to take. That is why I would really love to hear other opinions as that will help me to shape my own. So my question would be, how serious do you think was the Cuban Missile Crisis? What do avalaible resources say? Thank you very much!

Thank you, Mr Ecker! When I first joined the forum I read all the posts in that thread (,"Student Questions: JFK and LBJ") but I still did not read the new ones, which, I know, is not very good of me! I promise to do this, otherwise I will start to ask this kind of questions with already available on the forum answers. Sorry for that!

Sorry for my mistake! I simply assumed that the Warren commission should have seen the photos and I was wrong. So, do I understand right that even if the reasearches do analyse these ''stolen photos'', there is no guarantee that the results are realiable, because there is no guarantee that the pictures themselves are a reliable source of information? Mr Shackelford wrote that ''Officially, the autopsy photographs and X-rays remain classified, and are only available for examination by researchers who have Kennedy family permission to examine them. This has been only a trickle over the years.'' Where do those officially available photos come from? And what were conclusions of those researchers who looked at them? Thank you

Wow...Thanks a lot for all this information. When asking the question I expected that SS perhaps did not do theIR job very well, but I have never expected that they would maneuver in such a way...There was some argueing whether it was in the SS's power to check all the buildings and get their people into every of them. Perhaps not, but to me the other examples of their misfollowing of the instructions are quite shocking! And I've also got some follow-up question. First, the question about the security again. As I could see from the pictures presidents limo was convertible. Is such kind of a car usual for Presidents' trips as a PR action for the public or was it an exception? Second, when reading the post of Mr Forman I was a bit surprised by the following quote ''Who did, who decided let's go to Dallas? You've been to Fort Worth, you've got to go to Dallas. That's important because whoever decided that knew some things.'' So, it wasn't the resident's decision to go to Dallas? What were his actual plans in the Texas? And the last question. I promise, the last for this post! May be it is quite a stupid question and I am a bit embarrassed to ask it, but few members of the forum used the abbreviation ''ARRB''. What does this mean? And I really wanted to thank everyone one more time, because this is such an interesting reading and all the explanations are a lot easier for me to read than on the Internet. So, thank you for all this fascinating learning!

The House Select Committee of Assassinations) was highly critical of the Secret Service: "The Secret Service was deficient in the performance of its duties. The Secret Service possessed information that was not properly analyzed, investigated or used by the Secret Service in connection with the President's trip to Dallas; in addition, Secret Service agents in the motorcade were inadequately prepared to protect the President from a sniper." So, my question is, was it obligatory at that time for the SS to check all the buildings that the President's car was going to pass? If yes, is there any evidence whether it was done or not? Thanks! Background details of the people answering this questions can be found at: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1169

Were the autopsy photos actually published? And if yes, were they analysed by any other organisations except the Warren Commission?

Thanks a lot for all this information! It actually explains one of the questions I was going to ask, if there was some evidence of shots from the Grassy Knoll. So, now I have got one more question out of the way

Thanks a lot for all these posts! That was really interesting to read and I think that this topic seems a bit less confusing to me, although it does stay interesting. Can I ask a follow-up question? In his post Mr Simkin posted the following phrase of Cyril Wecht: ''I believe that Gov. John Connally was struck by a bullet, and I believe that another bullet completely missed the car. I think that there were four shots most probably fired. I eagerly await with extreme anticipation the results of the consulting firm that I understand your committee has retained in Boston, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, concerning their interpretative studies of the motorcycle policeman's tape from that day; as to whether or not they have definitely found evidence of four shots having been fired.'' What were the results of this study? Was there evidence found about the number of shots? (I know, Mr White asked not to ask about the number of shots, as that would be an essay-type question, but what about just this particular study? What conclusion was reached there? And where could I find these results?) And thank you very much one more time, that was really fascinating reading!

Hello to everyone! I was recently reading some information about JFK assasination and was particularly interested by the Single Bullet Theory, perhaps because this topic seemed to me very controversial and quite confusing. As far as I understood, the statement by Warren Commission that so called ''Magic bullet'' wounded JFK in the throat and also Connally in the shoulder, is now believed false if the President and Connally were sitting at relatively same heigths, one in front of the other. The reason is that if bullet was fired from the Book Depository, it would have such a flight path that it would not hit Connally. (Correct me, please if I am wrong, I may have misread the information). So, can we suggest that the bullet that wounded both the President and Connally was still one, but was fired from the Grassy Knoll? I read that some witnesses claimed to see/hear the shots from there too, but would it be the right trajectory and is there any evidence that would prove it? Thank you very much! Background details of the people answering this questions can be found at: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1169

Hello to everyone! My name is Evgenia Plotnikova-Doumerc (everyone, however, calls me just Zhenia for short) While reading these posts, I have got another question, may be a bit off this particular topic. However, as Mr Simkin said to be free to ask follow-up questions, I thought that I may ask it. As far as I understood, it seems like LBJ was trying to cover up Communist conspiracy or perhaps pretend covering up, as Mr White suggested. ( Mr White, sorry, for not actually quoting the post, I thought that that was its message). So, is there any sources available now that can prove this Communist conspiracy besides Oswald's participation in Communist organisations? And do you think this participation proves Communist conspiracy or could Oswald's figure have been just chosen and exposed on purpose?