Glenn Nall

thank you so much, John - i was thinking last night that i'd like to see her in an episode of What's My Line. My memories of the show are a few years more recent, with Soupy Sales and Anita Gillette...?

I hope you're well. I don't know you, John, but i read a little about the consternation with the forum, and that you've moved on to 'greener pastures'. Hope you're well...

GN

"...easy to concoct conspiracy theories about the assassination ... because JFK made numerous and diverse enemies..."

It is my humble opinion that anyone who has concocted a theory of murderous conspiracy based on something like the victim's behaviors and popularity is likely in the wrong forum and would be more at home in one catering to the grand imaginatives and other paranoiacs. I did not devise an idea of conspiracy for myself, I fell into it once enough circumstantial evidence led me to it (which admittedly didn't take that long).

I know that is not exactly what you meant with that wording, but it seemed to me apropos in defining the reasonable Conspiracists from the rest, so I wanted to say that. For anyone who is making an effort to believe a conspiracy occurred, (much like atheists make the effort to NOT believe), I'd say they just haven't read enough yet. It's the Lone Nutters who seem to be straining against the evidence, it seems to me.

"Occam's Razor -- the preference for the least assumptions to explain an occurrence -- does not apply to conspiracies. Occam's Razor applies when an explanation is sought of an event not controlled by humans. An event such as planetary motion. For events controlled entirely by humans, there is no governing principle."

I'm not sure what that means. I think Occam's Razor does apply in my attempts to reach a conclusion in regards to the conspiracy - in my attempt to "solve it" for myself. I think people tend to use way too many assumptions in this conundrum as well as every day ones. These really seem to muddy the waters, I think. When a detective states that the person who most benefits from a crime is most likely going to be the perpetrator, isn't that an example of Occam's Razor, in a way - not reading too much into the details?

It seems to work for me here. The Russian's and Castro certainly did NOT benefit from it - the anti-castro group didn't so much - the Mafia did, somewhat, by the end of the decade; Hoover and the FBI and the CIA most assuredly did - and LBJ did more than anyone, I think (relatively) - staying out of prison and becoming POTUS, in relative terms, is about as positive an outcome as any one entity could acquire.

Maybe that's not O.R. - I just think people read too much into details. With all of the theories floating around, there'd be thousands of people IN ON the conspiracy if half held water.

What's funny is, when I first got hooked into this thing 30+ years ago, the talk was Cuba and The Bay Of Pigs, then that became "blase", ridiculous (at least to my recollection), and the talk was all about Carlos Marcello (one of my first books was Mafia Kingpin) and then the CIA - and then Viet Nam... and lo and behold, it's circled back around and the "talk" is - All Of The Above, and throw in JEH and JBJ.

Greg - my thoughts exactly.

Glenn- In reference to Ruby making a point about the vice president, he told a reporter that if Adlai Stevenson were vice president, it never would have happened or we wouldn't be in the position we're in (something to that effect), implying that Johnson was behind it. I think he even said, when pressed by the reporter, "the answer to your question is the man in office now." Keep in mind Ruby was dead by the time Spiro Agnew was VP.

that's what it was - Adlai S. - my memory didn't serve... tx

Here's a link to the statements by Ruby: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv3o9vx3VNM

I remember more than what's in this video, tho - more about a "new power in government" or something... you got me on the right track tho.

Glenn- In reference to Ruby making a point about the vice president, he told a reporter that if Adlai Stevenson were vice president, it never would have happened or we wouldn't be in the position we're in (something to that effect), implying that Johnson was behind it. I think he even said, when pressed by the reporter, "the answer to your question is the man in office now." Keep in mind Ruby was dead by the time Spiro Agnew was VP.

that's what it was - Adlai S. - my memory didn't serve... tx

I was googling for quotes made by Ruby when he was being walked down a hallway outside of a courtroom (it appears, and if my memory serves) where he warns of the high level of this thing, "even as high as Agnew, or higher" he aludes to ... and I came across some of Don Fulsom's stuff (on some ODD domain, surftofind.com) which mentioned Giancana's alleged words about Ruby and Nixon's and his associations, made by SG's half-bro and nephew in Double Cross. I read this book a few years ago, thought it was somewhat believable - these claims seem perfectly plausible to me, considering Chicago's broad reach at the time.

was wondering what some of you thought about these supposed connections, Giancana and Ruby - has any real research been done on Ruby's activities in Chicago when he was young...?

also, can someone please point me to a transcript or video of this interchange between Ruby and the press where he mentions Spiro Agnew? Not having much success with Google today.

thanks for any input!

GN

Hi Paul - Yes, i'm afraid I'm being led in that direction - more of a LBJ-et-al-did-it, of course. I read R Stone's book last year, but in pdf format on my phone (for the first and probably last time) and consequently didn't retain a lot of it. I want to learn more about Baker and Sol Estes, and more details about LBJ's historically disgraceful character, the literal and virtual skeletons in his closet i've read so much about.

Carl Oglesby's stuff leads me to a Texas connection, for sure, and that's 20ish year old material. I read a terrific book on the Bay of Pigs that was published in 2012 and discovered GHWB's apparent involvement that far back - this Conservative has had to reframe some of my political loyalties in my objective research, that's for sure. So, sure, between LBJ, Bush(es) and the mob, Texas looks like a convenient arena for all involved.

I'll put Craig's book in line.

This forum is such a terrific starting point for great material, starting with some of you smart people's insights. (now i have to go look up Hegelian Philosophy, damnit

cheers,

GN

AG

yes, i think you and i agree on this pretense - when Brugioni described the discrepancy of 313 he just described the blood and matter cloud being different (white?). he didn't go into so many drastic differences, just this comparatively minor one (and probably others). This certainly suggests small alterations, not a complete rework. But there were clearly differences - i don't think there's any way around SOME changes having been made.

It seems to me the whole NPIC story which Doug captured is extremely important because it dovetails so well with what else was going on during the first 72 hours. Actually I massively rewrote Chapter 15 of the 2010 edition of SWHT just to work in that information. Two trips to NPIC, the way they were handled, is extremely suggestive; especially the effort to conceal the second trip from the staff that handled the first visit. And all of that is going on at the same time Johnson calls Luce and LIFE just happens to reverse to of the frames that are printed. There is a big story going on behind the scenes and its called damage control.

Larry, please forgive me, i'm knew in here - "SWHT"?

I'm starting to realize there are some real "rock stars" in here - Doug Caddy and R Stone - r u one too?

It seems to me the whole NPIC story which Doug captured is extremely important because it dovetails so well with what else was going on during the first 72 hours. Actually I massively rewrote Chapter 15 of the 2010 edition of SWHT just to work in that information. Two trips to NPIC, the way they were handled, is extremely suggestive; especially the effort to conceal the second trip from the staff that handled the first visit. And all of that is going on at the same time Johnson calls Luce and LIFE just happens to reverse to of the frames that are printed. There is a big story going on behind the scenes and its called damage control.

bingo - and all this coupled with LIFE's story about some frames being 'damaged', and LIFE's CEO once being in intelligence (do i remember that correctly?).

Larry - "another option" ... ? as opposed to what initial option?

I think you're right, that what Doug did was raise some real issues. I haven't come to any solid conclusions on the extent of alteration, even if ANY has been done, or WHO might have done so (SS, CIA, Army Intel...), or WHEN or WHERE or WHY, even - I take his revelations at face value, that some games were played (a euphemism for "some lies were told"). The fact that these lies were told, the fact that the SS and the CIA took an interest in this film to the extent that they had to lie to everyone before AND after the two events, provides great evidence that a conspiracy occurred and that some elements of the government are involved. If my logic doesn't fail me in this regard, then the next step is no leap - that SOME level of alteration was performed, and that's all i need to know.

Jonathan - right - it shouldn't matter in what way "so many believe" the film might have been altered - just that it was (if it was) is all that matters.

I think Mr Horne has shown well enough that something surreptitious occurred. That's the uptake i'm concerned with.

right, Mark - that's really the whole problem, isn't it. the wounds as they are described by many reliable witnesses VS. the wounds are they are portrayed in video (suspect) and postmortem photographs (suspect) and pm. xrays (suspect). These artifacts are all suspect - and i only say 'suspect', not false or authentic - because of evidence of chain-of-custody deceit and some visual anomalies.

i've never given the altered zFilm any real consideration until last night when i read, for the first time, Doug Horne's very believable article on the actual chain of custody of the film immediately following the Event; and the very believable, separate accounts of the camera-original events at the CIA's NPIC before LIFE had the "films" Monday.

Does anyone remember "And Gates" and "Or Gates" (these are not obscure Government Scandals)? These were the beginning of what we know as logic circuits, right? "1's" and "0's", either or, if else... To me many arguments in this murder case, and esp the one for or against an altered film, come down to an "either or" -

Either Mr Horne is making all that up, or he's not. The authentic film traditionalists seem to have very little to say about this chain-of-custody problem, or about this article. I can't imagine anyone saying "all that's a load of hogwash, unbelievable on its face". I cannot imagine much of that story at all being ignored as insubstantial. I'm not yet fully convinced of an altered film by the SS or the CIA, but as I ask myself how I could not be after reading the article, I have no answer to that.

If Doug Horne is telling the truth, there's simply no argument. A BOATLOAD of controversy regarding head wounds, bullets - autopsy discrepancies - disappears. Not the details, of course, as we would like (i wanna know who pulled the triggers!) but the overall is explained.

If Doug Horne is telling the truth, it all makes sense.

yes, thanks, Ron - and that makes me wonder why it's not so obviously going up and down in Zapruder...

this and other oddities make me wonder about the films authenticity.

every time i come across DVP in these forums, he's arguing with someone. rather rudely, i might add.

Burnham: "For those who know me, I would normally reject "theories" that do not live up to certain standards. However, in this case, I am not relying on any "theory" of alteration."

what a load bearing statement that is. I LOVE it.

Danny Vasquez wrote on Facebook on April 21, 2015:

In the following the late Rich Dellarosa speaks for himself, as he always did in his replies to some questions in 2009...about the often asked...

The "other" Zapruder film -- FAQs

Since I appeared recently on Len Osanic's "Black Op" radio

program, I have been receiving several questions, I'll try and

answer them here:

1. Where can this film be viewed?

I really don't know. I believe that copies exist in various places around the world. However I have no knowledge where it can be viewed. I never at any time possessed a copy myself. When I saw it, the film was shown by a person unknown to me along with some others in a suburb of Washington DC (College Park, MD).

2. Do you believe it is an unedited version of the Zapruder Film?

Personally, I do not believe the film is in any way a version of the Zapruder film. The Z film appears amateurish to me and unrealistic in the sense that it seems like an animated "cartoon". The "other" film seemed to be professionally done with great color rendition and smooth panning. Additionally, I am unsure as to whether Zapruder shot the film attributed to him. A French photo journalist who saw the film on several occasions does refer to it as an unedited version of the Z film FWIW.

3. What are the major discrepancies in what is seen on both films?

The "other" film shows the limo on Houston Street as it turns onto Elm.

The Z film does not even though Z testified that he began filming when

the limo first came into view and did not stop filming until the limo left

the Plaza, The 'other" film shows the limo making a wide turn onto Elm, nearly going up on the curb and as though it first was headed to the service road in front of the TSBD. Greer apparently struggled to navigate into the center of Elm.

The crowd appeared quite animated as the limo progressed down Elm St. In the Z film, the crowd appears frozen.

In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down, not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive. In the Z film the open umbrella seems stationary except that a slight rotation can be detected.

The dark complected man with the cap alternately nicknamed TA (The Accomplice) and The Cuban is seen in the "other" film motioning with an upraised arm while he stepped into the street and was approaching the limo. He formed his up-raised hand into a fist -- perhaps the infantryman's signal to "stop." I have concluded that he was trying to attract Greer and Kellerman to stop the limo exactly at his position -- which they did. the Limo was stopped ~2 to 3 seconds. The Z

film shows no stop.

The stop was so sudden that it jostled the occupants forward. A portion of this forward motion can be detected in the extant Z film.

With the limo stopped, Greer turned to face JFK. At that moment JFK received 2 shots to the head: one from the rear causing his head to move forward slightly and one to the right temple, fired from the front, resulting in a violent explosion out the rear of JFK's head and sending a huge spray of blood and brain matter toward DPD Officer Hargis hitting his helmet with what William Manchester termed a "red sheet" and with such force that Hargis later said he thought he himself was hit. This most gory explosion of matter is not accurately portrayed in the extant Z Film.

Apparently once that Greer saw that JFK was hit, he then swung around and accelerated the limo leaving Dealey Plaza and passing the lead car to entrance the Stemmons freeway.

4. If the Zapruder film is altered, why did "they" leave in the explosive

head shot?

The first thing to keep in mind is that "they" never believed the Z film would be viewed by the public. Members of the WC stated that they believed only a few college professors would even read their report. With Time, Inc. and the FBI controlling access to the Z film they could control who could view it or even selected frames from it. If questioned, they could always say it was being withheld due to concern over the Kennedy family's right to privacy.

In 1975, the extant Z film was shown on national TV on Geraldo Rivera's

"Goodnight America" program by Robert Groden. That segment

can be found on MPI's DVD Image Of An Assassination." The public

was shocked to see the head shot. To many, the Z film was proof of a

second gunman, one firing from the front. To counter those beliefs a

Nobel winning physicist (Luis Alvarez) concocted a "jet effect" theory to

explain how a shot from the TSBD could cause the violent "back and to the left" reaction defying Newton's 2nd law of motion. Newton's second law of motion can be formally stated as follows:

The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.

The alterationists IMO HAD to leave in the fatal head shot. They couldn't

very well claim that JFK was a victim of whiplash. At the necessary time

Dr Alvarez was dragged out to produce a total canard.

5. Why was the Zapruder film fabricated/altered?

IMO, and simply stated, the purposes of altering the Z film, in order of

priority, were:

To remove all evidence of multiple shooters

To remove evidence of shots from any direction but the rear if possible

To remove evidence of Secret Service complicity

6. On 11/23, Dan Rather claimed to have viewed the Z film, the first

reporter to do so. He claimed that JFK's head was throw violently

forward not backward. How can that be?

IMO, he may have been shown an early attempt of an altered film in which the frames were reversed. But it is possible that he saw NO film at all --and he was instructed what to say. Keep in mind that on 11/22, Rather was simply a TV reporter for the local Dallas CBS affiliate -- but virtually overnight he was promoted to CBS's official White House Correspondent. Quid pro quo??

7. Will the "other" film ever become accessible to the public?

I truly doubt it. It is a dangerous property because that one film proves that JFK was murdered as a part of a well planned and executed conspiracy. It lays the WCR bare as an intentionally written pack of lies and proves the complicity of the Secret Service, the FBI, and the highest levels of the U.S government.

I have known of ~ a half dozen people who have seen the film in the distant, past -- yet no two ever saw it in the same place at the same time. I truly wish that someone would come forward and report a more recent viewing.

-----------------------------

Danny Vasquez wrote on Facebook on April 22, 2015:

What are the major discrepancies in what is seen on both films?

The "other" film shows the limo on Houston Street as it turns onto Elm.

The Z film does not even though Z testified that he began filming when

the limo first came into view and did not stop filming until the limo left

the Plaza,

The 'other" film shows the limo making a wide turn onto Elm, nearly going

up on the curb and as though it first was headed to the service road in front of the TSBD. Greer apparently struggled to navigate into the center of Elm.

The crowd appeared quite animated as the limo progressed down Elm St.

In the Z film, the crowd appears frozen. In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down, not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive. In the Z film the open

umbrella seems stationary except that a slight rotation can be detected.

The dark complected man with the cap alternately nicknamed TA (The Accomplice) and The Cuban is seen in the "other" film motioning with an upraised arm while he stepped into the street and was approaching the limo. He formed his up-raised hand into a fist -- perhaps the infantryman's signal to "stop." I have concluded that he was trying to attract Greer and Kellerman to stop the limo exactly at his position -- which they did. the Limo was stopped ~2 to 3 seconds. The Z film shows no stop.

The stop was so sudden that it jostled the occupants forward. A portion of this forward motion can be detected in the extant Z film.

--------------------------------

Danny Vasquez wrote on Facebook on April 22, 2015:

The people who saw THE OTHER FILM are very willing to talk about it. Some who saw it were in military circumstances. Some were in college settings. Some were in intelligence connections. But all described the exact same film.

I was not convinced that this was even a consideration by serious researchers until i looked at some of the alignment problems in some of the frames. I'm open to the idea, am a bit concerned how the crowd does seem so lethargic - wonder how such an enormous spray of blood and brain can disappear from the air in less than 1 quarter of a second - wonder why the sign jumps so drastically... i've heard several people describe umbrella man raising and lowering the umb. for whatever reason (and read his expl.) but haven't noticed it on the film.

it seems to me too many people unknown to each other have something to say about it for that to be chalked up to the delusional wanting special attention. that's too easy.

I believe they failed to see a large wound on JFK's temple for the simple fact there was no large head wound on the temple.

Then I assume you believe the temple wound in the Z film isn't real.

that and he apparently wanted another opportunity to flame when it was completely unnecessary. kinda makes me wanna think twice before i ask more questions in here. or perhaps address them to the more civilized...?

Two simultaneous bullets might give us the effect seen in z313 but, why did no medical personnel at Parkland report seeing a large wound in the right temple? As seen in the frames immediately following z313, there appears to be a large "bag" hanging down from the temple. How could such a thing be missed by doctors?

I believe there is a great deal of evidence pointing to a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, and a limited amount of evidence to the contrary.

thanks, in fact - i can see what appears to be a large 'flap' hanging loosely there and am glad it's been pointed out by you now. just want to be sure of what i think i'm seeing.

I like Ron's suggestion following, too - that Jackie likely put it back in place and then coagulation, etc pretty much held it in place.

has anyone seen William Orchard's take on the shots and the sign being damaged in Zapruder film: http://theshotsindealeyplaza.com/?page_id=156? any thoughts? (perhaps I should do a search in the forum...)

on this note, though, i'm reminded of something i thought the other day that i'd like to see:

I came across an exact sequence of shots (i think it was in Anthony Summers' book i was reading last month and subsequently lost on the subway halfway through it - aarrrgggghhh!!!) which made clear the difficulty in firing two shots from any bolt action so close together - something like 1.7 seconds between #'s 2 and 3...? does anyone have these times and does anyone know of a layout of Zframes chronologically timed to the known and possible other gunshots?

does that make any sense?

right, that's what i'm thinking. there has to be some reconciliation. Not just the doctors, Clint Hill and others have said they observed the same thing. If so many have seen a rear wound, i almost have to tell myself that Z is just in too poor a condition to see more clearly what's happening at 313...?

then there're the xrays - fake ones vs real ones. and the photos - fake vs real.

back to 313, tho - i'm really tempted to think that it's quite possible that 2 bullets hit at the same time (the sound tapes and proximity of shots 3 and 4 support this idea), throwing the study of blood cast evidence out the window. considering 2 simultaneous bullets is not forcing the facts, to me - it's really more of a sound explanation for other questions unanswered...

you cite Clint Hill's testimony - do you or do you not believe there was a 'gaping' wound to the rear...?

no CTer on the Internet is ever going to be swayed by one single thing ANY LNer says, or will ever say.

I wouldn't have believed that before, but i think you've convinced me.

The motive of the LNer has been from the very start -- patriotic loyalty. It makes sense that it starts with the FBI.

Hoover told his guys to stomp on all JFK evidence that contradicted the Lone Nut theory of OSWALD, and that's exactly what they did -- out of patriotic loyalty.

When Posner and Bugliosi wrote their defenses of the WC Report -- years after the HSCA update -- they were mainly parading down Main Street wearing their Uncle Sam costumes. It was a display of patriotic loyalty.

Even to this very day, LNers don't dig deeply into the evidence -- because that could be disloyal.

Yet the HSCA has contradicted the WC Report, and openly declares a "Conspiracy" in the JFK murder. It criticizes the WC Report -- not out of disloyalty -- on the contrary -- it was our own US Congress that published the HSCA findings.

Since 1979, the official position of the US Government on the JFK murder is actually the HSCA, and not the WC Report.

Therefore, Posner and Bugliosi were parading for nothing -- their loyalty was already out-of-date and out-of-touch, even back in the 1990's when they made headlines.

Anybody who is still fighting the Lone Nut theory of Lee Harvey Oswald is 35 years behind the times. The Lone Nut theory isn't our real problem here.

Isn't it obvious? Our real problem on this Forum is the massive disagreement that we CTers have just among ourselves.

The main reward of being a LNer today, in 2015, is the comedy of watching CTers fall all over each other like Keystone Kops.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I have to wholeheartedly agree with you, Paul. At this point there's just no real sense in debating a Lone Nut Theory person, just as there's no real sense in the theory itself. The people who still hold to it, for whatever reasons they do, are as easily dismissable as, as,... any moron or sellout.

The gallant and most constructive battle waged today is, unfortunately, separating the Conspiracy Nuts from the Conspiracy Legitimates. Just as the Populist Christians (please forgive my analogy, some of you who might bristle at it) make the Legitimate ones a laughing-stock, it is in the legitimate CTers best interests to first remove the inane before the sane can be taken seriously. It's probably not too easy to convince a Congressman to take a look at something if he thinks we think a Limo driver, or a clumsy Secret Service agent, or a UFO shot John Kennedy.

How crazy is that when any sensible person knows that Ruth Paine shot JFK because JFK spurned her advances. Well, that's my theory this week, anyway. I got the idea from DVP.

http://www.drtammo.com/DRT-Technology

I've respected and appreciated much of what i've read of yours in here, Robert - particularly your signature which symbolizes the clarity i'm looking for.

A link to a 21st century ammunitions website doesn't really go that far in the way of helping me with my confusion about the 'large, gaping wound in the right, rear portion" of the President's head or the apparent explosion in the front of it or exploding ammunition from the 1960's (i'm not going to directly mention James Files' Fireball cause i don't know what i think about that yet - of course, some 'more educated' input on that is as welcome as anything else).

Thanks, tho.

I'd really like to know what I'm not seeing, or a clearer explanation of what i am seeing...

OK, I'll risk a little ignorance in this particular area in order to try to understand a little more.

First off, I'm utterly convinced of a considerably large conspiracy involving several 'high level' interests. And it's not so much because of the events leading up to the crime as it is because of the cover-up and otherwise pathetic actions of so many people afterwards. I don't believe that any solution to bullet paths, etc. can have much bearing on the solution to the crime at this point, other than to tell us what we already know. (Although some vindication would be kinda sweet - i'd love little more than to say "see, i told you so" to Peter Effin' Jennings and Dan Rather, et al.)

One of the first books i read on this was by one of the Dr's from Parkland describing the scene and the wounds from that day. I've never doubted that from that point forward the cover-up began and that wound discrepancies were notable. And to me, all of the rifle shot replications and studies on human bodies, etc, means very little. I know lots of soldiers who have shot people, and they all say bullets and people do very different things when introduced to each other. So research be damned. I know what I see in the film.

And i want to ask some of you if i'm missing something.

Records today state quite clearly that several, if not all, of the doctors, saw the gaping wound in the back of his head. Other witnesses state the same thing, even referring to Z313 while doing so. The problem is, I refuse to be told what I'm looking at, and what I'm seeing is his head clearly and suddenly rocked backwards at the exact same time the front-right part of his skull is exploding. People have said that the rear of his skull is visibly damaged even in this film, but i just don't see it.

what i'm hoping someone can tell me is if i'm not seeing some wound in the back of his head in the film. is that not the front-right of his head blowing outward and upward? IS THERE a gaping wound in the back of his head?

and maybe someone can say something about the existence and behaviors of exploding bullets (many tiny bullet fragments in the brain and skull of JFK...) versus simple metal-jacketed ones like the MC fired (which are clearly indestructible when going through ribs, wristbones and legbones). the explosion i see could be the exit of a bullet or the entrance of an exploding bullet - or a combination of the two. which is what i think, mostly.

thanks good people,

Glenn

"Sometimes things really are as they appear to be"

I agree, and I'm amazed that this thing appears to anyone to be anything other than a chaotic conspiracy. There is NOTHING about this murder that leads anyone to believe that it was the work of one person except for the immediate propaganda machine.

Through my reading and study, I've come to the conclusion that it was LBJ. It wasn't just LBJ alone by himself, but LBJ was the lynchpin at the epicenter of other conspirators(Texas Oil, CIA, industrialists/war profiteers) whom he had deep ties to, and whom had a vested interest in JFK being eliminated. LBJ was going to be personally and politically ruined and go to prison. LBJ had Big Oil and MIC money behind him, as well as the Texas political machine. He had deep relations and contacts throughout congress, the state of Texas, industry and commerce, as well as law enforcement to ensure he got off scot-free. I see the who and the why right there. LBJ had a clear motive and wouldn't have any problems finding willing co-conspirators.

a few really sound theories i've encountered in here - I'm personally leaning toward LBJ as the most likely benefactor as more and more evidence comes to light.

But I'm a bit surprised that more is not made of his impending imprisonment - perhaps it's because so few people can empirically relate to the horrors of prison.

everyone - well, most everyone - can agree that he was a dirty, greedy son of a bitch and more than capable of murder for his own ends; it is tough to imagine even him killing the POTUS. But I'm dead certain that the fear of prison, coupled with everything else that was going on, was enough to motivate him.

There's a question someone asked in Quora.com: "is the negative representation of LBJ in the movie Selma an accurate one?" After considering a number of appropriate replies, I settled on something to the effect that I haven't seen the movie, but from what i know of LBJ, an accurate representation of him couldn't have reached a proper depth of negativity.

I have lots of fun in Quora, but I will actually learn many things in this fantastic forum.

thanks, Paul - i'm eating up all of the great wisdom from you guys (even that of you who are wrong :-) - love some things you and Douglas and Brian have said; it's encouraging to find some real thinkers in this melting pot of CT's.

I've never taken from the term "coup" anything other than the drama it's intended to present. I think the people i've read have used it loosely to mean just a culmination of a long series of unfortunate events; it reminds me of the warning Jack Ruby issued outside of the courtroom, and it certainly does seem to me that something has changed since this incredible, world-changing event. To me it does stink of an end of one thing and the beginning of another, esp. in light of the direction the US has gone since. I believe that the philosophies that you mentioned are justified; i also think it was a bit bigger than that.

I believe Jack Ruby's words might have been given some credence. I think some powerful people instead stayed seated and snickered to each other, "We're now in charge."

Nevertheless, I'm in these forums with an open mind, to learn about some names i've not yet read about and to wipe some from my mind. I will enjoy getting to know some of you. Some others i can see i will simply tolerate.