PDA

View Full Version : National Review: The Left's 1963 Revisionism of the Kennedy Assassination




FrankRep
11-20-2013, 08:04 AM
1963 Revisionism (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/364404/1963-revisionism-john-j-miller)


National Review
November 20, 2013


Repeat after me: JFK was killed by a Communist. Again: JFK was killed by a Communist. One more time: JFK was killed by a Communist.

Because the New York Times keeps telling us how the Dallas of 1963 was a right-wing “city of hate.” The latest installment (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/us/a-changed-dallas-grapples-with-its-darkest-day.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&pagewanted=all) comes today:



In the early 1960s, a small but vocal subset of the Dallas power structure turned the political climate toxic, inciting a right-wing hysteria that led to attacks on visiting public figures. … In sermons, rallies, newspapers and radio broadcasts, the city’s richest oil baron, a Republican congressman, a Baptist pastor and others, including the local John Birch Society, filled Dallas with an angry McCarthyesque paranoia.


Darn it, Lee Harvey Oswald’s Communism is such an inconvenience for these people. (Antidote: James Piereson’s recent article (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303680404579141811376490546) in the Wall Street Journal.)

Don’t worry, though, there’s still plenty of hate in Texas and, well, all over the place.



The extremism in Dallas in 1963 still thrives in Texas today, though less so in Dallas itself. Back then, commentators on the radio program sponsored by the oil baron H. L. Hunt said that under Kennedy, firearms would be outlawed so people would not “have the weapons with which to rise up against their oppressors.”

This past February, in West Texas, the sheriff in Midland County, Gary Painter, said at a John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) luncheon that he would refuse to confiscate people’s guns from their homes if ordered by the Obama administration and referred to the president’s State of the Union address as propaganda.

Other Texas politicians in recent years have embraced or suggested support for increasingly radical views, including Texas secession, Mr. Obama’s impeachment and claims that the sovereignty of the United States will be handed over to the United Nations. And, of course, it is not just in Texas.


So if another murderous left-winger does something terrible in 2014, the New York Timeswill find a way to blame it on conservatives. It will always find a way.

JFK was killed by a Communist. JFK was killed by a Communist. JFK was killed by a Communist…



Related Articles:

A Renewed Myth That The John Birch Society Incited Kennedy Assassination (http://thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4806-a-renewed-myth-that-the-john-birch-society-incited-kennedy-assassination)

50th Anniversary of JFK Assassination Spawns Attacks on Dallas “Right-wingers” (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/16873-50th-anniversary-of-jfk-assassination-spawns-attacks-on-dallas-right-wingers)

Elias Graves
11-20-2013, 12:23 PM
When the truth is inconvenient...change it!

erowe1
11-20-2013, 12:33 PM
I was wondering why you read something from NR. I see it turned up in your Google News search for the phrase "John Birch Society."

milgram
11-20-2013, 03:29 PM
Frontline just re-aired this thorough biography of Oswald last night. Well worth watching IMO.

Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? (http://video.pbs.org/video/2365124284/)

My impression from the documentary was that Oswald's personal beliefs were technically more Marxist than communist, as he became disillusioned with the communism (in practice) during his time in Russia.

Oswald did have some contact with these right wing groups as he was interested in undermining them. Note his attempted killing of Edwin Walker.

FrankRep
11-20-2013, 04:06 PM
Frontline just re-aired this thorough biography of Oswald last night. Well worth watching IMO.

Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? (http://video.pbs.org/video/2365124284/)

My impression from the documentary was that Oswald's personal beliefs were technically more Marxist than communist, as he became disillusioned with the communism (in practice) during his time in Russia.

Oswald did have some contact with these right wing groups as he was interested in undermining them. Note his attempted killing of Edwin Walker.

Oswald was disillusioned with Russian-type communism mainly because they have him a low level job in the Soviet Union.

Oswald, however, became very interested in Cuba-style communism and joined the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee."

Marxists are communists, by the way.

Peace&Freedom
11-20-2013, 05:41 PM
So a CIA backed publication writes a story that rehashes the CIA's official story? Silly me, I thought we were an alternative movement that did not rely on establishment propaganda that buries every issue in 2 party paradigm muck. How about a drop of deep politics? Repeat after me:

Oswald was a US intelligence asset used to infiltrate Communist groups, and to serve as a patsy in black operations, like the JFK assassination.

He was likely an asset of both the FBI and the CIA. He was apparently versatile enough to have been used to also infiltrate right wing groups where needed. This would account for how, in his early 20's, through an 'instant visa' he could get into, and out of Russia during the height of the Cold War with little flack or debriefing. It would explain his connections to upscale millionaires (handlers?) like George de Mohrenschildt and other such people. How many tycoons did you personally know at 22? It would explain the very detailed biographical profile of him suddenly transmitted around the world on 11/22/63 before he had even been charged, why the notes of his interrogation were destroyed, why both the FBI and CIA had prior files on him, why there were other 'Oswalds' identified in Miami, Mexico and elsewhere, and so on. According to Jacob Hornburger:

"Waggoner Carr, the Texas Attorney General who led the investigation in Texas into the assassination and worked with the Warren Commission...testified that Lee Harvey Oswald was working as an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and was receiving $200 a month from September 1962 until his death in November, 1963...Much has been made about Oswald’s communist sympathies, including his defection to the Soviet Union and his affiliation with a group called the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Yet, those actions are entirely consistent with being a CIA undercover agent. For one thing, Oswald was a Marine. Most people who join the Marines are patriotic individuals who have the utmost loyalty to their government. How likely is it that a person who hates America is going to join the U.S. Marine Corps? Not very likely at all. In fact, wouldn’t the Marines be a likely place that the CIA would do recruiting?"

Oswald was a US intelligence asset used to infiltrate Communist groups, and to serve as a patsy in black operations, like the JFK assassination.

More:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/10/jacob-hornberger/was-lee-harvey-oswald-a-federal-agent/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/08/bill-simpich/the-jfk-case-oswald-and-his-twelvehandlers/
http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/11/06/bush-and-the-jfk-hit-part-8-prepping-a-patsy/

acptulsa
11-20-2013, 05:51 PM
When the truth is inconvenient...change it!

Actually, the truth is very convenient. Oswald probably wasn't really a commie. After all, we have seen pictures of his DOD ID (which was mainly used by CIA agents), so we know he 'defected to the Soviet Union' to spy on it. Which is the only reason they'd have sent him back like they did.

But that truth won't come out, because it simply confirms what anyone who cares enough to investigate for themselves already knows--the CIA killed Kennedy. Oswald may have participated, or he may have merely been the patsy, but either way he did it through his role as a CIA 'asset'.

And that is more inconvenient than the fact that he was not actually a commie at all.

erowe1
11-20-2013, 05:53 PM
So a CIA backed publication writes a story that rehashes the CIA's official story?

I agree with some of what you said.

But the point of the OP was that New York Times failed to rehash part of the official story.

acptulsa
11-20-2013, 05:56 PM
I agree with some of what you said.

But the point of the OP was that New York Times failed to rehash part of the official story.

Well, fiction is nothing if not open to revision. You can always make a tall tale taller.

FrankRep
11-20-2013, 07:23 PM
Oswald was a US intelligence asset used to infiltrate Communist groups, and to serve as a patsy in black operations, like the JFK assassination.
...

"Waggoner Carr, the Texas Attorney General who led the investigation in Texas into the assassination and worked with the Warren Commission...testified that Lee Harvey Oswald was working as an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and was receiving $200 a month from September 1962 until his death in November, 1963...Much has been made about Oswald’s communist sympathies, including his defection to the Soviet Union and his affiliation with a group called the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Yet, those actions are entirely consistent with being a CIA undercover agent. For one thing, Oswald was a Marine. Most people who join the Marines are patriotic individuals who have the utmost loyalty to their government. How likely is it that a person who hates America is going to join the U.S. Marine Corps? Not very likely at all. In fact, wouldn’t the Marines be a likely place that the CIA would do recruiting?"

Oswald was a US intelligence asset used to infiltrate Communist groups, and to serve as a patsy in black operations, like the JFK assassination.


However, the Warren Commission preferred to believe J. Edgar Hoover, who denied Waggoner Carr's affirmations.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcarrW.htm

CPUd
11-20-2013, 07:37 PM
http://i.imgur.com/EN3fK0d.jpg




Oswald was disillusioned with Russian-type communism mainly because they have him a low level job in the Soviet Union.

Oswald, however, became very interested in Cuba-style communism and joined the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee."

Marxists are communists, by the way.


Technically, it would be Marxism-Leninism.

specsaregood
11-20-2013, 07:48 PM
Repeat after me: JFK was killed by a Communist. Again: JFK was killed by a Communist. One more time: JFK was killed by a Communist.

It occurs to me; that maybe that ^ is why the media allows people to be jfk conspiracy theorists without being labeled nutters. And why the jfk conspiracy is one o the most popularly held alternative/conspiracy ideas held by the public. Because to further the idea that he wasn't actually killed by a commie serves their agenda... Hadn't thought of that before...

Peace&Freedom
11-20-2013, 10:25 PM
However, the Warren Commission preferred to believe J. Edgar Hoover, who denied Waggoner Carr's affirmations.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcarrW.htm

It's safe to say people at the top got their marching orders.

FrankRep
11-20-2013, 10:39 PM
It occurs to me; that maybe that ^ is why the media allows people to be jfk conspiracy theorists without being labeled nutters. And why the jfk conspiracy is one o the most popularly held alternative/conspiracy ideas held by the public. Because to further the idea that he wasn't actually killed by a commie serves their agenda... Hadn't thought of that before...

That is true. The Kennedy Assassination is one of the few Conspiracy Theories you're allowed to believe in.

FrankRep
11-20-2013, 10:40 PM
Technically, it would be Marxism-Leninism.

That is still under the banner of Communism.

Anti Federalist
11-20-2013, 10:50 PM
Oswald was a US intelligence asset used to infiltrate Communist groups, and to serve as a patsy in black operations, like the JFK assassination.

+rep

milgram
11-20-2013, 10:58 PM
Marxists are communists, by the way.

Hm ... I'd say communists are Marxist, but the reverse is not necessarily true. There can be a gap between ideology and implementation.

Oswald was an ideologically driven activist/agitator -- but never a "good comrade" -- so that's what I'd personally highlight when labeling him.

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
11-20-2013, 10:59 PM
LBJ was a Communist?

FrankRep
11-20-2013, 10:59 PM
+rep

No proof of that.

FrankRep
11-20-2013, 11:04 PM
Hm ... I'd say communists are Marxist, but the reverse is not necessarily true. There can be a gap between ideology and implementation.

Oswald was an ideologically driven activist/agitator -- but never a "good comrade" -- so that's what I'd personally highlight when labeling him.


Lee Harvey Oswald, however, was a Communist. In fact, he moved to the Soviet Union because of it. And Yes, the Soviet Union was Communist.



By age 15, he claimed to be a Marxist, writing in his diary, "I was looking for a key to my environment, and then I discovered socialist literature. I had to dig for my books in the back dusty shelves of libraries." At 16 he wrote to the Socialist Party of America for information on their Young People's Socialist League, saying he had been studying socialist principles for "well over fifteen months."
...

Oswald was a former U.S. Marine who defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959. He lived in the Soviet Union until June 1962, at which time he returned to the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald

Peace&Freedom
11-21-2013, 07:18 AM
It occurs to me; that maybe that ^ is why the media allows people to be jfk conspiracy theorists without being labeled nutters. And why the jfk conspiracy is one o the most popularly held alternative/conspiracy ideas held by the public. Because to further the idea that he wasn't actually killed by a commie serves their agenda... Hadn't thought of that before...

According to polls in late 1963, only 30% of the public believed Oswald acted alone, if at all. From day one, the public was NOT on board with the official story, their disbelief was NOT shaped by the media.




By age 15, he claimed to be a Marxist, writing in his diary, "I was looking for a key to my environment, and then I discovered socialist literature. I had to dig for my books in the back dusty shelves of libraries." At 16 he wrote to the Socialist Party of America for information on their Young People's Socialist League, saying he had been studying socialist principles for "well over fifteen months."
...

Oswald was a former U.S. Marine who defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959. He lived in the Soviet Union until June 1962, at which time he returned to the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald

Parsed differently, an orgy of evidence was developed from the mid '50's (when Oswald worked under David Ferrie) to give him 'street cred' as a commie to facilitate infiltration ops. He began the major part of the undercover op to the Soviet Union in 1959, intersecting with as many as 12 different CIA handlers who arranged for his visa to go there and return. To repeat, a dozen people he interacted with during this time frame were known CIA operatives, cutouts or relatives of same. Not the mark of a lone nut, but a government asset.

FrankRep
11-21-2013, 07:39 AM
According to polls in late 1963, only 30% of the public believed Oswald acted alone, if at all. From day one, the public was NOT on board with the official story, their disbelief was NOT shaped by the media.

That's not true.

Mark Lane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lane_%28author%29), the Communist-connected lawyer, kicked off the Kennedy Conspiracy movement by writing an article to the National Guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guardian), a Communist newspaper.



Wikipedia: Mark Lane (author) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lane_%28author%29)


Four weeks after the assassination (December 19) Mark Lane published an article in National Guardian dealing in-depth with 15 questions regarding public official statements about the alleged assassination of J. D. Tippit and John F. Kennedy from the perspective of a defense attorney, including the witnesses who claimed to have seen Oswald on the sixth floor of the school book depository; the paraffin test which, to Lane, indicated that Oswald had not fired a rifle recently; the conflicting claims about the rifle which at first had been, as the police announced, a German Mauser and afterwards an old WWII Mannlicher-Carcano rifle; the Parkland Hospital doctors announcing an entrance wound in the throat; the role of the FBI; and the press, who convicted Oswald before his guilt was proven. In June 1964 according to historian Peter Knight - Bertrand Russell, "prompted by the emerging work of the lawyer Mark Lane in the US ... rallied support from other noteworthy and left-leaning compatriots to form a Who Killed Kennedy Committee, members of which included Michael Foot MP, the wife of Tony Benn MP, the publisher Victor Gollancz, the writers John Arden and J. B. Priestley, and the Oxford history professor Hugh Trevor-Roper. Russell published a highly critical article weeks before the Warren Commission Report was published, setting forth "16 Questions on the Assassination" and equating the Oswald case with the Dreyfus affair of late nineteenth century France in which the state wrongly convicted an innocent man. Russell also criticized the American press for failing to heed any voices critical of the official version."[7]


The Kennedy Assassination: What lies behind the controversy? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?433555-The-Kennedy-Assassination-What-lies-behind-the-controversy)


James Perloff | The New American
November 21, 1988



...
Rush to Rumor

The standard-bearer of the cult of assassination buffs is Mark Lane, an attorney who has exerted his legal skills on behalf of American Communists, James Earl Ray, the radical American Indian Movement, and Jim Jones and his Guyana Peoples Temple. Lane is a longstanding proponent of Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence. He kicked his crusade off with a 10,000-word defense brief for Oswald in the National Guardian.

On November 22, 1963, a black-bordered, full-page ad criticizing Kennedy's policies had appeared in the Dallas Morning News. It had been signed by Bernard Weissman, a conservative. At first, some people wondered if the ad might have some link to the assassination, and Lane capitalized. He claimed before the Warren Commission that at Jack Ruby's night club, the week before the shooting, there had been a meeting between Weissman, Ruby, and Officer J. D. Tippit. (It so happened that Tippit had worked weekends at a restaurant owned by a member of The John Birch Society; thus the dead hero became a favorite target for speculation by the left.) When challenged, Lane was unable to produce any evidence or eyewitness supporting his allegation.

Lane also asserted that Oswald did not shoot Tippit. In his best-selling book Rush to Judgment, he stated that Helen Markham, a key witness to the incident, had told him the killer was "a short man, somewhat on the heavy side, with slightly bushy hair." Of course, this description did not fit Oswald, who was of medium height, weighed about 150 pounds, and had thinning hair. How did Lane procure this statement? Here is an excerpt from the tape of his actual phone conversation with Mrs. Markham.



LANE: ... I read that you told some of the reporters that he was short, stocky, and had bushy hair.
MARKHAM: No, no. I did not say this.
LANE: You did not say that?
MARKHAM: No, sir.
LANE: Well, would you say that he was stocky?
MARKHAM: Uh, he was short.
LANE: He was short.
MARKHAM: Yes.
LANE: And was he a little bit on the heavy side?
MARKHAM: Uh, not too heavy.
LANE: Not too heavy, but slightly heavy?
MARKHAM: Oh, well, he was, no he wasn't, didn't look too heavy, uh-uh.
LANE: He wasn't too heavy, and would you say that he had rather bushy hair, kind of hair?
MARKHAM: Yeh, just a little bit bushy, uh huh.


Lane is a master of the leading question and the out-of-context quote. He reported that Charles Brehm, a Dealey Plaza witness, told him that "a portion of the President's skull was driven backward and to the left, as if the bullet had originated in an area to the right and to the front." An outraged Brehm later said: "Every question that he [Lane] asked me, I indicated that the shots came from up at the School Book Depository. There was no doubt in my mind that this was the way it was. I did not at any time indicate ... or will I ever say that those shots came from anywhere but the one place .... He has forgotten everything that I said except one little point that he can call a point of controversy. The nicest thing that can be said about Mark Lane is that he was an unmitigated liar."
...

FrankRep
11-21-2013, 07:49 AM
Mark Lane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lane_%28author%29), the Communist-connected lawyer, kicked off the Kennedy Conspiracy movement by writing an article to the National Guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guardian).


What is the National Guardian? It's a Communist newspaper.



Wikipedia: Guardian (United States) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guardian)

The Guardian, originally the National Guardian, was a radical leftist independent weekly newspaper published between 1948 and 1992 in New York City.
...

Formation


Supporters of the Progressive Party presidential campaign of Henry A. Wallace founded the paper in 1948 as the National Guardian to circumvent the increasingly pro-Cold War mainstream press. At the outset, the National Guardian formed part of a leftist movement in New York, along with other front groups of the Communist Party USA such as the daily newspaper PM and the labor left in the CIO District Council 65. It published early campaign reporting by Norman Mailer. The paper continued after the campaign as a locus of support for the New Deal and the New York American Labor Party (ALP) which had elected Vito Marcantonio to the US Congress from East Harlem with Communist Party support.

When other papers on the left would not or could not publish news sympathetic to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the National Guardian did. The reportage was so important to the defense that Aronson was named guardian to the Rosenbergs' children. The major part of the National Guardian's reporting on the case came from William A. Reuben who later published an expanded version of his original articles as The Atom Spy Hoax (Action Books, 1954).

After the dissolution of the ALP, the National Guardian supported the 1958 Independent-Socialist campaign of co-founder John McManus for New York Governor. The new initiative's vote fell to 35,000 from the ALP's 1950 vote of 208,000 and the left lost its ballot line. The paper remained outside particular party organizations, while continuing to advocate a unified leftist party in the United States.

In the 1960s the paper became known for its independent and investigative journalism. Joanne Grant wrote groundbreaking articles on the Civil Rights Movement. Mark Lane wrote a critical account of the John F. Kennedy assassination in a special issue of the Guardian which appeared on December 13, 1963.


The name change and the New Left


The paper changed with the times, but not without internal conflict. As the 1960s progressed, the Aronson and Old Left leadership disagreed with a more radical staff about the direction of the paper. In 1968, Aronson sold his shares to the staff and the National Guardian became a New Left publication, shortening its name to Guardian in the process, and was edited by Jack A. Smith for more than a decade.

In the 1970s, the Guardian adopted a Marxist-Leninist ideology initially aligned with the Third-worldist and Maoist New Communist Movement and later oriented toward The Trend. The paper editorially called for a new Marxist-Leninist party in the United States. It never aligned with any particular group and remained critical of the small New Left party organizations. At the same time, it opened its pages to opposing viewpoints and continued a tradition of investigative journalism.

In the early 1980s, the paper established Guardian Clubs for readers and discussed forming a new political party. After a political dispute, Guardian editor Irwin Silber left the Guardian and built a new political formation around the Guardian clubs. This new "party building" formation published the "Frontline" newspaper as a direct competitor to the Guardian and also published a theoretical journal "Line of March" which advocated that American supporters of the New Left reconcile themselves with the Soviet Union. Silber was succeeded as editor by Bill Ryan, who attempted to continue the Guardian's previous non-party New Left posture, with an editorial line that sometimes favored revolutionary movements not in favor with the Soviet Union, such as in Western Sahara and in Eritrea, where the Soviet Union supported the position of the pro-Soviet Ethiopian government. Under Ryan, the Guardian changed its tax status to that of a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization and attempted to solicit foundation support to make up for the support lost to the Frontline organization.

With the rise of the non-Marxist Green Party in Germany and various other countries, some Guardian writers and supporters unsuccessfully attempted to re-fashion the Guardian to support the Green Party ideologically. The Guardian ceased publication in 1992 after years of financial difficulties and declining circulation.

libertyjam
11-21-2013, 08:07 AM
According to polls in late 1963, only 30% of the public believed Oswald acted alone, if at all. From day one, the public was NOT on board with the official story, their disbelief was NOT shaped by the media.

Who also did not believe the lone gunman theme? The Secret Service from the outset knew that it was a well organized ambush that had carried out the attack:


The Secret Service was guilty of negligence, as the highly respected Wall Street Journal commented. But its agents were professionals, and they recognized the work of other professionals. They were the first in the President's entourage to realize that the assassination was a well organized plot. They discussed it among themselves at Parkland Hospital and later during the plane ride back to Washington. They mentioned it in their personal reports to Secret Service Chief James Rowley that night. Ten hours after the assassination, Rowley knew that there had been three gunmen, and perhaps four, at Dallas that day, and later on the telephone Jerry Behn remarked to Forrest Sorrels (head of the Dallas Secret Service), "It's a plot." "Of course," was Sorrel's reply. Robert Kennedy, who had already interrogated Kellerman, learned that evening from Rowley that the Secret Service believed the President had been the victim of a powerful organization.

http://www.voxfux.com/kennedy/farewell/farewell14.html
Farewell America by James Hepburn
The following work by the pseudonymous "James Hepburn" is largely accepted to be authored by French Intelligence [and the private investigation initiated by Robert Kennedy] (Their equivalent to our CIA) as the "real" story behind the Kennedy assassination. Originally published in 1968 it remained unpublished in the United States for many years. With the advent of the Internet and the information explosion, it is now freely available. It describes the most probable players and conspirators in the terrible assassination of the beloved Kennedy - The military intelligence set; the oil and arms industrialists; Religious zealots and organized crime are all here and in the background the ever looming shadow the Maltese cross of the secret religious orders. It's the compelling facts. As for the "Official" goverment version of the Kennedy assassination - we all know what that's worth.

Peace&Freedom
11-21-2013, 08:38 AM
That not true.

Yes it's true, here is the record of poll results from November 1963 to present:

http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination

cajuncocoa
11-21-2013, 09:17 AM
This discussion is incomplete without revisiting Jim Garrison's role with regard to his investigation into the cover-up. This is a NYTimes story written the day after Garrison's death.

Jim Garrison, 70, Theorist on Kennedy Death, Dies
(http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/22/obituaries/jim-garrison-70-theorist-on-kennedy-death-dies.html)
By BRUCE LAMBERT
Published: October 22, 1992









Jim Garrison, who as District Attorney in New Orleans made startling assertions of a widespread conspiracy and cover-up in President John F. Kennedy's assassination, died yesterday at his home in New Orleans. He was 70 years old.


The New Orleans coroner, Dr. Frank Minyard, a longtime friend, said the exact cause of death would be determined in a routine autopsy today. Mr. Garrison had been bedridden with heart disease.


His widely disputed accusations, which were revived in the recent hit film "J.F.K.," drew worldwide attention when he first made them in 1967. He asserted that Lee Harvey Oswald, whom the Warren Commission identified as the lone assassin in the President's 1963 death, was not the killer and had "never fired a shot."


Announcing that he had "solved the assassination," Mr. Garrison accused anti-Communist and anti-Castro extremists in the Central Intelligence Agency of plotting the President's death to thwart an easing of tension with the Soviet Union and Cuba, and to prevent a retreat from Vietnam.



http://nytimes.perfectmarket.com/pm/images/pixel.gif

http://nytimes.perfectmarket.com/pm/images/pixel.gif

http://nytimes.perfectmarket.com/pm/images/pixel.gif

http://nytimes.perfectmarket.com/pm/images/pixel.gif
In 1969 he prosecuted Clay Shaw, a New Orleans businessman, as a conspirator. But the 34-day trial was widely described as a circus, and the jury acquitted Mr. Shaw after deliberating less than an hour.

Adviser on 'J.F.K.'


Many public officials and assassination experts dismissed Mr. Garrison's theories as bizarre, irresponsible and an effort to get publicity. But interest in his accusations continued among assassination buffs as doubts grew about the accuracy and completeness of the official findings.


Suddenly last December, Mr. Garrison burst back into national prominence with the release of Oliver Stone's movie, "J.F.K."


The movie, based largely on Mr. Garrison's views, portrays him as a quixotic hero fighting an evil establishment involving the Government, the military, the mob, politicians and spies. Kevin Costner played the District Attorney.


The film grossed $195 million in box office receipts and an undisclosed amount in sales and rentals of videotape cassettes.


Mr. Garrison served as an adviser to the film, which drew heavily from "On the Trail of Assassins," one of three books he wrote about the case. In conjunction with the release of the movie, Time Warner published a paperback edition of the book, which promptly jumped to the top of best-seller lists.


Mr. Garrison also landed an acting role in the film, playing Chief Justice Earl Warren, the head of the commission whose very conclusions Mr. Garrison had denounced as "totally false." Indicted in '73


The period between the original events and the release of "J.F.K." were troubled years for Mr. Garrison. Initially he sought to try Mr. Shaw on new perjury charges, but the courts stopped him from proceeding.


Then, in 1973, Mr. Garrison himself was indicted on Federal charges of taking bribes to protect illegal pinball gambling. Conducting his own defense, he won acquittal.


But the trial hurt him politically and left him only a month to campaign for his fourth term as the New Orleans District Attorney. He lost that bid for re-election by 2,221 votes, ending his 12 years in that office. The victor was Harry Connick Sr., father of the singer Harry Connick Jr. Mr. Garrison next ran for State Supreme Court judge and lost.


Resurrecting his public career in 1978, he won election to a seat on Louisiana's Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit. He remained on the bench until last year, when he quit three weeks before the mandatory retirement age of 70 because of failing health.


An imposing figure, Mr. Garrison was 6 feet 6 inches tall, spoke in a booming voice and had a slightly walleyed look.


His Kennedy assassination case took many turns. Johnny Carson devoted an entire "Tonight" show to interviewing Mr. Garrison and talking about his accusations of a guerrilla band, mysterious figures on the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, the possibility of shots from a sewer, photographic analysis and the involvement of the Dallas police, Federal Bureau of Investigation, C.I.A., Secret Service and Texas oil millionaires.

Strange Characters


The Clay Shaw trial involved strange characters. One key witness died under mysterious circumstances. Others refused to repeat on the stand the statements that Mr. Garrison's investigators had attributed to them. One witness, a psychologist, testified that he had regularly fingerprinted his daughter to make sure a spy had not taken her place.


Several students of the Kennedy assassination said that even though Mr. Garrison's investigation might have been seriously flawed, he served as a positive force in focusing attention on the inadequacies of the Warren Commission and in pressing for the release of many still-confidential documents.



http://nytimes.perfectmarket.com/pm/images/pixel.gif

http://nytimes.perfectmarket.com/pm/images/pixel.gif

http://nytimes.perfectmarket.com/pm/images/pixel.gif

http://nytimes.perfectmarket.com/pm/images/pixel.gif
Congress passed legislation on Sept. 30 to authorize the release of hundreds of thousands of pages of secret Government documents regarding Kennedy's death. The bill, which President Bush is expected to sign, would create an independent commission to review the papers and release all but those that compromise national security or invade a person's privacy.


James C. Garrison was born in Denison, Iowa and later legally changed his first name to Jim. He was a graduate of Tulane University Law School.


He served in the National Guard, Army and Army Reserve and served in Europe during World War II. In 1951 he briefly went on active duty.


Newspaper reports in 1967 said he was under psychiatric care from 1950 to 1955 and quoted a military assessment saying that he was discharged as unfit because of "a severe and disabling psychoneurosis of long duration" that "has interfered with his social and professional adjustment to a marked degree." He neither confirmed nor denied the report.


As a relatively obscure assistant district attorney for the Orleans Parish, Mr. Garrison was known for bar hopping along Bourbon Street, often wearing a white dinner jacket.

Then, in 1962, he resigned suddenly, denounced Mayor Victor Schiro as being soft on crime and challenged the incumbent District Attorney, Richard Dowling, for his post.


Mr. Garrison derided Mr. Dowling as "the great emancipator; he let everybody go free." Saving his campaign money for a last-minute barrage of television commercials, Mr. Garrison was the upset victor.


As the first local politician to make effective use of television, he made frequent raids on French Quarter vice dens and gambling joints, accompanied by an entourage of cameras, technicians and reporters.


He is survived by his wife, the former Leah Elizabeth Ziegler; three sons, two daughters, a sister and one grandchild.

FrankRep
11-21-2013, 09:26 AM
Yes it's true, here is the record of poll results from November 1963 to present:

http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination

Even in this case, the question asked if Oswald acted alone or were more people involved. More people could have been involved, but the question didn't ask if the government was involved or that Oswald was an innocent patsy. No *solid* facts exist to prove that others were involved.



JFK: In an April 2013 poll, 59 percent said others were involved in a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. Even as early as November of 1963, people had doubts as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole shooter. Sixty-two percent in 1963 told the National Opinion Research Center that other people were involved in the assassination.

http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/11/07/jfk-assassination-conspiracy-theory-the-most-widely-held-in-america

Wolfgang Bohringer
11-21-2013, 09:30 AM
Yes it's true, here is the record of poll results from November 1963 to present:

http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination

That's a really interesting chart.

It seems the main purpose of the Spectacle was not regime changeout of one junta with another. That was only a minor purpose compared to the mission of 1984-ishly programming the public's brains.

Instead of learning to internalizing contradictions such as "Freedom = Slavery" as in 1984, here the public has been trained for 50 years to listen to TV and the "authorities" pretend that the purpose of the assassination was not regime change while at the same time NEVER questioning TV and the "authorities" on hardly anything else and continuing to obey TV and the authorities on just about EVERYTHING else.

Its very important that the public know they are ruled by the biggest liars and murderers who've ever lived on the planet and still obey the rule that lying-murdering-coup-de-tat executing government must be endured and never mentioned--although its ok to answer honestly to the Gallup poll questions on JFK. The public has been trained to not notice when the Emperor is naked and to not notice when their TV masters lie about the Emperor's head being splattered all over the street.

FrankRep
11-21-2013, 09:40 AM
The sad part is that all these Kennedy Conspiracy Theories can't be proved. The same case with the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, they just can't be proved.

LibertyEagle
11-21-2013, 09:44 AM
Frank, are you saying you believe that Oswald acted alone?

vita3
11-21-2013, 09:46 AM
Surprised some people think Lyndon Johnson & Texas power based were Commies. :)

FrankRep
11-21-2013, 09:53 AM
Surprised some people think Lyndon Johnson & Texas power based were Commies. :)

Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist. That's the point of this thread.

Lyndon Johnson involvement is just an unproved theory.

Peace&Freedom
11-21-2013, 10:36 AM
Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist. That's the point of this thread.

Lyndon Johnson involvement is just an unproved theory.

The point of this thread is that you don't want to talk about the CIA's obvious black operations and undercover operations, such as Oswald's fronting as a Communist to facilitate infiltrating Communist groups, and to serve as a patsy.

Here's video of RFK asking LBJ why he killed his brother:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzWNDPx4Pm0

Here's another about E Howard Hunt on LBJ's involvement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4GD_PIbQZ4

vita3
11-21-2013, 10:49 AM
Agree that Oswald was a US intelligence asset used to infiltrate communist groups.

Jessie Ventura believes this & points to the facts that our Gov never released his tax returns which most likely show who paid him.

Anti Federalist
11-21-2013, 11:44 AM
Kennedy was killed, in part, for rejecting the Northwoods plan, a year and half before.

FrankRep
11-21-2013, 11:51 AM
Frank, are you saying you believe that Oswald acted alone?

I'm saying that I believe Oswald did shoot Kennedy, but there's not enough solid evidence to support the idea that multiple people were involved. I do dismiss the idea that Oswald was innocent of the shooting.

FrankRep
11-21-2013, 09:39 PM
SHAPIRO: Did Hollywood inspire Lee Harvey Oswald? (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/21/shapiro-did-a-hollywood-movie-inspire-jfks-assassi/)

Washington Times
November 21, 2013


On the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, many Americans still believe JFK was killed as part of a conspiracy orchestrated by our government or the Mafia, despite the evidence pointing to a lone assassin.

The facts suggest something less elaborate.

Understandably, Lee Harvey Oswald’s actions were confusing and suspicious, and as a result, many people think he could have been a spy.

In reality, however, Oswald was a troubled young man who preached Marxism as early as age 15, a result of the inequality he felt from being bullied in high school. His fascination with the Soviet Union stemmed from a desperate hope that life was better on “the other side.”
...

Upon returning home, Oswald wrangled with a personal identity crisis, enduring odd, low-paying jobs and making unsolicited visits to various ultraleft and extreme right-wing political organizations, while also communicating with federal law enforcement agencies. No worthwhile employer or organization had any use for him.

During his very apparent identity crisis, the 1962 film “The Manchurian Candidate” was released in movie theaters, a film about a communist conspiracy designed to assassinate an anti-communist presidential candidate. The film ends with an ex-Army veteran firing a rifle and killing two people from a small window above a speaking stage — much like the window in the Texas Book Depository where Oswald’s rifle was found.

The real name of the lead actor in the movie even resembled Oswald’s — Laurence Harvey.

Shortly after the film was released, Oswald ordered a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle — the same rifle that was later found in the book depository. Oswald’s wife later testified before the Warren Commission that once the rifle arrived, her husband obsessively practiced reloading its chamber as quickly as possible on a daily basis.

Only a few months later, the former Marine sharpshooter unsuccessfully tried to assassinate Gen. Edwin A. Walker in his home. Walker, a prominent voice in the anti-communist John Birch Society, barely evaded Oswald’s bullet.

In October 1963, Oswald applied for a visa to visit Cuba, and 11 days before Kennedy was assassinated, he wrote to the Soviet Embassy in Washington saying, “Had I been able to reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana as planned, the embassy there would have had time to complete our business.”

Clearly, leaving behind such a paper trail was not the act of a professionally trained spy. It was the act of a delusional young man who desperately wanted to believe that he was a Soviet agent.
...


Full Story:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/21/shapiro-did-a-hollywood-movie-inspire-jfks-assassi/

Peace&Freedom
11-21-2013, 11:02 PM
On the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, many Americans still believe JFK was killed as part of a conspiracy orchestrated by our government or the Mafia, despite the evidence pointing to a lone assassin.

The facts suggest something less elaborate....

Clearly, leaving behind such a paper trail was not the act of a professionally trained spy. It was the act of a delusional young man who desperately wanted to believe that he was a Soviet agent.
...


Please cut the dose on the spin juice. The "many Americans still 'believe' JFK was killed as part of a conspiracy" line is hilarious, given the House Committee on Assassinations concluded there was a conspiracy involving multiple gunmen. It's not just what 'many' (actually, a plurality of) Americans 'still believe,' it was the conclusion of a Congressional investigation. And Oswald need not have been a "professionally trained spy" to be a trained asset of pros.

Notice the facts in the story are selective and massaged, with only Oswald profiled and none of his documented CIA contacts/associates even mentioned. Leaving behind a paper trail is EXACTLY the actions expected of an intelligence asset who is trying to create a paper trail, to be the cutout or patsy for an operation. He may not have known he was going to be stuck with the assassination charge himself, or that the operation was going to BE an assassination.

FrankRep
11-22-2013, 06:33 AM
Please cut the dose on the spin juice. The "many Americans still 'believe' JFK was killed as part of a conspiracy" line is hilarious, given the House Committee on Assassinations concluded there was a conspiracy involving multiple gunmen. It's not just what 'many' (actually, a plurality of) Americans 'still believe,' it was the conclusion of a Congressional investigation. And Oswald need not have been a "professionally trained spy" to be a trained asset of pros.

Notice the facts in the story are selective and massaged, with only Oswald profiled and none of his documented CIA contacts/associates even mentioned. Leaving behind a paper trail is EXACTLY the actions expected of an intelligence asset who is trying to create a paper trail, to be the cutout or patsy for an operation. He may not have known he was going to be stuck with the assassination charge himself, or that the operation was going to BE an assassination.


Wikipedia: United States House Select Committee on Assassinations > Conclusions regarding the Kennedy assassination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinat ions#Conclusions_regarding_the_Kennedy_assassinati on)


On the Kennedy assassination, the HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:

1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.

2. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at the President. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.

3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.



- The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy.

- The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy.

- The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.

- The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.

- The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of Kennedy


9. Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties. President Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive.

The Committee further concluded that it was probable that:


- four shots were fired

- the fourth shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed. The HSCA concluded the existence and location of this alleged fourth shot based on a Dallas Police Department Dictabelt recording that was later discredited, because it was recorded after the assassination, and therefore invalid.

The HSCA agreed with the single bullet theory, but concluded that it occurred at a time point during the assassination that differed from any of the several time points the Warren Commission theorized it occurred.

The Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, and the Warren Commission were all criticized for not revealing to the Warren Commission information available in 1964, and the Secret Service was deemed deficient in their protection of the President.

The HSCA made several accusations of deficiency against the FBI and CIA. The accusations encompassed organizational failures, miscommunication, and a desire to keep certain parts of their operations secret. Furthermore, the Warren Commission expected these agencies to be forthcoming with any information that would aid their investigation. But the FBI and CIA only saw it as their duty to respond to specific requests for information from the commission. However, the HSCA found the FBI and CIA were deficient in performing even that limited role.

Peace&Freedom
11-22-2013, 09:22 AM
The HSCA should not be taken at face value either, I just pointed out the infowar tactics at work in establishment articles that paint the matter as a contrast between "the facts" vs what people "still believe." The truth is, in both the cases of the Warren Commission and the HSCA, the majority of the facts were avoided, lest it would lead to a full exoneration of Oswald and fuller exposure of the other parties. The facts also have tended to be subjected to a double standard of scrutiny, where the "official story-leaning facts" are demanded to be accepted on face value, while the "deep politics/conspiracy-leaning facts" are subjected to micro-contentious challenge.

If one only 'investigates' one suspect and massages and interprets evidence to point only to him, while ignoring or failing to retain the chain of evidence going in other directions, of course it's only going to look like it's only him. Even by that thumb on the scale standard, the HSCA found evidence of multiple shooters. Certain CIA-friendly elements of the committee went out of their way to shutdown the committee before further acoustic testing could be performed, as the findings were trending towards confirming more than 4 shots.

As for Oswald's direct guilt or innocence, he did not undergo a real trial by his peers, he was not found guilty, no *solid* evidence was ever presented to link him to the crime, gunpowder residue tests showed he did not fire a weapon that day, no witnesses said they saw him pull the trigger, he was never formally charged with the murder of JFK because, as the Dallas PD spokesman said at the time, there was no evidence to do so. Other criminal acts associated with him are also based on conflicting data subject to counter-interpretation.

A photo of the depository building shows Oswald in the doorway as the motorcade came by, making it impossible for him to be the sniper's nest (although some say the picture is of somebody else, blow-ups show the clothing matches Oswald's attire from that day, not the other person). On the basis of this and much other data (omitted from both WC and HSCA), there is at the very least more than enough reasonable doubt to have acquitted him, if it had somehow gone to an actual trial. Perhaps the conspiracy planners realized this, and that is why Oswald himself ended up conveniently killed.

Peace&Freedom
11-22-2013, 11:19 AM
The Kennedy Assassination (November 22, 1963) 50 Years Later

Paul Craig Roberts
November 22, 2013

November 22, 2013, is the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The true story of JFK’s murder has never been officially admitted, although the conclusion that JFK was murdered by a plot involving the Secret Service, the CIA, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been well established by years of research, such as that provided by James W. Douglass in his book, JFK And The Unspeakable, published by Simon & Schuster in 2008. Ignore Douglass’ interest in the Trappist monk Thomas Merton and Merton’s prediction and focus on the heavily documented research that Douglass provides.

Or just turn to the contemporary films, taken by tourists watching JFK’s motorcade that are available on YouTube, which show clearly the Secret Service pulled from President Kennedy’s limo just prior to his assassination, and the Zapruder film that shows the killing shot to have come from President Kennedy’s right front, blowing off the back of his head, not from the rear as postulated in the Warren Commission Report, which would have pushed his head forward, not rearward.

I am not going to write about the assassination to the extent that the massive information permits. Those who want to know already know. Those who cannot face the music will never be able to confront the facts regardless of what I or anyone else writes or reveals.

To briefly review, the facts are conclusive that JFK was on terrible terms with the CIA and the Joint Chiefs. He had refused to support the CIA organized Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. He had rejected the Joint Chiefs’ “Operation Northwoods,” a plan to commit real and faked acts of violence against Americans, blame Castro and use the false flag events to bring regime change to Cuba. He had rejected the Joint Chiefs case that the Soviet Union should be attacked while the US held the advantage and before the Soviets could develop delivery systems for nuclear weapons. He had indicated that after his reelection he was going to pull US troops out of Vietnam and that he was going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces. He had aroused suspicion by working behind the scenes with Khrushchev to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis, leading to claims that he was “soft on communism.” The CIA and Joint Chiefs’ belief that JFK was an unreliable ally in the war against communism spread into the Secret Service.

It has been established that the original autopsy of JFK’s fatal head wound was discarded and a faked one substituted in order to support the official story that Oswald shot JFK from behind. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and President Johnson knew that Oswald was the CIA’s patsy, but they also understood, as did members of the Warren Commission, that to let the true story out would cause Americans to lose confidence in their own government at the height of the Cold War.

Robert Kennedy knew what had happened. He was on his way to being elected president and to holding the plotters accountable for the murder of his brother when the CIA assassinated him. A distinguished journalist, who was standing behind Robert Kennedy at the time of his assassination, told me that the killing shots came from behind past his ear. He submitted his report to the FBI and was never contacted.

Acoustic experts have conclusively demonstrated that more shots were fired than can be accounted for by Sirhan Sirhan’s pistol and that the sounds indicate two different calibers of firearms.

I never cease to be amazed by the gullibility of Americans, who know nothing about either event, but who confidently dismiss the factual evidence provided by experts and historians on the basis of their naive belief that “the government wouldn’t lie about such important events” or “someone would have talked.” What good would it do if someone talked when the gullible won’t believe hard evidence?


Secret Service pulled from JFK’s limo
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/james-huang/must-watch-video/ [1]

Zapruder film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufvmHYqfdbU [2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q91RZko5Gw [3]

James W. Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, Simon & Schuster, 2008

Operation Northwoods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods [4]

Anti Federalist
11-22-2013, 11:35 AM
+rep to the above post.

libertyjam
11-22-2013, 11:50 AM
The following video has an interview with LBJ by Walter Cronkite, the interview is never aired to the public at the request of the president.
The YT title is Lyndon Johnson Admits To Walter Cronkite That He Killed Kennedy, Though that is not actually what is there.
6 years later means this interview was in 1969.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd1wuXrVPjo

The following is the blurb that the author has with the vid on YT. IHe does make some interesting points and insightful analysis at times:
The interview with Conforto at the beginning she hesitates and cages her answer I believe because she realizes how she answers that question could get her killed.

LBJ makes an incredible mistake with his first answer by undermining the purpose of his Warren Commission. His supposed doubts about international connections opens the door for Uncle Walter to question the conclusions of the WC. LBJ tries to close it again at 0:55. But Cronkite walks right in and LBJ fumbles big time as he realizes what a hole he has dug himself. He starts to address the WC conclusions, but then launches into a defense of the Commission's integrity instead, realizing that he can only make things worse by talking specifics. At 1:25 a wonderful subtle snarl stirs the left corner of his mouth as he regrets letting Uncle Walter into the ranch. Then his obfuscating generalities hit the name "Oswald," and he pauses, realizing that he did not want to speak that name and closes his eyes in despair, before continuing to the ultimate flub, "others that could have been involved." This is the former President of the United States here, not some schlub who just read a Mark Lane book, and he's talking about the motivations of Oswald and others who might have been involved, to Walter Fucking Cronkite. What can he do now, but ask Cronkite not to broadcast this unbelievable answer? And our kindly Uncle Walter obliges.

It seems weird that LBJ would bring up "international connections" 6 years later, but this is part of the original cover story. There had to be an implication of international connections in order to convince Earl Warren and others that confirming the lone gunman theory was necessary to avoiding the possibility of WW3. "Oswald Done It Himself," avoids Cuban and Soviet involvement. The conspirators provided just enough false implication of international connections to create a reason for relatively honest men to join the cover up.

Ruby's Warren Commission testimony is sometimes quoted out of context. There, he wants to talk to Lyndon Johnson, he says, to convince him that he was not involved with the Kennedy assassination plot. Perhaps the key point is that he wants to talk to Lyndon Johnson. He has just been sentenced to death for killing Oswald, and he had probably been promised to get off lightly, the way Mac Wallace had got away with murder. Later, he blames "the man in office now," and he never sounds more sane than when he says that. The Weissman ad was probably planted just to give him a reason to shoot Oswald. Why did he wake up George Senator in the middle of the night to go look at a billboard and go to the post office? Because Senator would make a good corroborating witness to his motivations. But, when Johnson didn't come through for him, he pointed the finger of blame.

It is interesting to note how close Ruby kept to Senator. In November 1962, Senator moved into a new apartment, and, according to Senator's testimony to the Warren Commission, within a week Ruby moved into the next door apartment. The adjoining apartment. They shared a wall. One year before the assassination Ruby moved in next door to his future character witness. This apartment was less than a mile away from Oswald's famous "backyard," and about 4 blocks from where Tippit would die. And this was about the same time that George de Mohrenschildt was getting to know his new friend Lee ("I think in the summer of 1962"), and about the same time that Michael Paine moved out of his house ("Michael moved to an apartment in September of 1962"). The scene was being set a year in advance.

That's Janet "Jada" Conforto, at this time, a former dancer in Ruby's club. She also mentioned in the video that she thought that Jack particularly didn't like Bobby Kennedy, which isn't surprising given the fact that Jack had gangster friends. It is also priceless how she looks at the interviewer when he suddenly starts talking as if she is not there. You'll find the interview is on YouTube somewhere, if you search for it. She died in the 70's riding her motorcycle when she was hit by a bus.

libertyjam
11-22-2013, 12:02 PM
Another interesting thing about the JFK assassination that speaks to complicity on the part of local law enforcement, was that for several minutes during the assassination, the Dallas City Police channel #1 was offline. When it came back online four minutes later, the Morse Code for ‘Victory’ could be heard by anyone tuned into or monitoring channel #1 of that police radio communications system.
http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Miscellaneous/JFK_ASSiNATION.shtml
http://kentroversypapers.blogspot.com/2007/06/dealey-plaza-esoteric-freemasonic.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=a1QECm8Rww0#t=10 6

The Morse code heard at end of video refers to the precise Morse like radio signal that was heard when the Dallas radio came back online after having been silent during the minutes while the assassination was happening. The signal is the Morse code for the word 'VICTORY'.

Skip to 1:45 or so to hear the code.

Interviews with people inside the TSBD building reported that while the motorcade passed by the building, all power and phone service inside the building was shut off. People were using the stairs because there was no power to the elevators. As soon as the event was over within seconds, power was restored and phones started working.

FrankRep
11-22-2013, 12:23 PM
Nice overview of the 5 most popular conspiracy theories of the Kennedy Assassination.

5 Enduring Kennedy Assassination Theories
http://news.yahoo.com/5-enduring-kennedy-assassination-theories-231927451.html

1. The Mafia
2. The government
3. The CIA
4. Fidel Castro
5. I dunno, just somebody

cajuncocoa
11-22-2013, 12:43 PM
Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist. That's the point of this thread.


No contest, but I thought the point of the thread was to discuss JFK assassination theories.

Peace&Freedom
11-22-2013, 01:25 PM
Nice overview of the 5 most popular conspiracy theories of the Kennedy Assassination.

5 Enduring Kennedy Assassination Theories
http://news.yahoo.com/5-enduring-kennedy-assassination-theories-231927451.html

1. The Mafia
2. The government
3. The CIA
4. Fidel Castro
5. I dunno, just somebody

They don't have to be in contest with each other, and can be easily integrated. How about: CIA/MIC planned it, LBJ winked it, FBI covered up, Mafia provided support, Castro didn't blab?

FrankRep
11-22-2013, 01:52 PM
No contest, but I thought the point of the thread was to discuss JFK assassination theories.

The thread points out that the Leftists/Progressives are trying to make Oswald into a Right-wing, gun crazy nut.

Oswald was a Communist and he tried to assassinate others like Edwin Walker and J. D. Tippit.

FrankRep
11-22-2013, 01:55 PM
They don't have to be in contest with each other, and can be easily integrated. How about: CIA/MIC planned it, LBJ winked it, FBI covered up, Mafia provided support, Castro didn't blab?

You're missing a key element: Proof.

cajuncocoa
11-22-2013, 04:00 PM
The thread points out that the Leftists/Progressives are trying to make Oswald into a Right-wing, gun crazy nut.

Oswald was a Communist and he tried to assassinate others like Edwin Walker and J. D. Tippit.I'm sure the people responsible for the assassination (CIA) made sure to make Oswald all things to all people....a Communist sympathizer to the Right and a crazy gun-nut to the Left. It's likely he was more Communist sympathizer than crazy gun-nut, but I don't think he was responsible for killing JFK. I think Oswald was a patsy.

libertyjam
11-22-2013, 05:33 PM
I'm sure the people responsible for the assassination (CIA) made sure to make Oswald all things to all people....a Communist sympathizer to the Right and a crazy gun-nut to the Left. It's likely he was more Communist sympathizer than crazy gun-nut, but I don't think he was responsible for killing JFK. I think Oswald was a patsy.

For the IMO definitive history of Oswald and who he was everyone should read Bill Simpich's, THE JFK CASE: THE TWELVE WHO BUILT THE OSWALD LEGEND (http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/THE-JFK-CASE--OSWALD-AND-by-Bill-Simpich-100315-5.html). It is in 9 parts or articles, each 7 - 8 pages long and heavily footnoted, so long but well worth the read. A short book if you will.

A shorter version was recently done by Russ Baker that I've listed prior is in Bush and the JFK Hit, Part 8: Prepping a Patsy? (http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/11/06/bush-and-the-jfk-hit-part-8-prepping-a-patsy/)

The evidence is extensive, Buckley's garbage continues to shine even after his own demise, to cling to the well discredited superficial caricature built for the public of the fictional LHO to assuage their own guilt, as one could well imagine most of the main protagonists to be ardent supporters and vice versa.

Peace&Freedom
11-22-2013, 05:49 PM
You're missing a key element: Proof.

You're missing an element of being open to it, despite widespread publication of proof on each of those fronts. I myself find no compelling proof that Oswald shot JFK at all, but at least I'm open to it. You, however, won't even acknowledge the CIA connections revolving around Oswald's movements and actions.

FrankRep
11-22-2013, 06:17 PM
You're missing an element of being open to it, despite widespread publication of proof on each of those fronts. I myself find no compelling proof that Oswald shot JFK at all, but at least I'm open to it. You, however, won't even acknowledge the CIA connections revolving around Oswald's movements and actions.

I'm open to it. When new evidence comes up, I check it out. Since the Kennedy Assassination is the most popular and politically correct conspiracy theory to believe in, there is an urge to believe in it.

Maybe the Roswell UFO/Alien crash is most popular and politically correct conspiracy theory to believe in, I'm not sure.

Peace&Freedom
11-23-2013, 12:46 AM
I'm open to it. When new evidence comes up, I check it out. Since the Kennedy Assassination is the most popular and politically correct conspiracy theory to believe in, there is an urge to believe in it.

Maybe the Roswell UFO/Alien crash is most popular and politically correct conspiracy theory to believe in, I'm not sure.

One more time: I doubt you are open to it, for when given yet another opportunity to at least acknowledge Oswald's CIA connections that have been ABUNDANTLY DOCUMENTED, you can't even bring yourself to mention the subject. You just go back to saying no proof of conspiracy, left-right, left-right etc. Apparently the introduction of intelligence ops is kryptonite to the two party paradigm box you prefer to keep the discussion locked into, so you duck it over and over.

In the modern total state, for every person who wants to believe something, there are 5 government assets who work to urge you to disbelieve anything other than the official line. There are a number of government documents admitting to it conducting campaigns to stamp out JFK conspiracy talk. There are NO government documents admitting to campaigns to promote it as "politically correct." Whatever, rhetorical evasion and misdirection tactics have never worked with crushing or smearing dissent on the Kennedy assassination, and never will.

Peace&Freedom
11-23-2013, 12:46 AM
I'm open to it. When new evidence comes up, I check it out. Since the Kennedy Assassination is the most popular and politically correct conspiracy theory to believe in, there is an urge to believe in it.

Maybe the Roswell UFO/Alien crash is most popular and politically correct conspiracy theory to believe in, I'm not sure.

One more time: I doubt you are open to it, for when given yet another opportunity to at least acknowledge Oswald's CIA connections that have been ABUNDANTLY DOCUMENTED, you can't even bring yourself to mention the subject. You just go back to saying no proof of conspiracy, left-right, left-right etc. This side-stepping is too specific, repeated and conspicuous to be accidental. Apparently the introduction of intelligence ops is kryptonite to the two party paradigm box you prefer to keep the discussion locked into, so you duck it over and over.

In the modern total state, for every person who wants to believe something, there are 5 government assets who work to urge you to disbelieve anything other than the official line. There are a number of government documents admitting to it conducting campaigns to stamp out JFK conspiracy talk. There are NO government documents admitting to campaigns to promote it as "politically correct." Whatever, rhetorical evasion and misdirection tactics have never worked with crushing or smearing dissent on the Kennedy assassination, and never will.

Danke
11-23-2013, 01:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FX6jSQFfK4

Carson
11-23-2013, 02:33 AM
I still find the whole thing pretty disturbing after all these years.

All the stuff on the television seems to have stirred up old emotions. Maybe some new ones.

FrankRep
11-23-2013, 07:57 AM
enhanced_deficit Posted a New Theory (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?433949-Did-Hollywood-bigwigs-help-Israel-buy-arms-in-the-1970s-and-80s&p=5318956&viewfull=1#post5318956).

The Mossad? Add it to the list I guess.


More Evidence Mossad Killed JFK Over Israeli Nukes (http://www.rense.com/general42/enemies.htm)
The Missing Link In The JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Rense.com
Sept. 28, 2013

FrankRep
11-23-2013, 08:17 AM
This is intriguing.


In Kennedy Assassination, Anyone But Mossad is Fair Game for U.S. Media (http://www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives/138-washington-report-archives-1988-1993/march-1992/6340-speaking-out-in-kennedy-assassination-anyone-but-mossad-is-fair-game-for-us-media.html)

American Educational Trust
1992 March


====

Israel and the Death of JFK (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353997/israel-and-death-jfk-mike-potemra)

National Review
July 21, 2013



Another disappointment in the collected letters of JFK: Close to the end of the book, which is only 352 pages long, the editor devotes eight pages to an exchange between President Kennedy and Israeli leaders on Israel’s nuclear-weapons program, which the U.S. president viewed as a threat to world peace. Editor Martin W. Sandler introduces the section as follows:


In March 1992, Representative Paul Findley of Illinois, wrote in the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, “It is interesting. . . . to notice that in all the words written and uttered about the Kennedy assassination, Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, has never been mentioned.” Two years later in his book Final Judgment, author Michael Collins actually accused Israel of the crime. Of all the conspiracy theories, it remains one of the most intriguing.

No, it doesn’t. It’s not one of the most intriguing theories about the JFK assassination; it’s one of the crankiest, craziest, and nuttiest.
...



That hit a tender spot. You can blame the Government, FBI, CIA, Mafia, Cuba (that's cool), but blaming the Mossad is just the "crankiest, craziest, and nuttiest!"

Danke
11-24-2013, 11:23 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWsAoWqc52w