Why do we still bother?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Last year, at this time I started a thread asking people where they were, who they were with and what they were doing when they heard the news of the Assassination. this year I thought it might be interesting for members to articulate why, after 43 years, they still care so much about solving this case.

The idea came to me from a comment my Brother made, he asked me why I didnt just let it go after all this time.....

My reason, I suppose is more than justice, and finally playing a part, however small, in getting the truth historically recognised. Its because I feel something changed for the worse that day, and we are still paying the price now, for our failure as a society to overturn the official lies that disfigure our historical narrative of the 1960s and beyond. The guns of Dallas served not only to silence Kennedy, but as a warning to all future leaders about what the elite would tolerate, and what they would not. And Brother, haven't those guns worked, the total political cowardice of the last 40+ years speaks volumns.

"BETER SEND A BEGGING LETTER TO THE BIG INVESTIGATION, WHO PUT THESE FINGERPRINTS ON MY IMAGINATION." GREEN SHIRT, ELVIS COSTELLO.

[Michael Hogan]

this year I thought it might be interesting for members to articulate why, after 43 years, they still care so much about solving this case.

I was a very young boy, glued to the television that November weekend in 1963. I was still in a numb shock, a state of disbelief at what had happened to President Kennedy and the United States of America.

My young mind could not comprehend how Oswald could escape the building, make a clean getaway, and manage to be captured shortly after in a theatre. Nothing that weekend added up. Oswald's protestations of innocence resonated with me because of his demeanor. His body language and facial expressions and voice tones did not seem consistent with guilt. I was watching when Ruby murdered him. Within hours, they were reporting that no records were kept of Oswald's interrogation. How could that be? What was going on? I remember a disquieting notion that Oswald would never be able to tell his side of the story.

Because my mother had told me about the McCarthy era, I was not too quick to accept that Oswald was a Communist. When I went back to school on Monday morning, everyone was talking about Oswald and Russia. When I offered that Oswald might be innocent, I remember being ridiculed. If anyone agreed with me, I don't remember that.

When it was announced that a bipartisan group of respected men headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren had been appointed, I was thinking that surely they would get to the bottom of things. How wrong I was. When it was leaked that they were going to agree with the FBI that Oswald acted alone, before they were finished, I was angry.

Thanks to my mother, I had access to publications like Ramparts and A Minority of One, where some of the first views that dissented from official findings were published. When Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgement became a best seller, I felt that the Warren Commission's findings were proven to be demonstrably lacking.

As each new book came out, I read it. When news of Jim Garrison's investigation became public and I saw him on televison, I was convinced that the American government's negligence was going to be exposed. When Shaw was found innocent, I was crushed. Not that the man Shaw was acquitted, but that Garrison had failed.

By then, Dr. King and Senator Kennedy were dead, so were Hendrix, Morrison, and Joplin. And Richard Nixon was President. That was the irony of all ironies. Vietnam was raging, young people were dying for reasons that seemed unnecessary. Watergate didn't cause me to distrust our government, it merely confirmed what I already knew. Things were f___ed up.

Kennedy's death, while an irremovable part of my psyche, had faded into the background of my mind, until a young man named Robert Groden appeared on the Geraldo Rivera show. Like almost all Americans, I saw the Zapruder film for the first time. Suddenly everyone was talking about the Kennedy assassination again, and this time there was not the universal acceptance of Oswald's lone guilt, as there was in 1963.

Then there was the Church Committee making startling revelations, and the forming of the HSCA. This time, I was sure that the goverment would correct the wrongs of the Warren Commission. There was a spate of new books and I read them. When the results of the HSCA's findings were released, I took little solace in the acoustical evidence. When I read of all the deaths of people scheduled to testify, it was like "deja vu all over again."

Essentially, I resigned myself to the fact that the murder of John Kennedy would never be solved. I read the occasional book. I never understood why Americans were not more outraged.

Then, Oliver Stone made his movie and there was an attendant resurgence of interest in the JFK assassination. A flock of new books, some useless, a few very good. The formation of the Assassination Records Review Board. I was glad to see a renascence of interest but remained extremely cynical. There was no doubt in my mind that any smoking gun in those files had long been sanitized, if they had ever existed in the first place. I knew what they did to Oswald's military records.

Fast forward to now. This Forum keeps me interested in the current state of research. I get to see what other people think. That is the most fascinating thing of all. Many of the people here have obsessions about finding the truth, just as I do and did. I listen and I learn, and I throw in my two cents worth from time to time. I am not a researcher. Just a reader.

I am heartened that books are still being published, Bill Kelly is pursuing the formation of a grand jury, conferences are still held annually and that there are a lot of people that are more familiar with things than I.

In summary, I think I have had a lifelong obsession with the murder of John Kennedy and the ensuing coverup. After all these years, I still can't understand how they got away with it. The coverup actually mystifies me more than the actual execution in Dealey Plaza. The unbelievable amount of evidence and events and people and circumstances pointing to a still unproven conspiracy is sometimes more than my mind can comprehend.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Evan Marshall]

this year I thought it might be interesting for members to articulate why, after 43 years, they still care so much about solving this case.

I was a very young boy, glued to the television that November weekend in 1963. I was still in a numb shock, a state of disbelief at what had happened to President Kennedy and the United States of America.

My young mind could not comprehend how Oswald could escape the building, make a clean getaway, and manage to be captured shortly after in a theatre. Nothing that weekend added up. Oswald's protestations of innocence resonated with me because of his demeanor. His body language and facial expressions and voice tones did not seem consistent with guilt. I was watching when Ruby murdered him. Within hours, they were reporting that no records were kept of Oswald's interrogation. How could that be? What was going on? I remember a disquieting notion that Oswald would never be able to tell his side of the story.

Because my mother had told me about the McCarthy era, I was not too quick to accept that Oswald was a Communist. When I went back to school on Monday morning, everyone was talking about Oswald and Russia. When I offered that Oswald might be innocent, I remember being ridiculed. If anyone agreed with me, I don't remember that.

When it was announced that a bipartisan group of respected men headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren had been appointed, I was thinking that surely they would get to the bottom of things. How wrong I was. When it was leaked that they were going to agree with the FBI that Oswald acted alone, before they were finished, I was angry.

Thanks to my mother, I had access to publications like Ramparts and A Minority of One, where some of the first views that dissented from official findings were published. When Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgement became a best seller, I felt that the Warren Commission's findings were proven to be demonstrably lacking.

As each new book came out, I read it. When news of Jim Garrison's investigation became public and I saw him on televison, I was convinced that the American government's negligence was going to be exposed. When Shaw was found innocent, I was crushed. Not that the man Shaw was acquitted, but that Garrison had failed.

By then, Dr. King and Senator Kennedy were dead, so were Hendrix, Morrison, and Joplin. And Richard Nixon was President. That was the irony of all ironies. Vietnam was raging, young people were dying for reasons that seemed unnecessary. Watergate didn't cause me to distrust our government, it merely confirmed what I already knew. Things were f___ed up.

Kennedy's death, while an irremovable part of my psyche, had faded into the background of my mind, until a young man named Robert Groden appeared on the Geraldo Rivera show. Like almost all Americans, I saw the Zapruder film for the first time. Suddenly everyone was talking about the Kennedy assassination again, and this time there was not the universal acceptance of Oswald's lone guilt, as there was in 1963.

Then there was the Church Committee making startling revelations, and the forming of the HSCA. This time, I was sure that the goverment would correct the wrongs of the Warren Commission. There was a spate of new books and I read them. When the results of the HSCA's findings were released, I took little solace in the acoustical evidence. When I read of all the deaths of people scheduled to testify, it was like "deja vu all over again."

Essentially, I resigned myself to the fact that the murder of John Kennedy would never be solved. I read the occasional book. I never understood why Americans were not more outraged.

Then, Oliver Stone made his movie and there was an attendant resurgence of interest in the JFK assassination. A flock of new books, some useless, a few very good. The formation of the Assassination Records Review Board. I was glad to see a renascence of interest but remained extremely cynical.

There was no doubt in my mind that any smoking gun in those files had long been sanitized, if they had ever existed in the first place. I knew what they did to Oswald's military records.

Fast forward to now. This Forum keeps me interested in the current state of research. I get to see what other people think. That is the most fascinating thing of all. Many of the people here have obsessions about finding the truth, just as I do and did. I listen and I learn, and I throw in my two cents worth from time to time. I am not a researcher. Just a reader.

I am heartened that books are still being published, Bill Kelly is pursuing the formation of a grand jury, conferences are still held annually and that there are a lot of people that are more familiar with things than I.

In summary, I think I have had a lifelong obsession with the murder of John Kennedy and the ensuing coverup. After all these years, I still can't understand how they got away with it. The coverup actually mystifies me more than the actual execution in Dealey Plaza. The unbelievable amount of evidence and events and people and circumstances pointing to a still unproven conspiracy is sometimes more than my mind can comprehend.

He's still dead, isn't he?

Edited November 16, 2006 by Evan Marshall

[Pat Speer]

Thanks, Steven, for sharing your thoughts. I, too, have spent much of the last year trying to understand why it is so important to me that this case be resolved. After sending out more than a hundred emails to members of the media, trying to interest them in some of the recent developments, to no avail, I have finally decided to take the story to the public myself, via Youtube. I hope to have the first vid up in a few weeks.

Ironically, after having the door slammed in my face so many times re the JFK assassination, I ran into a woman at a screening of "Bobby" the other day, and she is gonna quote my thoughts on the movie in an upcoming article in the Globe (a tabloid). (She talked to Bill Turner as well.) As "Bobby" deliberately avoids controversy by depicting an admittedly fictional account of the shooting, it represents a lost opportunity to inform the public of some of the problems with the police account of the shooting, problems that, not coincidentally, indicate there may have been a second shooter. Hopefully. some media watchdogs will point this out in their articles on the film, but I wouldn't count on it.

[Ron Ecker]

"Bobby" deliberately avoids controversy by depicting an admittedly fictional account of the shooting

And what is the point of it doing that? What is the point of the movie, if it has one? Aside, of course, from the point of making money. It won't get any of mine.

[Ashton Gray]

My reason, I suppose is more than justice, and finally playing a part, however small, in getting the truth historically recognised. Its because I feel something changed for the worse that day, and we are still paying the price now, for our failure as a society to overturn the official lies that disfigure our historical narrative of the 1960s and beyond. The guns of Dallas served not only to silence Kennedy, but as a warning to all future leaders about what the elite would tolerate, and what they would not. And Brother, haven't those guns worked, the total political cowardice of the last 40+ years speaks volumns

Just want to add my small voice to say what a poignant and insightful reason you've expressed, Stephen. I can't think of a way it could be expressed better.

If we have a hope, perhaps it's that our combined dogged persistence and refusal to accept the official lies might one day coalesce into enough support to provide someone in an official position with sufficient backing and courage to break down the barriers and allow the truth, however unpleasant it might be, to spill out.

Ashton

Edited November 17, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Pat Speer]

"Bobby" deliberately avoids controversy by depicting an admittedly fictional account of the shooting

And what is the point of it doing that? What is the point of the movie, if it has one? Aside, of course, from the point of making money. It won't get any of mine.

Ron, I actually recommend the film. It's well-written and well-acted and captures the late sixties and the hope that Bobby represented. Estevez told me he shied away from depicting the evidence for a conspiracy because he didn't want to make an Oliver Stone film. The problem is, by NOT reporting the problems with the autopsy or the woman in the polka dot dress, etc, Estevez inadvertently deceives people. In the upcoming Globe article, Bill Turner does the bulk of the complaining. The one quote attributed to me has to do with my annoyance over the misrepresentation of the other victims. The five other victims in the shooting are all fictional characters, yet nowhere is this mentioned in the film. As a result, many will leave the film convinced a young soldier was struck in the head beside Bobby, instead of Paul Schrade, a union official and campaign worker.

[Ron Ecker]

Estevez told me he shied away from depicting the evidence for a conspiracy because he didn't want to make an Oliver Stone film.

Oliver Stone did the same thing with World Trade Center. He didn't want to make an Oliver Stone film.

That movie didn't get any of my money either.

[Cliff Varnell]

Gaeton Fonzi and James Bamford broke the JFK case years ago.

It is a "false mystery," as Vincent Salandria would say (Oliver Stone

should have made JFK about Salandria, not Garrison.)

JFK was murdered to provide a pre-text to invade Cuba.

David Atlee Phillips was fingered by his own family.

David Sanchez Morales was fingered by very close family friends.

Ed Lansdale -- the inspiration for the Operation Northwoods false

flag plots to establish a pre-text to invade Cuba -- was fingered

by two close colleagues as being in one of the tramp photos.

It isn't too obvious now, is it?

...Oh, pardon me, did I interrupt some poetic pining for the truth?

'scuse...

[Ashton Gray]

And what is the point of it doing that?

Distraction.

Always starts out with a nice, friendly, very reasonable sounding, allying warm glow. Can't set a trap without bait.

Ashton

Edited November 17, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Michael Hogan]

Gaeton Fonzi and James Bamford broke the JFK case years ago.

If there had been more men like Gaeton Fonzi on the HSCA, the case might have been solved.

...Oh, pardon me, did I interrupt some poetic pining for the truth?

'scuse...

No pining for the truth here, is there?

Understand this, also: The action that brought about the death of President Kennedy is directly related to where we have gone as a nation since then. It is particularly important to what is happening today. That single event prefaced the disintegration of our solid faith in government, fathering the now pervasive and enervating assumption that we no longer have control over our economic or political destiny. Its residue lies in the ashes of the Sixties--in burned out countries and burned out cities and burned out people--and in the debilitating social disparities and continuing civil conflicts of the last thirty years. The assassination and its aftermath bred rampant distrust and disrespect for all established institutions, and that outlook festers yet.

And now, we hardly give a damn when our own Government violates or ignores its own laws, as it has done with distressing regularity over the last two decades. An enormous public apathy greeted the Iran/Contra scandals; we were hardly stirred by the fact that hidden layers of government had pursued a secret foreign policy agenda, circumventing the law of the land, the Congress and the Constitution itself.

And still, it seems incredible that we're not angry. The fact is, we know an effective democracy demands a populace ready, willing and able to get riled enough to pressure its elected officials into doing their duty in spite of themselves. Where is that anger now?

The Government has failed us. It is outrageous that in a democratic society, after two official investigations, our Government still tells us it doesn't know what happened,

I hope this book makes you angry about that. Very angry. If it doesn't, we might as well let slip the grip on our individual freedom. It will be gone soon enough.

Gaeton Fonzi 1993

The Last Investigation

Edited November 18, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Michael G. Smith]

Gaeton Fonzi and James Bamford broke the JFK case years ago.

If there had been more men like Gaeton Fonzi on the HSCA, the case might have been solved.

...Oh, pardon me, did I interrupt some poetic pining for the truth?

'scuse...

No pining for the truth here, is there?

Understand this, also: The action that brought about the death of President Kennedy is directly related to where we have gone as a nation since then. It is particularly important to what is happening today. That single event prefaced the disintegration of our solid faith in government, fathering the now pervasive and enervating assumption that we no longer have control over our economic or political destiny. Its residue lies in the ashes of the Sixties--in burned out countries and burned out cities and burned out people--and in the debilitating social disparities and continuing civil conflicts of the last thirty years. The assassination and its aftermath bred rampant distrust and disrespect for all established institutions, and that outlook festers yet.

And now, we hardly give a damn when our own Government violates or ignores its own laws, as it has done with distressing regularity over the last two decades. An enormous public apathy greeted the Iran/Contra scandals; we were hardly stirred by the fact that hidden layers of government had pursued a secret foreign policy agenda, circumventing the law of the land, the Congress and the Constituion itself.

And still, it seems incredible that we're not angry. The fact is, we know an effective democracy demands a populace ready, willing and able to get riled enough to pressure its elected officials into doing their duty in spite of themselves. Where is that anger now?

The Government has failed us. It is outrageous that in a democratic society, after two official investigations, our Government still tells us it doesn't know what happened,

I hope this book makes you angry about that. Very angry. If it doesn't, we might as well let slip the grip on our individual freedom. It will be gone soon enough.

Gaeton Fonzi 1993

The Last Investigation

Thanks for starting this Steve. I think we all want to find some truth in this whole assassination, and maybe some closure. Wheather this will happen or not we dont know. We continue because we care. We want the truth. If everyone stopped caring about this, what would become of it? I think that is what the government figured would happen. That everyone would just "forget" about it, and move on. But we havent. This needs to be continued, not just for our satisfaction, but for those to follow us. The generations to come.

Thank you Michael for the last quote from Gaeton Fonzi. How true it is. ---smitty

[Cliff Varnell]

Gaeton Fonzi and James Bamford broke the JFK case years ago.

If there had been more men like Gaeton Fonzi on the HSCA, the case might have been solved.

...Oh, pardon me, did I interrupt some poetic pining for the truth?

'scuse...

No pining for the truth here, is there?

Understand this, also: The action that brought about the death of President Kennedy is directly related to where we have gone as a nation since then. It is particularly important to what is happening today. That single event prefaced the disintegration of our solid faith in government, fathering the now pervasive and enervating assumption that we no longer have control over our economic or political destiny. Its residue lies in the ashes of the Sixties--in burned out countries and burned out cities and burned out people--and in the debilitating social disparities and continuing civil conflicts of the last thirty years. The assassination and its aftermath bred rampant distrust and disrespect for all established institutions, and that outlook festers yet.

And now, we hardly give a damn when our own Government violates or ignores its own laws, as it has done with distressing regularity over the last two decades. An enormous public apathy greeted the Iran/Contra scandals; we were hardly stirred by the fact that hidden layers of government had pursued a secret foreign policy agenda, circumventing the law of the land, the Congress and the Constituion itself.

And still, it seems incredible that we're not angry. The fact is, we know an effective democracy demands a populace ready, willing and able to get riled enough to pressure its elected officials into doing their duty in spite of themselves. Where is that anger now?

The Government has failed us. It is outrageous that in a democratic society, after two official investigations, our Government still tells us it doesn't know what happened,

I hope this book makes you angry about that. Very angry. If it doesn't, we might as well let slip the grip on our individual freedom. It will be gone soon enough.

Gaeton Fonzi 1993

The Last Investigation

This was the book that inspired my research.

My advice to any newbies to the subject -- read the Last Investigation, &

the chapter on Operation Northwoods in James Bamford's Body of Secrets,

Gerald D. McKnight's Breach of Trust, & anything by Rex Bradford.

MEXI is the key. Sheep dipping the patsy as a Castro agent, Phillips head of

anti-Castro activities in MC.

Maurice Bishop...Ed Lansdale...bad guys.

Key government docs (among others) -- Op Northwoods (see Bamford) and this:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/g..._CIA_Agent.html

This case is solved to my satisfaction and I don't need the NY Times to ratify my conclusion.

Edited November 17, 2006 by Cliff Varnell