Who killed JFK?

[Tim Gratz]

I am troubled that a thesis that a black man shot JFK is preceded by an attack on the Congressional Black Caucus (and I am sure almost everyone would suspect that I disagree with much of the politics of the CBC).

[Mark Knight]

Just a point of clarity here. I've seen numerous references to a ".30odd06" rifle, or other such nonsense. I believe the correct terminology is ".30-06", and is spoken as "thirty-ought-six." IIRC, It's a thirty caliber projectile, and was developed around 1906...hence the "thirty-ought six," to distinguish it from the .30-30 and other 30 caliber variations.

Anyone out there in the firearms community want to either correct or verify this information?

Edited September 28, 2005 by Mark Knight

[Harry J.Dean]

Just a point of clarity here.  I've seen numerous references to a ".30odd06" rifle, or other such nonsense.  I believe the correct terminology is ".30-06", and is spoken as "thirty-ought-six."  IIRC, It's a thirty caliber projectile, and was developed around 1906...hence the "thirty-ought six," to distinguish it from the .30-30 and other 30 caliber variations.

Anyone out there in the firearms community want to either correct or verify this information?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My weapons were stolen along with other possessions,{police report,Victorville,

California} among them was a 30.06 rifle..thirty-ought-six. You are certainly

correct.

Harry

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Raymond, where in my posts do you derive the idea that I am not desirious of solving the assassination?  Unfortunately, I am pessimistic that it can be solved.  I would consider, at this point, "solved" to mean an agreement or consensus among historians re who really killed JFK, provided the solution was TRUE.  Absent some "smoking gun" revelations when the still-classified documents are released, or absent a confession by a still-living conspirator, we may be left with this ambiguous debate and the history books may take the easy approach of accepting the Warren Commission with perhaps a passing nod at conspiracy theories.  And as each year passes it is less and less likely that there still will be a living conspirator left to tell what really happened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Timothy, my brave lad, I admit that I have made harsh comments about you in previous posts, but since John Simkin defends you then you can't be all bad. Indeed I must admit that you were uniquely generous in your comments on my very first contribution to this forum, something I greatly appreciated at the time. But I am a disciple of Charles Sanders Peirce, America's greatest logician. I do not have the quotes at hand but A fundamental part of Peirce's philosophy was that "he who says 'we will never know the truth' seeks to block the path of inquiry."

Your quotation above seems to put you in the category of those who seek to block the path of inquiry ( ie those who say we will never know the truth). I, on the other hand believe it can be proven that Lee Oswald had no hand act or part in the assassination, at least based on the evidence presented so far. and I believe, along with CS Peirce, that the truth will be found if inquiry continues long enough.

Ray

[Mark Stapleton]

My humble contribution to this thread is as follows:

I believe the person most responsible for the assassination was LBJ. While not involved in the hands on planning of Dealey Plaza, there's enough evidence in my mind to label the whole sordid affair an LBJ production. In June 1963, LBJ and Governor Connally met with JFK in El Paso, Texas. From this meeting, a plan for JFK to visit Texas crystallised. (Interestingly, this was mere days after JFK signed Executive Order 11110, the Federal Reserve Bill. I agree with Terry Mauro that this may have been significant, even conclusive, in sealing JFK's fate).

So LBJ got him to visit and continued to stress to JFK the importance of his visit (supposedly to heal the rift between Connally and Yarborough). This done, others stepped in to assist with the plan. LBJ did a few more things to ensure the plan's success, among them arranging a slight change to the motorcade order which included placing the flat bed press truck well behind the presidential limo. Fortunately he knew that JFK usually left details like this to others. However, he had less success convincing JFK to allow Connally and Yarborough to change places on game day. This may account for LBJ's sullen demeanour during the motorcade. His plan might result in getting his friend killed as well.

After the assassination we have the rapid swearing in (arranged by LBJ himself, of course), the ill-feeling between the respective entourages (noted by, and partially excused by Manchester) and the rapid removal of the evidence in the limo (including the windshield). His most elaborate piece of post-production, the Warren Commission, came later.

Why do I think it was LBJ and who helped him carry it out? By 1963, LBJ had established a vast and intricate network of alliances which included Texas oil, arms manufacturers, the aerospace industry, the Israeli Government and many of the major media players in the US. LBJ's primary financial backer throughout his career was the engineering firm Brown and Root (now Halliburton). One of his earliest successes for his benefactors was securing a $10M dam project, the Marshall Ford Dam, from Roosevelt's new deal fund for public works in the 1930's. Along with his early mentor, Senator Alvin Jacob Wirtz, LBJ acquired large defence contracts from Roosevelt in the late 1930's for Brown and Root, enabling them to prosper as the major contractor for building military bases.

I don't want to make this too long so I'll conclude by restating my view that LBJ had, by 1963, acquired such an extensive collection of rich and powerful allies (by virtue of the many favors he had done for them) that this enabled him to call in a favor at a time when his future was looking bleak--to put it mildly. I'll add that I agree with Lee Forman in that the CIA is basically an organisation which by 1963 had strayed far from its original charter and was being used by powerful domestic interests in furtherance of their aims (profit).

LBJ had the persuasive skills, fuelled by desperation, to convince those in the power loop that assassination was the only solution--and one that would result in winners all round.

Finally, my best guess as to who carried out the hits on JFK and Officer Tippett? A joint US/Israeli military intelligence operation.

[Tim Gratz]

Mr. Carroll:

Thank you for your post.

I am pessimistic that the assassination can be "solved" at this late date but in no way do I mean to discouage efforts to do so. For the sake of both history and justice, there are few things that I would like more than to see his assassination solved. If there are living Americans involved, I would love to see them pay the ultimate penalty for their crime. (Just as I wish some of the older racists who have recently been convicted of racist murders should have received the death sentence for the horror of their crimes.)

I am concerned about a way to achieve if nothing else historic consensus on who killed JFK. Even if a guilty party should confess, the false confessions that have surfaced might minimize the efficacy of that. An actual criminal conviction might achieve the finality necessary.

As I have stated, absent a formal inquiry (presumably in Texas) I would like to see the still living "suspects" prioritized (perhaps by age?) and interviewed by a seasoned criminal interrogator. That may be the best hope of solving the case at this late date.

I do agree with you, by the way, that Oswald was PROBABLY no more than an unwitting patsy.

Edited October 2, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

It has been several days since anyone posted their theory of the assassination. I now suggest we start new threads where we can discuss what people have said. For example, I have started a new thread concerning the stimulating contribution by Jeff Morley.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5124

[William Turner]

I do not believe that JFK was a Mafia/Castro/KGB plot. I do believe that it was a Mafia/CIA plot deploying Cuban exiles at the operational level. Obviously John McCone was not involved. But Phillips and/or Angelton may have been.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I do agree with you, by the way, that Oswald was PROBABLY no more than an unwitting patsy.

Mr. Gratz: In reviewing the literature on this case it seems to me that different people assign different meanings to the word "Patsy". Without knowing what meaning you assign to that term, I can't say whether I believe you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Ray

[Tim Gratz]

Dear Mr. Carroll: Please feel free to call me Tim if you want. By "patsy" I mean that Oswald was set up as the fall-guy; that he played no role in the assassination and had no foreknowledge of it. I have speculated that he may have been induced to do something incriminating, such as bring his rifle into the TSBD, by being told there was to be a fake assassination attempt on JFK's life. The idea is not original to me; I recently rewatched the Stone movie "JFK" and in that movie Costner suggests the idea of the use of a fake assassination story to trap Oswald.

So I assume we probably are in agreement.

I used to believe that Oswald was at least a participant. Now I doubt that and I think he was probably working for some agency of the fed government, which of course made him the perfect patsy.

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Gratz--to identify exactly which "Tim" to whom I address this comment--while I think you'll agree that your thoughts and mine are usually galaxies apart, I must say that I have come to think of Oswald and his degree of participation in the assassination in pretty much the same terms as you expressed.

My thought process to arrive at that point had been evolutionary, as the more evidence I see, and the more information I read, the more plausible this idea becomes. Absent an earthshaking revelation to the contrary, I can hardly understand how anyone could conclude otherwise...but on the other hand, I see no reason to ridicule them if they do conclude otherwise. [i won't even use the "far-be-it-from-me-to-question-their-mentality" sort of line, because that comes across as incendiary as well as condescending...and there's been entirely too much of that going on between and among sincere researchers.]

But I believe that you and I have traveled divergent paths to arrive at the same conclusion...so that makes me wonder whether we ought not give that conclusion a bit of added weight.

Edited October 9, 2005 by Mark Knight

[John Simkin]

I used to believe that Oswald was at least a participant. Now I doubt that and I think he was probably working for some agency of the fed government, which of course made him the perfect patsy.

How does this fit in with your idea that this was a Casto/KGB/Mafia plot?

[Tim Gratz]

John, I am convinced to a reasonable certainty that Trafficante was involved and was probably "the big fish".

We know (per attorney Ragano) that Ragano delivered a message (in July of 1963) to his mutual clients Trafficante and Marcello that Jimmy Hoffa wanted JFK killed. And, of course, Marcello and Giancana had their own independent reasons for wanting JFK killed. The reasons for believing Trafficante and Ragano were involved have been listed in several threads.

Trafficante may have also acted on behalf of Castro, and DGI agents may have participated in the assassination. While the Mafia's involvement was motivated by an attempt to stop their prosecution RFK's Justice Department, the possible involvement of Cuba was defensive in nature. As I have posted, the US government had, in the week before the assassination, initiated a stepped-up campaign of sabotage against Cuba (which campaign was approved by a meeting of the Special Group attended by RFK; the minutes of the meeting exist). Clearly, the executive branch was conducting a secret (and arguably illegal) war against Cuba. In addition, we are all aware of the CIA's involving a dissident member of Castro's cabinet, Rolando Cubela Secades, in yet another effort to kill Castro. This effort was being co-ordinated by Desmond Fitzgerald, a close friend of the Kennedys who was also in attendance at the meeting at which the sabotage campaign was organized. Gus Russo argues, convincingly I believe, that RFK was witting of the Cubela operation. Regardless of the Kennedys' actual knowledge of the so-called AMLASH plot, Castro had every reason to believe they did since Fitzgerald so informed Cubela. I believe that Cubela knew exactly who Fitzgerald was. As Mr. Trento stated recently (in the book thread) DGI agents had penentrated JM/Wave which was being run by Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald foolishly met with Cubela and did not even bother to use a disguise despite the fact that his photo had been in newspapers. (We can be certain the DGI had a good newspaper clipping service.)

I find it most interesting that delValle had told authorities of a close relationship between Cubela and Trafficante, only days before he was murdered. I also find it interesting that when he testified before the HSCA Trafficante committed perjury in denying anything but a very casual meeting with Cubela.

And I believe there is convincing evidence to connect Trafficante with the murders of Giancana and Rosselli.

I think it possible that, through Rosselli, Trafficante may have involved both anti-Castro Cubans and rogue CIA agents, not so much because they were needed as to muddy the waters. I think the plotters may have told the anti-castro Cubans that Oswald's use as a patsy could be used to prompt an invasion of Cuba (an invasion that was, ironically, actually being planned by RFK but only with the help of a limited number of his Cuba friends. Yet ultimately the plotters used fear of a possible international conspiracy to motivate the cover-up.

If, as many think, LHO was working for US intelligence interests (whether FBI or CIA) he certainly was the perfect patsy. Particularly if RFK was even aware of his identity.

My scenario is very similar to the scenario proposed by Professor Kurtz in "The Crime of the Century".

Think of the elegant but evil beauty of the plot. Trafficante may have involved both pro and anti-Castro Cubans, to ensure a cover-up. But the coup de grace to ensure a cover-up was the use of a US intelligence agent as the perfect patsy. In addition, I believe (as I think you yourself have suggested) that the conspirators may have involved Malcolm Wallace to ensure the compliance of LBJ with the cover-up.

Edited October 9, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I have speculated that he may have been induced to do something incriminating, such as bring his rifle into the TSBD, by being told there was to be a fake assassination attempt on JFK's life. The idea is not original to me; I recently rewatched the Stone movie "JFK" and in that movie Costner suggests the idea of the use of a fake assassination story to trap Oswald.

So I assume we probably are in agreement.

I used to believe that Oswald was at least a participant. Now I doubt that and I think he was probably working for some agency of the fed government, which of course made him the perfect patsy.

Tim, I do not believe we are in agreement. No one has proven that Lee Oswald was working for the federal government (apart of course from his period of military service) and notwithstanding Garrison and Stone and the Warren Commission, all the direct evidence shows that HE DID NOT BRING A RIFLE TO WORK.

I also suspect that you would convict Lee in the murder of JD Tippit, a crime to which he pleaded innocence. I believe the evidence of Lee's innocence in the Tippit murder is overwhelming, but of course the procedures used by the tribunals that have so far accused him represent a mockery of the ideals of truth and justice. As such, their rulings are widely regarded as a mockery.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

John, I am convinced to a reasonable certainty that Trafficante was involved and was probably "the big fish".

We know (per attorney Ragano) that Ragano delivered a message (in July of 1963) to his mutual clients Trafficante and Marcello that Jimmy Hoffa wanted JFK killed. .

Frank Ragano made up the ridiculous story of delivering a message from Hoffa to Traficante. He made it up when his literary agent told him that there wasn't enough meat in his proposed book to interest a major publisher. That is essentially what he told Jack Newfield in an interview published in the New York Post before the book was published. Of course Ragano's credibility was zero even before he made up that ridiculous story. He was a transparent fraud, so far the only kind of witness Tim can get to support his theories