Courtney Redd

First off, I don't appreciate being called a xxxxx, thank you very much. I am a student, here to learn and read about the assassination of President Kennedy. I don't appreciate your tone and your accusations. You don't know me and have no right to say things like this. Pardon me for posting ANYTHING trying to smooth things over. I don't like it when people argue and accuse each other of things so I try to be nice to people first and foremost. You took what I said far too seriously. I keep getting told "we are at war." Frankly, I disagree. But fine if you want to believe that way. I am not going to call you names or say you're paranoid. That's your prerogative. To Mr. Healy: I have no agenda, other than to learn as much as I can and then decide for myself who is telling the truth here and who is lying. Analyzing is fun to me--that's all I meant by saying being here was fun. I think some people around here need to get off their high horses.

Just read an email from Lancer about his passing. I'm very sorry to hear it.

Excellent post. I agree 100%. Reasoning ability was given to us all. Deciding the veracity of posts--separating the wheat from the chaff--is part of the fun of being here, I think. Sharpens your skills as a critical thinker. Scholarship depends on those critical thinking skills and being able to keep an open mind.

Hate is a strong word. While I disagreed with Mr. Mailer's conclusions about Lee Oswald as presented in the book Oswald's Tale, I certainly never hated him. I feel it is possible to disagree with someone's politics and/or ideas yet admire him/her and appreciate his/her contributions. Perhaps I'm just young and naive...

I'd prefer to not have someone like Rev. Hagee and his ilk as my personal allies, thanks. Considering he and his pals believe in the Rapture and that everyone "left behind" will be subjected to all kinds of torture and pain--and that includes Jews who don't accept Christ. Yeah, those people who are supposedly supportive of Israel also think that the Jews, despite their "chosen" status, will still burn in hell if they don't repent and accept Jesus as their Messiah. That's real supportive! But really, what does this have to do with President Kennedy's assassination, anyway?

Sorry if I sound snotty here, as that's not my intention at all, but can we get back to the topic at hand? Which was RFK, Walter Sheridan, Otto Ottepka and Lee Oswald? This sidebar arguing is really distracting. Thanks!

I find it interesting that Marina doesn't seem to want to have anything to do with the ring. Hmm. Anyone notice the error in the article? Lee and Marina were married in April 1961, not 1960 as Aynesworth says. Just me being nitpicky, I guess... Oh, and I agree with Mr. Ellis; I don't think the ring should be sold on eBay. It's of historical interest and should be in a museum so everyone can see it and not kept in some rich person's collection. Of course it really belongs to Marina and her daughters to do with as they see fit but I'd hate to see it bought and then locked away in some collector's safe deposit box. Thank you for the link!

This is great news. Thank you for the link to the article. I recall hearing about the letter signed by Norman Mailer, Gerald Posner, Anthony Summers and etc. and thinking what a motley group that was! Wonder what motivated Mssrs. Posner, Bugliosi and Mailer to sign such a letter? Is it too cynical of me to think we won't learn much from the documents, if the CIA actually decides to pony up?

Greg, As would I. If you aren't able to continue here or start your own thread, would you considering sending me a private message with Part II? Thank you kindly.

So I'd take that to mean exactly what it says, wouldn't you?

Here goes: There is no doubt in my mind that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy within the United States government. The plots to kill Fidel Castro turned into Dallas. What I mean by this is the people involved in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro used their knowledge, skills and wherewithal to murder JFK. How? By hiring a couple well-trained assassins and installing them in Dealey Plaza. The conspirators were people who were already consorting with criminals (the Mafia) and had the mentality of "the ends justify the means." They were already plotting to kill one leader and had overthrown and/or killed others; what difference would it make killing the President of the United States? Why? Because of their perception that President Kennedy had betrayed them on various levels, mainly at the Bay of Pigs, but also in his refusal to deal effectively with the Soviets during the Cuban Missle Crisis; his desire to remove personnel from Vietnam after the 1964 election; and his adversarial relationship with his military advisors and the CIA. I think those factions (military and CIA) believed Kennedy stood in their way of success, and the only way to continue to propagate their worldview and continue their policies was to get rid of him. The same people and their pals (and their offspring) are still in power today.

Wallis Simpson, I believe.

Actually, it's only a ten page spread, not the whole magazine--which instead is mostly advertisements featuring extremely thin models pitching overpriced perfume, clothing and handbags. But those ten pages are good. Not worth the cost of the magazine, however (I'm ashamed to admit).

And this is why I enjoy the forum and your website so much. When I'm a history teacher, I hope to do the same--that's my plan, anyway. As far as I'm concerned, students need to learn to think for themselves. When I was in college, many of my fellow students had trouble thinking critically and while some of my professors accepted this, I had a couple who refused to let us learn and think only one way. These professors were the least popular in the department, probably because they required students to use their brains more and asked us WHY we thought a certain way. Mr. Simkin, I read this article about you the other day and I have to say that while I respect the author's opinion, I find these types of articles to be divisive and ultimately they do a disservice to us all. The constant hectoring and bickering back and forth is counter-productive. But you know what they say about opinions...

Sorry to jump in here, but wasn't the whole point of the Mexico City episode to blame Castro for the murder of JFK? 'Cause if Oswald were to get into Cuba and come back and "shoot the President," wouldn't we have a reason to want to get rid of ol' Fidel? The CIA was all over the "Oswald in Mexico City" business, from the supposed photos of Oswald that did or didn't exist, to the guy who was next to Oswald (or "Oswald?") in line for the bus--Mr. Gaudet. Maybe it wasn't outright finger pointing, but it all still points in the direction of Cuba. And when it's clear that Oswald was impersonated in Cuba (with the CIA in the thick of it), you must ask yourself, Why?

Please don't close the forum. This is the best place on the internet to discuss, debate and learn about the JFK assassination (among other topics, yes, but this is where I spend most of my time). It would be a great loss to the community if you were to close down. I'm sorry things have gotten so ugly but please figure out a way to keep going here. If you need more moderators, I'd be willing to help you. I've a thick skin and am fair. But please don't close down. I'd miss this place something fierce.

What a great article. Thank you for sharing it. With no hope, we have no future.

Depending on one's perspective, one could say both statements are true. If one uses this particular definition of the word patsy 2. a person upon whom the blame for something falls; scapegoat; fall guy. (from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. ) you could make a case that Oswald was a patsy, because he certainly "took the fall" for the murder of the President. However, if you believe Oswald was involved in some form with those who have been identified as conspirators, he was also involved in the conspiracy to kill the President. It all depends on Oswald's role with the conspirators and whether he was a willing participant (or not) in certain activities which later were used to "prove" him guilty. Ultimately, I feel the question of the authenticity of the backyard photos is another one of those wedge issues in assassination studies/research. Along with the Walker shooting, the possible unreliability of the Zapruder film, and the autopsy and ballistics questions, the photos can be used to divide researchers and make them hostile to one another--when in reality, we should be banding together (despite our differences of opinion) in order to defeat the lies and propaganda put forth by the government and its shills--like Messrs. Bugliosi, Posner, Von Pein, and McAdams.

Hi, Dawn! Thanks for the warm welcome. Yes, I imagine once I get teaching, the assassination will be my main focus. I'm going to start with teaching high school, so I won't get to spend as much time on the assassination as I'd like, but eventually I want to teach at the university level. There I should be able to devote more time to the topic--I'd love to teach a class on it! Or even a class on the 1960s. Thanks again for the message.

Reminds me of the old "Lincoln--Kennedy--Coincidence?" thing.

I've always believed the backyard photos were fake. Marina changed her story so many times and yes, I believe that Oswald was telling the truth about the photos. Well, that certainly puts a new spin on things. I'd never heard that before! Interesting. To be honest, I took that comment (about her having two husbands) to mean that Lee could be duplicitous--due to his activities and his personality. I can't comment on Mr. Armstrong's research and book fairly as I've never read the material, but I'll admit to being curious. Overall, I think Marina was under a lot of pressure by the authorities to say what they wanted her to say. I do, however, also believe that she has chosen (probably to spare herself and her children) to keep many things about Lee under wraps. I can't say I blame her, but I do wish that someday she would come clean about everything--including the backyard photos and the Walker shooting.

Hmm. Let's see. My two cents: I think a group of rogue CIA people, along with a group of anti-Castro Cubans were the main culprits. In my opinion, it began as plots to kill Castro and ended up in Dealey Plaza. However, I also believe #s 6, 7 and 9 had some knowledge of the plan beforehand. And I do believe there's a possibility that #8 knew about the plot as well--though I'm not sure how much knowledge Oswald really had, and that's a whole other topic for another day.

My name's Courtney Redd and I'm 30 years old. I live in the midwestern U.S. and have been studying the assassination since 1992, when I first saw the movie 'JFK.' At the age of fourteen (almost fifteen), I became obsessed--and have been, ever since. I've a Bachelor's degree in History and am planning on getting my Master's in History in the near future. It's my dream to be a teacher someday. Right now I work in a public library and enjoy my work there very much, as I love books. But teaching is my calling, I believe, and that's another reason I'd like to join the forum. You've amassed a treasure trove of information, and I look forward to my daily visits.