Jump to content
The Education Forum

Who Killed JFK?: Poll and Discussion?


Recommended Posts

Well, yes Director X coordinated Group X to commit the crime and Groups Y and Z to conduct secondary and tertiary actions.  All variables X,Y,and Z are not discreet groups but have overlap to a greater or lesser extent. 

Has anyone ever interviewed Mr. Katzenbach and/or Mr. Moyers about the 11/25/63 memo?

Erik A. Olsen

Mr. Katzenbach discussed his actions when he testified before the HSCA. He is actually fairly credible. He was under pressure by the state department to shut down speculation so that LBJ could get on with the business of conducting foreign affairs. He claimed that the letter he wrote recommending the WC immediately rubber-stamp the FBI's report was in fact prepared by the FBI and that he just signed his name. He also admits that Bobby Kennedy never restricted the use of the autopsy photos. Overall, he comes across more like a BOZO than a conspirator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 237
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have my own ideas about "who killed JFK" just like everybody else. While I do have definitive ideas, in this type of format, I would use the term "structural hypothesis" for elaborating viewpoints. The reason being is that I believe the main error people make in researching the JFK assassination is having a concrete idea or belief about the who, what, how and why and "tailoring their exposition of facts to 'fit' that scenario." My main structural hypothesis is that there was a one-time "overlapping" of different groups that all wanted Kennedy dead, not in the manner presented by Oliver Stone's JFK but something similar.

Three Dimensional Chess is a pursuit of very cerebral individuals, and I like that analogy for analyzing the assassination. On one level is organized crime; I think the books Contract on America by David Scheim and The Kennedy Contract: The Mafia Plot to Assassinate the President by John Davis prove conclusively that there is extensive evidence that points to involvement to by organized crime, the former even providing records of telephone calls of same centered around Jack Ruby, Carlos Marcello, Gill Wray, David Ferrie, Joseph Campisi, Santos Trafficante and Jimmy Hoffa.

On the second level are the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and individual members such as then Vice-President LBJ and even John Connally. Note I am not implying a massive interlocking assassination conspiracy by all of the above just the general massive amount of general and de-classified information related to the assassination that involves the same. Too many names to mention.

On the third level are those pesky anti-Castro Cubans, they hang out at Hickory Hill with RFK, they are cavorting with Oswald and preparing for a post Bay of Pig's invasion that never took place. (I do believe that Angel and Leopoldo were an integral part of the process of setting up Oswald and that they were "posing" as Cuban intelligence agents when in reality they were bona-fide anti-Castro Cuban's probably affiliated with either the DRE and/or Alpha 66 whether the "Leon Oswald" at Sylvia Odio's was the REAL LHO or not.)

If I were to name names on strictly a conjectural basis as being 'part of the plot to assassinate JFK' the names would be Rolando Masferrer, Angel and Leopodo, Jack Ruby, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Allen Dulles and some other individuals. I do not feel comfortable mentioning outright. I also believe that research has proven that the CIA was penetrated big-time by Soviet intelligence and that the government "cover-up" may have as much to do with 'embarrassing facts about intelligence-related ineptness as hiding the truth about who killed JFK. Just some food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Asked for an opinion about the who and why in regard of the assassination, to be honest I have not made my mind up, apart from ruling out the aparent hoaxes, we've encountered over the years, as an (partial) answer.

I do not completly rule out Oswald as the lone shooter, but in this scenario, my opinion is, he was trying to hit Connally not JFK. Motive, well of course his dishonourable discharge, the deed triggered by deep frustration.

Additionaly, if he was in deed doing intel work in Russia (in that regard, the space race most probably was the cause for sending him there), he surely felt betrayed once back in the US of A. Undercover US radar specialist were in the USSR in the early 60's, maybe there's a field of research left untouched still.

The coverup following the assassination then was of course to "save" JFK from being a "victim by accident", this I am sure would have been fully supported by the Kennedy clan. Heroes don't get shot as bystanders, more so, if President.

Next scenario would involve the mob (whoever that was in 1963), in that regard, we would have to listen to the wiretaps and other surveilance tapes the FBI has, hearsay, about who said what do whom, doesn't bring us forward.

We have motive and means too in this scenario, but the coverup involved too many persons , some of them, leaving out the possibility of blackmail, would have not stayed silent, no matter what, the first one who comes to my mind is Bobby. So, naturally only by blackmail would the mob have been able to keep the truth supressed. They could have blackmailed Hoover and Bobby as every other of the higher ups, no problem, but what about the lower in ranks. Even with the borders between CIA and Mob obscured by clouds (different side of the same coin thesis) someone would have talked.

But having said this, we also should not rule out that Watergate is in deed the rossetta stone in solving the JFK killing and also ask ourselves,why did Nixon fear that the whole Bay of pigs thing would be blown in the open, when in fact no one would have been realy shocked to learn about the Castro assassination plans.

The revolution eats it's own children, in Castro's case, the mother who made him big and whom he "loved" turned him down and later tried to kill him, nothing new here, even in the early 70's. The public may have said "Oh my god, those bad bad guys", but government and inteligence circles all over the world have know since day one I suspect.

The more important question in my mind is, how or why Fidel did manage to stay in power even after the breakdown of the eastern block. I think he knows, and he knows in detail, everything about the assassination. Me thinks he made a deal, leave me alone, and I won't tell, but tell what, that it was an accident, or that someone fired from behind the Bush (got it ? ).

John, in reality we do have no clue, even after 40+ years, what research has accomplished no doubt about that, is a deep insight into every known aspect of US politics since WWII, nothing more, nothing less.

But we do have nothing in regard of proof that Oswald was CIA,ONI or FBI connected.

But then, look at Oswald's actions and persons that he somehow was connected to, from the Paines to de Mohrenschildt (btw. a female relative of his was running for local parliament here in germany), from Gen. Walker and the Birchers, the white Russians to the cubans (pro and contra), it seems, he was in the center of it all and left out no niche of political extremist group to somehow have a connection with, be it on the right or left. But wait, was it him who innitiated those contacs, or was he somehow drawn or invited into it.

I have no clue, and I fully admit it.

Maybe we do complicate things too much by going in too deep. In Germany there is a saying "der Mörder ist immer der Gärtner", meaning the murderer is always the gardener (symbolic for the first one the police encounters/asks in connection with a murder). Maybe the answer is to be found immediatly or in the first few hours after the assassination and yes, maybe Oswald was just the patsy he said he was.

My favourate mystery man, is and will be, Jack E. Dougherty. Nothing known about him, at least not that I am aware of. What if he was a Bircher, what if he knew more about Oswald and his Rifle than we can imagine, what if he bought the rifle from Oswald (if it was his at all).

But wait, Dougherty isn't that an Irish name, was he a katholic or a protestant, wasn't the Kennedy's also of Irish origin and didn't JFK visit Ireland in the summer of 1963. An avenue not looked into yet, maybe he was a victim of the Northern Ireland conflict.

Honestly I do have no clue, and I fear we will never get to the mountain top and look over to see the promised land.

Wouldn't it be nice to hear something like that from Mr. Hemming and others who do a lot of talking without putting the butter on the bread.

Mr. Hemming, who killed JFK ?

Excuse my ramblings, but one's head realy starts spinning if you try to even think about how to get everything connected.

I think this is called a gordian knot, at least by the looks of it, but maybe it's just old granma's whool trick.

As someone wrote, maybe here or on another forum, get the following persons into a courtroom put them under oath and let's see what they have to say then (I added some more):

Billie Sol Estes

Mr. Hemming

Robert "Tosh" Plumlee

James Earl Files

Judyth Vary Baker

Daniel Marvin

Anna Martin

Marcello's bouncer, name probably McCulloch

E. Howard Hunt

Marita Lorenz

Marina Oswald + Mr. Porter

Robert Oswald + wife

Ruth Paine

Michael Paine

Plus all those still alive who were involved in this endless saga.

But before that, raid the fbi, the cia, nara and where ever documents are stored/hidden/supressed, get Johnsons psychiatric papers and don't forget to dig up JFK's grave also.

Ah yeah, and administer the truth serum to Poppy Bush.

What you will get from and by all of this by the end of the day, will be zero, nothing zilch, nothing of importance in regard of solving the case.

This case will not be solved in our lifetime I fear. I was born a little over a year after JFK was killed, so half of my life estimated time is over already (I hope to make it to 80 at least), and although a lot has come to light in those years since, the one thing which we all want to find, namely hard proof that Oswald was intelligence (intelligent he was I think), we still are hunting after.

And it would not at all surprise me, if one day, deep in the labyrinth of a dream that never was, someone with an Oswaldian smirk stands beside me saying, well Sir, I think I messed it up bigtime, instead of shooting the breeze, I shot me a president.

Having said all of this, I hope time will show that my rather pessimistic outlook was way off.

Please do carry on with your tireless and important research , I am just a little too exhausted to follow you everyday now.

I am of no importance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I personally am 98.3% positive that the person who pulled the trigger of the weapon that killed Kennedy was USAF marksman Jack Lawrence. Oswald was not good enough of a shot to have hit Kennedy, and as all intelegent people know, he did not have the proper angle for the shot.

Every time I have read anything related to the assassination, I find another peice of information that totally turns around my ideas and makes me look for more ends to connect. The one thing, however, that I have been able to match up is David Ferrie's remarks on there being three or more shooters and Jack Lawrence being placed by circumstantial evidence at the prime location for taking the shot that ended Kennedy's life. I beleive that there were four shooters in total, but have only found three gunmen that can be placed with a motive and connections to be there on that day to try to assassinate the president.

Carlos Marcello, Jack Lawrence, and Lee Oswald were the three shooters that I beleive were involved, aware of the others or not. It is very possible that the CIA or another branch of the government was able to pull enough strings to get everything set up from the changing of the driver's route to the placement of the gunners without any of them knowing about who else was involved or even that they themselves were involved (in the case of the changing of the car route). Oswald was probably provoked and/or tricked into trying to assassinate Conelly so he could be the fall for the rest of the shooters. Marcello openly admitted that he was told to assassinate the president, but I doubt that he was the one who fired the bullet that killed Kennedy.

This is all that I will write for now because I am a bit rusty on the subject seeing as I haven't read any of my books or essays on the subject in about a year, but I can answer just about any question if I am given time to research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcello was, of course, in federal court in New Orleans on November 22nd. If he shot at JFK the telescopic sight on his rifle must have been phenomenal.

That being said, I believe the evidence is convincing if not overwhelming that Marcello was a conspirator but not an actual participant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in total, but have only found three gunmen that can be placed with a motive and connections to be there on that day to try to assassinate the president.

ANDREW,WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT THIS AMAZING ASSERTION. WHY THESE THREE? WHAT CONNECTS THEM? AND WHAT MAKES YOU 98.3% POSITIVE THAT LAWRENCE FIRED THE FATAL SHOT.

Carlos Marcello, Jack Lawrence, and Lee Oswald were the three shooters that I beleive were involved, aware of the others or not. It is very possible thatI personally am 98.3% positive that the person who pulled the trigger of the weapon that killed Kennedy was USAF marksman Jack Lawrence. Oswald was not good enough of a shot to have hit Kennedy, and as all intelegent people know, he did not have the proper angle for the shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sticking with the original information I got from Bruce Roberts' Gemstone File--the parts that I read in 1974-5, and from personal conversations with him. As some here may know, I wrote a summary of this in early 1975, called "A Skeleton Key to the Gemstone File."

I had already written a magazine article for Playgirl (December 1974) based on this information, with Mae Brussell listed as co-author. It was entitled "Is Howard Hughes Dead and Buried Off a Greek Island?" This is (or was) available here and there on the Internet, specifically on the "Mae Brussell Archives" section of http://newsmakingnews.com. If you want to track it down in print, copies of Playgirl from December 1974 (1 million + copies were printed), are often available through e-bay, and you can usually find a copy for between $5-$10. Just thumb past the boy pin-ups, etc., and voila! The scoop of the century! :-)

In March, 1975, I wrote and released a 24-page digest version of the Gemstone File info which I called "The Skeleton Key to the Gemstone File." This received worldwide circulation. Many versions appear on the Web; however, in its "unprotected" state (circulated hand to hand samizdat-style), many people put their 2 cents in and sort-of rewrote it, and you have to exercise caution as to which (whose) version you are reading. In addition there was a human sludge named Jim Moore who for decades has been trying to persuade people that he was the "true" author and I am a phony. Gary Buell spent a couple of years corresponding with this cretin, in the hope I expect of getting "proof" that this was the case, and I was a phony, at the same time assuring me that he was writing a book about Gemstone and trying to milk me for whatever information and material he could get. Since Moore's lies didn't pan out, Gary was disappointed, although I kept telling him via e-mail that dealing with this creep on this self-appointed "mission" was a fruitless, in fact, idiotic project. Moore followed me around (e-mail version of "stalking") on the internet and collected a mish-mash of information, some correct and some wildly incorrect, about me and my "biography." In particular, he convinced himself that I was the graduate of a Massachusetts high school somewhere. Anyway!

To return to the subject at hand:

The Gemstone File information that I had from Bruce Roberts was:

The assassination "team" consisted of 28 people. They came from or were sponsored by several sources:

1. Various branches of the U.S. Mafia, including Carlos Marcello in Louisiana; Sam Giancana in Chicago; etc., but the direction from the top came from Aristotle Onassis.

2. CIA/Nixon White House representatives.

3. Some Corporation interests, particularly Texas oil.

4. Anti-Castro elements, Cuban refugees from Batista's cozy corrupt regime who had been tossed out by Castro and who had settled in Miami.

The three shooters he named in the hit were: John Roselli; Jimmy Fratianno, and Eugene Brading. (3 Mafia hitmen.)

He stated that Lee Harvey Oswald had been set up to shoot Connally, under the impression that that was the day's business at hand. (In other words, that Lee Harvey Oswald shot at Connally, and hit him--twice, and was prepared for the eventuality that he might be caught and arrested for that, but the simultaneous assassination of JFK was not his affair and took him by surprise.) Oswald didn't know he had been selected to be the "patsy" for that murder.

Roberts placed Jimmy Fratianno as shooting from the Dal-Tex Building; Brading, from the "pergola"; and Johnny Roselli as shooting from the "Overpass."

Kicking these ideas around with Mae Brussell in 1974, we speculated whether Johnny Roselli might have shot from behind the picket fence at the Grassy Knoll (adjacent to the Overpass), or possibly from the sewer grate on Elm Street very near the highway sign.

Since then, from other sources, I have tentatively added J.D. ("Roscoe") White, then a "Dallas Police cop" who had been assigned to the Dallas Police force about 3 weeks earlier, just about at the same second that Lee Harvey Oswald had "coincidentally" gotten his job at the Texas School Book Depository. Roscoe White was stationed on the Overpass, on the right-hand side, and frankly, all he had to do was move about 20 feet to the right to place himself behind the picket fence atop the Grassy Knoll. I think he was the "Badgeman" who shows up in some of the enhanced photos. That leaves the sewer grate sniper's stand for Roselli. Roberts also said that it was Roselli's shot which blew JFK's brains out, though the other 2 or 3 (??) shooters shot simultaneously

I don't know who else might have been a shooter, but there were clearly spotters, timers, coordinators, etc., who made up the 28-man team.

I have a new book coming out within the next couple of months, "The Gemstone File: A Memoir," which covers all of this and more. It is not specifically about the JFK assassination, but deals with the larger topic of how the U.S. got to the point we are at now: Dominated by huge corporations, with a regime in place that favors the wealthy and considers the middle-class and below its natural prey.

It also has some new information that I think will be very exciting!

Have a nice day!

:hotorwot

Stephanie Caruana

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHICH MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?

All that I can say with confidence is that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the shooter. I have this on good authority. In 1966, I had the opportunity to speak at length with his mother and she assured me that "Lee did not do it." I saw then and I see now no reason to doubt her.

This, however, does not help much in deciding who was truly responsible. The "military-industrial complex" is, I fear, too unwieldy a term. Its composition is too diverse and its organization too loose to sustain a successful conspiracy. Instead it is necessary to focus on specific elements of the beast. Several component parts are realistic possibilities: US Steel (which suffered price controls), military suppliers (who feared nuclear arms agreements or a relaxation of Cold War tensions), the oil industry. or some combination thereof. Even here, however, I would suspect that only a few firms (and only a few individuals within them) were involved. As for the FBI and the CIA, I have no trouble imagining that J. Edgar Hoover and others of the same sort would be involved; but, again, I have to belief that the participants in the murder were a small number of institutions and not an organization. Of course, there are other candidates. Various figures in organized crime (which had ambiguous relations with the Kennedys and who arguably supplied Jack Ruby as the instrument to remove Oswald before he could talk) come prominently to mind. As well, anti-Castro zealots in the Cuban diaspora are not above suspicion.

That some people were involved in a conspiracy is plain. What remains obscure and, I suspect, always will is the precise character and principals in the conspiracy. Of course, at some future date when some evidence not yet destroyed is made public - perhaps in another fifty years - it may be possible to "bring closure" to the event. Alas, I do not expect to be alive to say: "Aha! So, it was those guys!" What is worse, "those guys" will have long since passed away (if they haven't already).

Though I would enjoy seeing the case solved, however, I no longer worry much about it. The "military-industrial complex" has - individually or collectively - been up to very little good in the 42 years since John Kennedy's execution. Therefore, while I would be thrilled to see the ghost of Mr. Hoover or some business executives, military personnel, spies (domestic or international) or Chicago-based gangsters proven guilty, the pertinent effects would be few. In the meantime, I doubt that any intrepid investigator has much to worry about. Instead, attention should be focused on the current bevy of beasties who run US government, commerce and manufacturing, resource exploitation and information distribution (in short, the domestic and global political economy).

It may be time to take Stalin's insight to heart: "The death of one man is a tragedy; the deaths of a million are a statistic" and turn it around - leaving JFK to his fate and worrying instead about an entire world.

If, however, the death of the man that Canadian conservative philosopher George Grant called "a charming American imperialist" continues to hold us in thrall, I suggest that attention be paid to the cinema - not to Oliver Stone's labourious epic "JFK" but to a much less commercially successful film that starred Burt Lancaster and, in his final role, Robert Ryan. It was called "Executive Action" and tells the truth so ridiculously well that I have little doubt that it was effectively suppressed by ... who else? ... perhaps the "military-industrial complex."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Doughty wrote:

All that I can say with confidence is that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the shooter. I have this on good authority. In 1966, I had the opportunity to speak at length with his mother and she assured me that "Lee did not do it." I saw then and I see now no reason to doubt her.

Of all possible reasons for doubting that LHO was a shooter, this is probably the weakest. Many times the only person believing in a person's innocence may be his mother! Besides, how would she necessarily know that he was not a shooter? Because he told her? Because she did not believe him capable of violence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Doughty wrote:

All that I can say with confidence is that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the shooter. I have this on good authority. In 1966, I had the opportunity to speak at length with his mother and she assured me that "Lee did not do it." I saw then and I see now no reason to doubt her.

Of all possible reasons for doubting that LHO was a shooter, this is probably the weakest. Many times the only person believing in a person's innocence may be his mother! Besides, how would she necessarily know that he was not a shooter? Because he told her? Because she did not believe him capable of violence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee Harvey Oswald and His Mother

I do not know who killed John F. Kennedy. I expect that I shall go to my grave without having had a satisfactory answer to the question: "Who shot JFK?" I suspect that the answer will never be forthcoming.

I happen to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the shooter. I also believe that some sort of conspiracy was involved. I do not know who participated in the conspiracy. The list of suspects is endless. Individuals such as Sam Giancana, organizations such as the FBI and the CIA, vaguely defined groups such as anti-Castro expatriate Cubans and, of course, the "military-industrial complex" have all had their share of accusers (and let us not forget Castro himself).

When I said I was convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent because I had a lengthy conversation with his mother and she assured me that "Lee didn't do it," I was attempting to be jocose (apparently my sense of humour does not carry well across the Atlantic). My poorly made point was that the investigation into the murder was so sloppily handled from the outset and that the apparent "cover-up" was so complete that no available evidence is uncontested and an unknown amount of possibly persuasive evidence remains secret or has been destroyed. Given this dismal state of affairs, one theory is as good (or as bad) as another. So ... why not believe his mother?

Perhaps the legacy of JFK (love him or loath him) will include, among other things, being the victim of America's first "postmodern assassination."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Where's the poll? I couldn't find it.

Len Colby?

What poll?

The "Who Killed JFK?: Poll..." as per the name of this thread. I didn't read the whole thread but there was discussion on the 1st 2 pages of the choices, so at one point at leat there must have been an actual poll.

Why is my name a question, Howard?

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...