Mark Knight

I'd like to propose another scenario to for discussion. This would concern tying the JFK assassination, politically, together with the assassinations of MLK, RFK, and the shooting of George Wallace in 1972. In a political sense, who was the primary beneficiary of all these events? Richard Milhaus Nixon. JFK's election had dealt Nixon a serious blow to his political career, one that was compounded by his defeat for California governor in '62 and which led to the "won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" comments. By 1963, the politically-savvy Nixon would have had to realize that with Kennedy's personal popularity, it would be at least 1968, if not 1972 or '76 if Bobby caught on with the public, before a Nixon presidency could happen. So JFK had to be eliminated for the sake of Nixon's political future. But Nixon was also savvy enough to realize that the LBJ sympathy vote, as JFK's sad-faced successor, couldn't be overcome in '64; he HAD to wait to run until '68. By 1968, with the advent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the traditionally-Democratic black voters were listening to Dr. King, and Dr. King didn't have many nice things to say about Republicans. For Nixon to succeed against this newly-empowered black voting bloc, King had to be silenced...and he was. Whiel Eugene McCarthy was running away with the Democtatic presidential nomination, Bobby Kennedy was beginning to position himself as a viable candidate for at least the vice-presidential slot; and an already-embittered Nixon refused to watch himself lose yet another presidential election to a ticket with a Kennedy on the ballot. Bobby Kennedy had to be stopped...and he was. A demoralized McCarthy basically closed up shop after RFK's death, and the undistinguishable LBJ veep Hubert Humphrey was instead chosen to head up an easily-defeated Democratic slate. In '72, Nixon was faced with another challenge: a 3-way race, which could possibly be decided in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, should no candidate garner a clear majority of votes. So Wallace was shot, and the choices came down to a gimp [wheelchair-bound Wallace], a wimp [McGovern], or...Nixon, who won in a landslide. In this scenario, if you can determine exactly who was the power behind Nixon, you can determine who was behind all of these murders and attempted murders. Obviously, Nixon wasn't pulling the trigger anymore than he was personally burglarizing DNC headquarters at the Watergate; but the operations were all apparently for his benefit, it would seem. And it's interesting that Nixon WAS in Dallas on November 22, 1963, although where he was at what time seemed to vary each time he told the story...and initially he denied being there at all! Your thoughts?

The other scenario I referred to above concerns what I observed of the Secret Service during and after the JFK assassination. I think it's quite possible that the JFK assassination was the result of an exercise--training or whatever else you might call it--gone bad. It appears to me that, to a degree, there might have been some sort of exercise going on, with an "attack" and a "prevent" team, and the assassination was originally conceived as a simulation. Where things got ugly was that someone outside the original exercise--be it MIC, Cubans, Mafia, whomever--got wind of what was going down, and provided their own shooters armed with LIVE ammunition. That, of course, might explain why it took the SS so long to react when the gunfire began...because they KNEW it was just an exercise with blanks, at least until they saw blood and brains all over Elm Street, and why SS agents were seen pounding on cars in agony and frustration when it was apparently too late to act. I've got exactly ZERO evidence to PROVE that theory, but that's one that has independently registered itself in my mind after looking at reams of testimony, photos, and movie footage. Of course, I've often wondered just HOW coincidental it was that Dave Powers' home movie of the motorcade stopped just after the turn from Main onto Houston, denying historians yet another view of what actually occurred after the turn onto Elm.

Now, it might be that my knowledge of the subject is quite limited; I was 9 years old when the JFK assassination occurred, and from the get-go there seemed to be something amiss about the lone-nut [LN], theory. From the time of the assassination onward, I have read everything I could get my hands on. I found it amazing that contemporaneous accounts went from "fusillade" or "hail" of gunfire to only three shots from behind, tied up neatly by the single-bullet theory [sBT], or, more accurately, the "MAGIC" bullet theory. I have in my collection of artifacts the LIFE magazines from immediately following the assination, thru the 1966 "A Matter Of Reasonable Doubt" LIFE article which first brought stills from Zapruder to the American public. I have books by Groden and Livingstone, Menninger, Epstein, Crenshaw, Bishop, and Manchester, as well as a host of others in my personal library. I have a 1964 hardcover of the summary of the Warren Commission, published by the Associated Press. And I have read and researched information on discussion forums all over the internet. The most intelligent discussions, and the best researched forums I've found are right here. Having said that, I'd like to suggest another theory which ties into ALL the others about the JFK assassination: the idea of "dynamic convergence." That is...with all the facts we know now about what was going on both within and without the Kennedy administration, the Kennedy administration was rocketing on a course toward destruction on November 22, 1963; and the only question to be answered was whether it would implode on itself over sexual matters, the fall being completed by the November 22 congressional testimony of Don Reynolds taking Johnson down with the Kennedy ship of state, or whether the Cuban/MIC/Mafia(et al) conspiracies would strike pay-dirt first. Fact of the matter is, with all the festering secrets about to come to light, it's doubtful that either JFK or LBJ would have escaped with his political skin by January, 1964. Mafia? Rosselli, Giancana, Hoffa...maybe, and then again maybe not. CIA? Quite possible, but still at this late date 40 years later "plausibly deniable." MIC? Big Oil? Maybe, but not without some help from one or more of the other elements just mentioned. I have two possible scenarios to propose for discussion. The first would concern tying the JFK assassination, politically, together with MLK, RFK, and the shooting of George Wallace in 1972. In a political sense, who was the primary beneficiary of all these events? Richard Milhaus Nixon. JFK's election had dealt Nixon a serious blow to his political career, one that was compounded by his defeat for California governor in '62 and which led to the "won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" comments. By 1963, the politically-savvy Nixon would have had to realize that with Kennedy's personal popularity, it would be at least 1968, if not 1972 or '76 if Bobby caught on with the public, before a Nixon presidency could happen. So JFK had to be eliminated for the sake of Nixon's political future. But Nixon was also savvy enough to realize that the LBJ sympathy vote, as JFK's sad-faced successor, couldn't be overcome in '64; he HAD to wait to run until '68. By 1968, with the advent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the traditionally-Democratic black voters were listening to Dr. King, and Dr. King didn't have many nice things to say about Republicans. For Nixon to succeed against this newly-empowered black voting bloc, King had to be silenced...and he was. Whiel Eugene McCarthy was running away with the Democtatic presidential nomination, Bobby Kennedy was beginning to position himself as a viable candidate for at least the vice-presidential slot; and an already-embittered Nixon refused to watch himself lose yet another presidential election to a ticket with a Kennedy on the ballot. Bobby Kennedy had to be stopped...and he was. A demoralized McCarthy basically closed up shop after RFK's death, and the undistinguishable LBJ veep Hubert Humphrey was instead chosen to head up an easily-defeated Democratic slate. In '72, Nixon was faced with another challenge: a 3-way race, which could possibly be decided in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, should no candidate garner a clear majority of votes. So Wallace was shot, and the choices came down to a gimp [wheelchair-bound Wallace], a wimp [McGovern], or...Nixon, who won in a landslide. In this scenario, if you can determine exactly who was the power behind Nixon, you can determine who was behind all of these murders and attempted murders. In my next post, I'll discuss the second scenario.

I am a 54-year-old man formerly employed in the manufacturing and auto parts industries. I have an associates degree in automotive management, and I am currently a part-time substitute teacher in a local high school. I have some college credits in journalism and broadcasting from 30 years ago, but no degree in the field. I have an ongoing interest in the investigation of the JFK assassination, and I've found your forums contain the most intelligent discussions and the most logical investigative techniques I've seen on the topic anywhere on the internet. While I may never have any substantive evidence to add, I'm hoping that from time to time I might come up with some intelligent questions that would add to the discussion and possibly shed some light in areas that may heretofore have been overlooked.