What Are the Correct Questions to Ask About the JFK Assassination?

[Paul Brancato]

DeLaria, Kelly, Mitcham, and Andrews - interesting posts and food for thought. Jon - you are still not answering your own questions, and I feel certain you could. For instance, you mentioned on another thread in another galaxy far away that you thought Middle East and oil policy was the key. Mr. Kelly seems to basically agree.

I think DeLaria ties all of these ideas together, and gives a good reason for the continuing coverup. Wasn't LBJ known as the Pentagon's Senator? He had a clear personal motive. But given all the other policy moves that JFK made that pissed off big oil big banks big military contractors etc it surely wasn't hard for LBJ to find willing co-conspirators.

The key is that JFK had to die. It's rather obvious that if the reason had been getting rid of Castro, an assassination attempt linked to Castro would have sufficed. It didn't have to succeed. But all the other reasons listed here necessitated removal of the president.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Brancato,

I think the question is, if LBJ was responsible for JFK's death, why hasn't that come out?

Agreed LBJ was a villain capable of ordering the deaths of others. Over the years, though, why hasn't it come out that he was responsible for JFK's murder -- in a clear and convincing way? Surely there have been loyal Americans in the FBI and the CIA who would have had information LBJ was the chief plotter and who would have had no reason not to leak the information pointing toward LBJ's culpability, especially after his death, when he no longer posed any threat.

[Paul Brancato]

Jon - plenty of leaks point in the direction of LBJ knowing about it beforehand. The main point I was trying to make is that it was a broad conspiracy. Do you think our government would ever admit that LBJ was behind the murder?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Brancato,

I'm not sure the U.S. Government would ever besmirch a president, but historians surely have. There's no reason today why a a mainstream historian would be reluctant to call out LBJ as culpable in JFK's death if the historian possessed corroborative facts clearly showing LBJ's culpability.

As for there having been a broad conspiracy, I'm inclined to believe today there was a tight conspiracy that produced benefits for many, especially including LBJ, and left a lot of obvious but false trails. Above all, the secret of the conspiracy -- why JFK was killed -- endures today.

Footnote: I agree with Paul Trejo: the CIA didn't murder JFK.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Thomas Graves]

Paul Brancato,

I'm not sure the U.S. Government would ever besmirch a president, but historians surely have. There's no reason today why a mainstream historian would be reluctant to call out LBJ as culpable in JFK's death if the historian possessed corroborative facts clearly showing LBJ's culpability.

As for there having been a broad conspiracy, I'm inclined to believe today there was a tight conspiracy that produced benefits for many, especially including LBJ, and left a lot of obvious but false trails. Above all, the secret of the conspiracy -- why JFK was killed -- endures today.

Footnote: I agree with Paul Trejo: the CIA didn't murder JFK.

Jon,

That's the easy bit.

Lee, or Harvey, or Henry were just a tad too envious and / or jealous of JFK for "Marina's husband's" own good.

Just kidding ; I couldn't resist.

--Tommy

Edited March 8, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Greg Parker]

I struggle to answer the question I pose.

The Socratic method of teaching, which has been used in law schools, is for the professor to ask questions, not supply answers. The method teaches the student to ask himself or herself correct questions. Learning to ask oneself correct questions leads one to be one's own teacher while continuing to be a student.

A correct question demands a discrete answer, An answer one can defend.

So, what are the correct questions to ask about the JFK assassination?

Here are three I believe:

1) What was the nature of JFK's skull according to JFK's autopsists?

Unanswerable without another autopsy

2) What is the life history of the person accused of killing JFK? Not the psychological profile. The facts.

http://www.amazon.com/Harvey-Oswalds-Cold-Assassination-Reinvestigated-ebook/dp/B00IXOA5ZK with 2 more volumes to come.

3) Did Marina testify honestly about her husband to the Warren Commission?

Of course not. One example. She denied 5 times that Lee went to MC prior to her WC testimony, where she stated she had known of those plans since August. Not once was she asked to explain her previous statements.

The answers to these questions won't tell who killed JFK or why. The answers may suggest other correct questions.

Again, correct questions are those that can be answered and defended.

I may not have posed correct questions. I struggle to frame my questions about the assassination. What are your questions the answer to which is obtainable and furthers one's grasp of the JFK assassination?

The big question is, how much of the official narrative from September through November is actually true? It can be (largely) answered, and will be. In fact, parts of the correct answer are already on the table.

[David Andrews]

Well, back in the days of the HSCA, Sen. Lowell Schweiker handed Bob Tannenbaum Gaeton Fonzi's investigative file on "Maurice Bishop," presumably containing the Antonio Veciana allegation against David Atlee Phillips, and told Tannenbaum that the CIA killed Kennedy.

This is from Jim DiEugenio's research into HSCA, presented in an interview on last Thursday's Black Op Radio with Len Osanic. Whether Schweiker had other material or knowledge beyond the Fonzi file to go on is perhaps a question Di Eugenio ought to ask Bob Tannenbaum.

http://blackopradio.com/archives2015.html

Play Jim DiEugenio (1:00:50) Real Media or MP3 download

• Cyril Wecht and the HSCA Forensics Panel
• Tannenbaum brought in Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht (BOR Show 720)
• Senator Chris Dodd got Blakey to come on the HSCA
• Blakey knew that he could not get Wecht to turn
• Rep. Tom Downing, was shown the Zapruder film
• Downing and Gonzalez got the committee formed
• Walter Pinkus, David Burnham, Nicholas Horrock, attacking the committee
• They were doing to Sprague what they did to Garrison
• Rep. Louis Stokes was the new chairman, Blakey took over
• Sen. Schweiker told Tannenbaum, "The CIA killed President Kennedy"
• The Kennedy assassination goes to the heart of the American power structure
• Blakey got to Baden and Andy Purdy, he flipped those guys
• The HSCA was the last great chance, to find out who really killed Kennedy
• Bill O'Reilly is getting roasted by colleagues
• O'Reilly wasn't even in the Falkland Islands, in a war zone
• He claimed he was outside de Mohrenschildt's home at the time of his death
• A lone-nutter book by someone with someone is not doing well
• Jim's article on Ben Bradlee will be out soon on consortiumnews.com
• CTKA, John Armstrong (BOR Show 719) on the Kleins rifle
• Robert Kennedy and the FBI wiretaps of MLK
• Hoover was trying to drive a wedge between RFK and MLK
• Tom Robinson and wounds observed at the JFK autopsy, creditable
• The Chomsky attack on JFK was a disgrace

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Andrews,

You've studied this case. Have you reached conclusions?

[Gene Kelly]

Jon:

Not sure what you think of the Middle East topic (oil, nuclear weapons) as something JFK didn't overtly push, but LBJ did, and a solid reason for continuance today. I'd be interested in your feedback. I am not suggesting that LBJ orchestrated the murder, nor do I see Israel as complicit. The Liberty incident appears to be a failed False-flag operation, aborted in some way before the US attacked Egypt.

Walter Whitman Rostow and his brother Eugene V. Rostow are quite another story. They are linked with Allen Dulles and John McCloy, Yale graduates, Oxford/Cambridge, former OSS affiliations, CFR confederates. They had well-known hawkish reputations, and were characterized as "anticommunist zealots." Both were instrumental in arms control but not necessarily strategic limitations. Walter Rostow later left government service "reviled by many" for his advocacy of the Viet Nam War. I believe they are representative of the high-level sponsors of the assassination so sought after.

According to Donald Gibson, John Kennedy had "no interest in pursuing the economic domination of Third World countries. JFK had a similar dislike for the use of the United States' political and military power against backward and weaker nations". That ended when LBJ took the presidential helm. Oil control and nuclear proliferation ... endures today.

Gene

[Jon G. Tidd]

Gene,

The Rostows and Bundys are worthy of deep scrutiny in connection with the JFK assassination. Although I've come to admire JFK as president, because of his independence, I've also come to think he was like Little Bo Peep among the wolves. The Rostows and Bundys had fierce agendas. It's easy for me to imagine they didn't want their agendas thwarted by anyone.

One focus of JFK students has been Viet Nam, for obvious reasons. Like you, I believe, I lean toward believing the reason for JFK's murder was tied up with U.S policy and actions in the Middle East, where both the Cold War and the Arab-Israeli conflict were percolating. The Middle East was critical to the U.S. -- both as a power conflict center and as a place of oil.

I've always believed LBJ, in departing from JFK's positions on Middle Eastern countries, made big mistakes. LBJ truly was a disastrous president in more ways than one. I doubt he plotted to kill JFK but I don't rule out foreknowledge of the assassination on his part.

[Jon G. Tidd]

I've thought the central question is, why was JFK killed.

I continue to believe this is the central question.

Cliff Varnell raises an important question: Is a study of Oswald a study of the JFK assassination?

I believe Cliff's question merits consideration.

[Thomas Graves]

I've thought the central question is, why was JFK killed.

I continue to believe this is the central question.

Cliff Varnell raises an important question: Is a study of Oswald a study of the JFK assassination?

I believe Cliff's question merits consideration.

There are many possible and plausible reasons he was killed.

He had many enemies and for many different reasons.

Whichever one you choose to focus on will, IMHO, be strictly a matter of personal preference.

But the Vietnam War makes the most sense to me.

--Tommy

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tommy,

You address an important question: Was JFK killed because of his Viet Nam policy? If this is your view, I believe you have many followers.

IMO, that is not the reason JFK was killed.

I believe he was killed because he was too independent of the power structure in the U.S. Too willing to challenge U.S. positions in the Middle East, for example.

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy,

You address an important question: Was JFK killed because of his Viet Nam policy? If this is your view, I believe you have many followers.

IMO, that is not the reason JFK was killed.

I believe he was killed because he was too independent of the power structure in the U.S. Too willing to challenge U.S. positions in the Middle East, for example.

Jon,

The only difference between you and I on this is that you are more of a generalist, whereas I'm a bit more specific.

--Tommy

PS Of course when I said the Vietnam War, I didn't mean just Texas-based Bell Helicopter and General Dynamics, but the CIA's involvement in the heroin trafficking that was taking place there, too.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Jon G. Tidd]

Question: If Oswald wasn't involved in killing JFK, is studying Oswald germane to studying the JFK assassination? (h/t Cliff Varnell)

My answer: Yes and no. Yes to the extent studying Oswald reveals why he was framed. No to the extent studying Oswald is a pursuit of dead-end pathways.

I believe Oswald was framed because whoever framed him knew that neither the CIA nor the FBI would investigate him openly and honestly and thereby knew the CIA and FBI would be boxed in a corner. If I'm correct, the party who framed him knew well how the CIA and FBI worked at leadership levels. That party was either a real intel pro, sure of his reckoning, or a highly placed U.S. insider. I'd bet a real intel pro.