Which JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theory Do You Prefer?

Something I'd intended to work in with my references to Laos,The Bay of Pigs, etc... Last night kinda turned into a "stream of consciousness thing", sorry 'bout that.

For those that want to paint Kennedy as someone who would have been remembered as a mediocre president, at best, had he lived...

He was aware of the thirst for war before he took the oath of office. Much of his time (that he got to serve) was spent on a high-wire act between the side that others wanted to happen and the side he swore never would.

My generation paid a heavy price for the loss of the visionary that too many saw as just a rich kid that's dad had bought him the WH because he'd lost all his gravitas before WWII. JFK believed the top two priorities of a president should be to keep the country out of war and standing our ground in the Cold War without blundering into a nuclear war that nobody would really win. (As Nikita Khrushchev said, "The Living would envy the Dead")

They can say what they want, but it will never change the Legacy of JFK:

JFK never committed more American assets than the near minimum to protect American Interests without giving any ground in the Cold War or allowing a lack of Insight that would have started an unintended nuclear war.

No, the man wasn't anywhere near being a saint, but he was the last REAL President we've been allowed to have.

a reply to: CornShucker

No need to apologize, all good stuff and I enjoy reading all your posts. I realize also that much of it is not directly replying to my post which is okay too. You make lots of good points, all of which I agree with.

I'd really like to read the post you say you changed your mind about writing even if no one else would. But I wouldn't expect you to take the time to write it for an audience of one. I want to thank you for re-kindling my interest in studying this, I don't know why I ever took a break. I think it is one of the most relevant and important topics that we could devote our time to because it is not just a historical event. It matters now just as much as it did then. I'll never understand how people don't see that.

Anyway, thanks again for giving me the nudge, I've read more in the last weeks than in some years now and come to a deeper understanding of what I believe happened in Dallas not to mention the events leading up to it. And also the many things related that have happened since. I think the world is a far different place than it would have been, or could have been, had John Kennedy lived. We could also lead into a discussion of his brother Robert from this, I think that was a continuation of the same agenda.

www.youtube.com...

Just wondering, even with all the meticulous planning in planting as many as 8 snipers to kill JFK and why none of those rifles had a silencer.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Just wondering, even with all the meticulous planning in planting as many as 8 snipers to kill JFK and why none of those rifles had a silencer.

There are some bits of circumstantial evidence that some of the weapons fired were fitted with silencers. SSA Kellerman as well as Mrs. Connally used terms like fusillade, flurry, etc. to describe the sudden storm of shots in the presidential limo.

originally posted by: bobw927
www.youtube.com...

Been meaning to say that I finished the vid. It's got some good stuff in it, especially background stuff for someone unfamiliar with a lot of the major players.

There are a few aspects that, having read the depositions and interviews of some of those present at the autopsy, I'd have to disagree with. I've come to accept that that is just the nature of the beast. The head wounds JFK had at Parkland were minor in comparison to illusion created at Bethesda.

Gawler Funeral Home employee, Tom Robinson, did the funeral makeup on JFK. He saw what CDR Humes did before the official autopsy. The huge orange blob was just not ever there! I know everyone has been conditioned to factor in the Z film when forming opinions, but I've tried in this thread to show that there are very good reasons to be suspicious of what it purports to show.

Here is all that Robinson saw on Kennedy's right temple when he was first brought into Bethesda:


Here Douglas Horne shows the area of the exit wound that the HSCA tried to reorient in order to suit its purposes. I am still of the opinion that the reason there wasn't the kind of blowout as in the lower right rear was precisely because of the LRR blowout. It was probably just a matter of timing. There was a large area of occipital skull blown out and the blast followed the path of least resistance...


Notice that the piece of skull (even the bone that was still attached to scalp was very malleable and easily manipulated) is being pulled diagonally toward Kennedy's right temple and that it is cratered OUTWARD. That is the same photo that the HSCA cropped and turned to try to claim there was an exit wound on the upper right forehead.


What infuriates me is that the president DID have a small entrance wound on his forehead that had gone unnoticed in all the uproar at Parkland!


Here's how CDR Humes took care of that:


As Robinson said, the top of Kennedy's head was intact before Humes started sawing around on it.

Dr. Boswell marked an anatomically correct model skull showing how much bone Humes removed. (Note though, that he noticed the small entry wound on the lower right. I'm surprised that more info wasn't pursued by the ARRB since there was an FBI memo telling them to expect a slug that had lodged behind JFK's right ear) :


But I won't be trying change anyone else's theories on nuts and bolts of the assassination. My concern was to reach some kind of understanding as to why and how (especially since the whole thing is crazy complicated).

originally posted by: wtbengineer
a reply to: CornShucker

No need to apologize, all good stuff and I enjoy reading all your posts. I realize also that much of it is not directly replying to my post which is okay too. You make lots of good points, all of which I agree with.

I'd really like to read the post you say you changed your mind about writing even if no one else would. But I wouldn't expect you to take the time to write it for an audience of one. I want to thank you for re-kindling my interest in studying this, I don't know why I ever took a break. I think it is one of the most relevant and important topics that we could devote our time to because it is not just a historical event. It matters now just as much as it did then. I'll never understand how people don't see that.

Anyway, thanks again for giving me the nudge, I've read more in the last weeks than in some years now and come to a deeper understanding of what I believe happened in Dallas not to mention the events leading up to it. And also the many things related that have happened since. I think the world is a far different place than it would have been, or could have been, had John Kennedy lived. We could also lead into a discussion of his brother Robert from this, I think that was a continuation of the same agenda.

I've enjoyed our conversations as well. Maybe after I've had a while to let all the new and unexpected info I've come across in the last year and a half I'll be up to it. It does seem as if there has been a steady stream of information surfacing, yet complacency has settled over most of our fellow citizens.

One quick example is the Bay of Pigs. People need to know that he inherited it from the former administration. It is one of many times that outright deception was used to try to put Kennedy in the position of using aggression because we had "our foot in the door" and things suddenly went downhill.

The landing was meant to be in an area that would allow the anti-Castro rebels to blend into the mountains when necessary and begin a grass roots guerrilla rebellion. JFK wasn't told that the landing was moved to a beach with swamp on both sides. The rebels never stood a chance... In spite of having to bear the knowledge that many deaths were on his shoulders and his public image would take a major hit, he refused to commit American forces.

There is a LOT that needs to be said, but I am emotionally exhausted and drained. The diagram and notes are safely tucked away, maybe I'll be up to fleshing it out by this Fall.

Seeing the new YT vid claiming that Connally had a shaped charge weapon built into the back of his jumpseat convinced me I need to take a break. They use the physical reactions that you mentioned as "proof". I've always thought Connally was hit by at least two, maybe three shots. He was a very, very lucky man. The doctors at Parkland said that his wife had put just the right pressure in just the right places when she covered his body to protect him, otherwise he would have bled out before the limo made it there.

a reply to: CornShucker

I agree, there does seem to be a lot more information surfacing. I wonder why there's not more attention??? I understand your reluctance in laying out all that you have researched over the last year and a half. I wouldn't want to do it either. You have to think "is it worth all this trouble for the handful of people that will take the time to really look at it". I get that. I'm not doing it, I have lots of other things I'm trying to devote my time to as well. Damn, I think I start every sentence I write with "I", that must be saying something... My work just started blocking this website and by the time I start thinking about posting I am pretty loopy.

And you're right, when people think about the Bay of Pigs, they automatically think of Kennedy. Nobody realizes how so many others who somehow stayed out of the limelight brought that whole situation into being. I think we owe a great debt to this fallen hero for not having been bombed to oblivion by now.

Seeing the new YT vid claiming that Connally had a shaped charge weapon built into the back of his jumpseat convinced me I need to take a break.

I haven't seen this video. I'd like to just to know what it's all about but I have a feeling it's not worth my time. I am sure Connally was hit by at least two bullets because of the timing and many other pieces of evidence. All the occupants of the limo who testified about this topic said that there were more shots than the official version claimed and as you mentioned there is plenty of testimony that there was a flurry of shots fired at the limousine. He was a very very lucky man as you point out.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Red Dwarf's

You cannot effectively suppress a hypersonic projectile.

originally posted by: wtbengineer
a reply to: CornShucker

I agree, there does seem to be a lot more information surfacing. I wonder why there's not more attention???

Sadly, the most likely reason is that the masses have been desensitized to the assassination by the constant reinforcement of the media portraying it as a blip in history that has already been explained.

At the moment I don't have the info in front of me, but either JFK researcher Peter Janney or Jim Douglass obtained some of the CIA correspondence that has been declassified regarding Jim Garrison (most likely through the JFK Act & the ARRB). There was a very real concern (1967) that Garrison's case was solid enough to get Clay Shaw convicted.

In those few bits of correspondence are the genesis of the strategy and creation of a category of Americans that are to be targeted as "odd" and not to be taken seriously. You've probably guessed already... "Conspiracy" is the operative word and, over time, Theorists has come to be the most widely used companion. Words like believers, nuts, etc. have all been used but things eventually settled into where they've been for quite a while now.

I understand your reluctance in laying out all that you have researched over the last year and a half. I wouldn't want to do it either. You have to think "is it worth all this trouble for the handful of people that will take the time to really look at it".

It's not so much that as weighing what it would cost me,emotionally and spiritually, against what I would accomplish. The renewal of my curiosity started probably closer to two years ago when I discovered the Evidence of Revision vids on YT. The subtext of the title or byline, I'm not sure what to call it, is "History can be rewritten even as it happens". The vids make heavy use of television and newsreel footage and go all the way from JFK to RFK to Jonestown (Imo, Malcolm X should have been included, although the truth of the psyop known as Jonestown is far from what we were told...) and concludes with MLK.

The kicker to the series (Spoiler Alert) is when the two FBI agents go to investigate the white mustang that had been reported as abandoned. The young FBI agent that took the passenger side of the car saw a scrap of paper fall from the map pouch of the car. To avoid drawing attention, he dropped his jacket on it and then picked up both.

When he had the opportunity to privately look at the paper, he saw a phone number, some initials and the name "Raul". Upon calling the number, he found out that it was one of Jack Ruby's clubs and upon asking if the woman he was talking to if anyone there new of a "Raul". She replied that he had been there many times.

So there we go again... The thing comes full circle. (There much more, I'm condensing this)

Isn't it a wonder that Ruby managed to be almost omnipresent? He'd even worked for Nixon back in Chicago. The "debunkers" that claim he wasn't in Parkland after the assassination just didn't take the time to go any farther than the minimum. Jack Ruby DID, in fact, help carry some equipment in with some news people and a nurse working there is on record recounting the chit-chat between Ruby and a Dallas Officer about whether or not he should close the Carousel out of respect.

But, regarding my reluctance to start my project, the size of my posts should give an idea of how quickly I could let myself become overwhelmed. If you include "this" then you have to include "that" but you need to put both in context and then point the way they converge with yet "another" aspect, all of which bring about yet more details... It could quickly grow out of control because of the drive to make sure nothing gets left out. I can understand how Horne's magnum opus wound up going 1800+ pages.

-- snip --
And you're right, when people think about the Bay of Pigs, they automatically think of Kennedy. Nobody realizes how so many others who somehow stayed out of the limelight brought that whole situation into being. I think we owe a great debt to this fallen hero for not having been bombed to oblivion by now.

Records uncovered through the JFK act show beyond any doubt that our Hawks wanted to strike before the USSR reached nuclear parity. The Cuban missile crisis resulted from Khrushchev miscalculating our ability to detect their presence before he was ready. The original plan was to make a surprise announcement at the UN that Fall and to have them there as a deterrent to the USA. Castro had wanted to be more public about it but had to defer to Khrushchev.

As an example of how out of control the CIA was, they had TWO operations going on at the very same time Kennedy was struggling to avoid a nuclear conflict.

The only info I have close to hand is the account of March 19, 1963 when CIA sponsored exile group 66 announced at a Washington new conference that it had raided a Soviet "fortress" and ship in Cuba, causing a dozen casualties. The operation was the work of CIA adviser David Atlee Philips. His admitted motivation was "to publicly embarrass Kennedy and force him to move against Castro."

As I noted earlier, a large contingent of Soviet military was on the island to augment Castro's forces and their officers had been give the go ahead to use their tactical nukes as they saw fit. Any attempt at invading Cuba would have been a bloodbath. The improvised cruise missiles were basically stripped down MIGs and without the need of a pilot. They (and their nuke payloads) were in position and would have obliterated the entire Guantanamo Bay Naval Base area.

They were doing everything they could to make things difficult for Kennedy.

The "sheep-dipping" of Oswald in Mexico would take a lot of explaining/writing. Just wanted to mention it because surveillance audio of the phone calls were hand delivered to the border and listened to while Oswald was still alive and in custody. Dallas told the FBI that the man on the tapes was clearly not the man they had in custody.

They'd even made sure that "Oswald" came into contact with the Soviet's "go to girl" for assassinations in the entire Western Hemisphere.

It was all part of the set up.

I'd like any reading this to consider what their position would be if they got arrested on a Friday night and then, when they got their chance for a phone call on Saturday, they demanded to talk to an FBI agent instead of a lawyer...

That's what Oswald did in New Orleans and guess what! Not only was an FBI agent there by 3pm, but they were given a conference room for privacy. What the meeting amounted to was a three hour debriefing on Fair Play For Cuba.

I haven't seen this video. I'd like to just to know what it's all about but I have a feeling it's not worth my time.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
You cannot effectively suppress a hypersonic projectile.

That makes sense, but not all shot were necessarily hypersonic. They didn't need to be.

Considering the steep angle of entrance, the shot that he took to the back would have been disastrous had it gotten him in the head. It clearly wasn't hypersonic because it didn't penetrate the pleural cavity.

The throat shot is an extremely good candidate for a silenced shot because of the momentum it lost going through the windshield. It had slowed down to the point that JFK's Adam's apple (which it hit slightly to the right) deflected it downward and, like the back shot, had only enough force to bruise the upper right lung (no penetration of the pleural cavity there, either).

originally posted by: CornShucker

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Just wondering, even with all the meticulous planning in planting as many as 8 snipers to kill JFK and why none of those rifles had a silencer.

There are some bits of circumstantial evidence that some of the weapons fired were fitted with silencers. SSA Kellerman as well as Mrs. Connally used terms like fusillade, flurry, etc. to describe the sudden storm of shots in the presidential limo.

But in the video you can hear gunshots and the whole assassination was meant to be a spectacle for whatever reason and if jfk blood type was AB+ as is says on internet, then the blood looks too red to be real, as AB+ is nearly black

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: CornShucker

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Just wondering, even with all the meticulous planning in planting as many as 8 snipers to kill JFK and why none of those rifles had a silencer.

There are some bits of circumstantial evidence that some of the weapons fired were fitted with silencers. SSA Kellerman as well as Mrs. Connally used terms like fusillade, flurry, etc. to describe the sudden storm of shots in the presidential limo.

But in the video you can hear gunshots and the whole assassination was meant to be a spectacle for whatever reason and if jfk blood type was AB+ as is says on internet, then the blood looks too red to be real, as AB+ is nearly black

I don't know very much about blood colors, but Mr. Z's camera wasn't capable of recording sound. That was added by whoever worked on the version you watched. Nothing necessarily nefarious about that, I've seen lots of instances where sound was added to highlight a particular sequence or to make a point.

You can find more info Here:

Zapruder was planning to watch the Presidential parade on Elm Street in Dealey Plaza when he was reminded to go get his new silent movie camera, a Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera. It used color film and he had taken a few frames with it already. Zapruder and his secretary, climbed up on a concrete abutment on on the grassy knoll that slopes down to the street. He had the perfect vantage point to film the president and First Lady. Somehow Zapruder found the strength to continue to film even when shoots were fired. He filmed until the president's limousine went under the railroad bridge and out of sight.

emphasis added by CornShucker

a reply to: Blue Shift

Which conspiracy?
The LBJ/FBI/CIA/SS/Mafia/Military one of course.
They are all the same conspiracy to remove the president. Do not let the lone nutters tell you differently.

a reply to: Blue Shift


Multi shooter home grown conspiracy is my preference.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
a reply to: Blue Shift

Which conspiracy?
The LBJ/FBI/CIA/SS/Mafia/Military one of course.
They are all the same conspiracy to remove the president. Do not let the lone nutters tell you differently.

Yea Kennedy and his brother touched a lot of bases.

I distrust theories that wrap it all up into a perfect narrative, especially when they start with a lone witness, a deathbed confession, etc. However, a framework of a theory emerges from some basic questioning of the event. The framework I like basically says that the CIA used Oswald to cover for two shooters. Exactly which of the many rich and powerful people who weren't getting what they wanted from Kennedy might have been behind that is something that we can mostly only speculate about.

1. Shots came from the depository and from the grassy knoll- the witnesses aren't lying.

2. Regardless of who fired the shots, they fired from the depository because that was where Oswald was. A guy like him wasn't just there by coincidence.

3. Oswald did not plan to shoot Kennedy prior to Decemeber 21. He did not bring his rifle that week although he knew Kennedy was coming. Allegedly he had the rifle laying around as hidden evidence from when he shot at and missed General Walker sitting at his desk from a third the distance of the Kennedy shots, and went to get it 18 hours before, after the route by the depository was published.

4. Oswald didn't seem to plan on shooting Kennedy on December 22. Kennedy was supposed to pass at 12:10. Oswald was on the first floor until at least noon, was seen on the second floor at 12:15, and was definitely not on the 6th floor until at least 12:20- which was 10 minutes too late for an assassination to go as planned. Kennedy was 20 minutes late though. Either Oswald got incredibly lucky, or somebody else was already in the sniper's nest before noon waiting.

5. There's too much luck in all the above for me personally to believe Oswald pulled it off alone. I have to believe Oswald was set up, but if he was set up and yet not caught red handed, that makes me believe there was another shooter on the 6th floor who needed an opening to escape.

6. If there was a serious assassin on the 6th floor as part of a planned ambush, there must be a reason he waited until Kennedy was almost out of his kill box. Again, this points to the grassy knoll for me.

7. So I believe Oswald was set up to take the fall for two shooters. He had to be put in position for this. Either someone in the executive branch had to bring the motorcade to him, or someone placed him at the depository knowing it was on the normal parade route and hoped for the best. There isn't much difference either way though, because his jobs in Dallas were arranged by Jackie Kennedy's "uncle george" who wasn't exactly in the CIA but sure did like doing stuff for them.

Just popped in to say on Thursday I met two people not yet born at the time of the assassination who didn't even know what YEAR it took place! They were astounded when I told them date, city, street, time of day, how many shots were fired in the official story, from where and by whom using what type of weapon, as well as a few theories contradicting the official story. (I did not tell them there were TWO government inquiries reaching TWO different conclusions, BOTH accepted as correct!) I asked if they wanted to know how many people in the car, their names and in what position they sat, but they said nah...they were good.

a reply to: CornShucker

Since my work blocked this website I can barely find any time to check in... sigh. I appreciate your replies and thanks for linking that video. Maybe I'll get a chance to look at it soon. At my lunch break right now at home, but still no time to really reply. I've been keeping up with posts on ATS at work for six years now, I don't know how I will fill my down time now.