124

Looking at John F. Kennedy with fresh eyes

Colby Cosh on the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination


 

CSU Archive/Everett/REX USA

The 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination will be a severe trial for the ordinary news consumer under the age of 60, who cannot help being sick to death of Kennedy hagiography. But this turn of the odometer may be a little less tiresome than others. Time has tarnished the Kennedy lustre, although the Irish still won’t shut up about him, and historical perspective has begun to prevail.

What, as seen from 2013, were JFK’s greatest achievements as U.S. president? One would have to cite his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the impetus he gave to America’s adventure in space. He deserves a great deal of credit for both—particularly the former, which grows more impressive the more closely one studies it. Kennedy was a sick, arguably dying man being kept upright with an arsenal of zombifying pharmaceuticals. His own family knew that he was poorly prepared for the presidency, having paid virtually zero attention to his work in the Senate. But he won a dangerous 13-day game of blindfold chess against the Soviets, often acting against the advice of an eccentric, daredevil U.S. military establishment.

The world, however, is rapidly filling with people too young to remember the Cold War; soon even Fidel Castro, who urged the Russians to respond to any invasion of Cuba with a nuclear strike, will have passed from the scene. As for space exploration, it too is becoming an afterthought. It was Kennedy’s will that put men on the moon in 1969, as surely as any rocket engine, but that event ended up happening at a time of burgeoning ecological awareness and global distaste for American imperialism. Even within the United States, which could have quite justly regarded the moon landing as the culmination of a 200-year epic, the celebrations were rather muted. The mood is not dissimilar now, and the Apollo program has left little legacy beyond a nagging American wistfulness. We now understand the conquest of the moon as an expensive, beautiful art project.

The myth of Kennedy as a uniquely admirable knight-errant has finally, I think, been wiped out by the accumulation of ugly details about his sexual conduct and family life. For a while it was still possible to regard JFK’s tomcatting as the inevitable concomitant of super-masculine greatness. By now it is pretty clear that he was just an abusive, spoiled creep. There are scenes in White House intern Mimi Alford’s 2012 memoir that make you wonder why it took so long for somebody to shoot the swinish bastard.

As for the assassination itself, the experience of seeing conspiracy theories bloom like a toxic meadow after 9/11 has hardened us all against the nonsense that was still popular in the 1990s. Most adults, I think, now understand that Oliver Stone’s JFK was a buffet of tripe. It is no coincidence that Stephen King’s 2011 time-travel book about JFK’s slaying, written after decades of fairly deep research, stuck close to the orthodox Warren commission narrative.

The new favourite themes in the 50th anniversary coverage dispense with grassy-knoll phantoms and disappearing-reappearing Oswalds. One new documentary has revived Howard Donahue’s idea that the final bullet that blasted Kennedy’s skull apart might have been fired accidentally by a Secret Service agent in one of the trailing cars. This would help explain the oddity of the Zapruder footage, and might also account for some awkwardly disappearing evidence—notably JFK’s brain—without requiring us to believe anything obviously outrageous.

Kennedy’s inner circle and his successor bear some responsibility for the conspirazoidal miasma that long clung to Nov. 22, 1963. They knew Lee Harvey Oswald was an unstable Commie loner; if there was more to it than that, they might not even have wanted to know, and they certainly did not want the Warren commission to poke around. The commission’s conclusions have stood up well as far as they go, but its research was intentionally incomplete when it came to Oswald’s possible foreign connections, and that made the report vulnerable to criticism by loons.

In the early ’70s Lyndon Johnson made a cryptic remark about JFK possibly being killed because his administration had been “running a damn Murder Inc. in the Caribbean.” This offhand remark turned out to be quite specific; rumours of multiple CIA assassination attempts against Castro were true, as were wilder tales of literal Mafia involvement (confirmed when the CIA “Family Jewels” were declassified in 2007). Oswald would not exactly have been anyone’s first choice as an intelligence asset, and probably had no state sponsor. But notice that it’s 2013 and we still have to say “probably.”

On the web: For more Colby Cosh, visit his blog at macleans.ca/colbycosh


 
Filed under:

Looking at John F. Kennedy with fresh eyes

  1. I think Kennedy caused the cuban missile crisis with his Murder Inc attitude. Half assed bay of pigs invasion was bad idea that made castro paranoid and want protection.

    I don’t remember but who put missiles in Turkey – was that Ike or JFK? Putting missiles on USSR’s doorstep was provocation as well and US should have expected response.

    • April of ’62 when they were installed…..so Kennedy.

      Unfortunately none of this taught the US anything….and they continued to intervene in other countries and create more havoc.

      • Dear EmilyOne: NO…NOT KENNEDY. Those Jupiter missiles in Turkey were installed in 1961…NOT ’62. JFK took power in January ’61 at which time these missiles were already approved by the previous Eisenhower administration and got placed according to the military’s (& NATO’s) plans. Thank Ike. JFK certainly DID NOT make that decision, manage to get them approved in record time and have them installed in his very first year as president! American policy goes forward from administration to administration. Why do you insist so vehemently that JFK set those missiles in motion like he was a war-mongerer? Time for a reality check.

          • You’re absolutely right; I needed to chill and there was no vehemence on your part. Sorry – my bad. However, you did say ‘installed’ NOT ‘operational’. Kennedy was a man who went from cold warrior to an advocate for peace. The fact he ignored the Joint Chiefs’ recommendation that Cuba be invaded/bombed very likely saved the world from a possible nuclear exchange. I just think Kennedy being painted as militarily aggressive is grossly unfair.

          • Well everybody started rethinking nuclear war….it had been treated very casually up until then….just a bigger ‘kaboom’ so to speak.

            Ike warned about the military/industrial complex and we have to keep hacking it back

            Kennedy wasn’t a hawk….but he wasn’t a dove either. Scratch any American, either party, and you find an imperialist.

          • I agree with most of what you said except when you had JFK somewhere between a hawk and a dove. I think he was perhaps a bit hawkish in the 50s, before becoming president in 1960. However, by the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, with his own small children’s lives influencing his mind and heart, he was clearly a genuine dove.

            Here’s a link to his brilliant American University Speech; often referred to as his ‘Peace Speech’:
            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-university/

            I recommend you read JFK’s speeches. His Peace speech contains this famous and oft-quoted line:
            “…in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.”

            To me, the man was a rare and brilliant leader; one with vision…and to a large extent, I believe that’s why he was murdered. Had he lived, we would be in a very different, and I think, much better, world right now.

          • Thank you, no.

    • To Hester: The Cuban Bay of Pigs event was a CIA-sponsored mission and was an initiative and a carry over from the Eisenhower administration (with VP Nixon heavily involved). The plans were in progress when JFK came to power. JFK’s mistake was when he was briefed about these plans as he took office and bought the CIA assessment that it would cause Cubans to rise up against Castro. Because the CIA was so wrong in their assessment, the then director, Allen Dulles, was fired by JFK (making him very unhappy as it spoiled a long career in intelligence that pre-dated the CIA’s creation! Curiously, Dulles was one of the Warren Commissioners appointed by LBJ to investigate JFK’s murder. Conflict of interest? To me, his appointment was suspicious and, at best, a bad choice for one charged with looking to get at the truth. Anyhow, the CIA’s prediction was completely wrong…and thereafter, JFK did not trust his generals nor intelligence agencies again so completely. Also JFK took full responsibility for his mistake in a televised address to their nation (when do you see ANY politician do that!) Furthermore, the mentioned ‘Murder Inc.’ was, once again, another of the CIA’s many interferences in the world at large which essentially had little or nothing to do with Kennedy. Read the books, folks, and stop believing the misinformation and BS.

  2. Two things about JFK: he would have lost the next election and gone down in history as just another guy who failed to meet expectations; assassin’s bullet or not, he would not be alive today.

    • You think JFK would have lost to Barry Goldwater?

      Get Real! The only state Goldwater managed to win against Lyndon Johnson in ’64 was his own – Arizona.

      • sooke is right! I was in my Senior year in an American School in the Philippines and was in the Debating Club. We held a mock election following a debate about Goldwater vs Johnson. Johnson won by a landslide. Goldwater’s terrible reputation was known around the world and especially among Americans who respected the civil rights initiatives and other legislation Johnson introduced after taking office. I had high hopes for Robert Kennedy. Why do Americans keep killing their own?

        • RFK was killed by a Jerusalem-born Palestinian with Jordanian citizenship, not an American.

  3. The Philby, Burgess, MacLean saga gave us 50 years of often
    superior spy fiction ( some pretty bad too). The Kennedy saga
    has been okay in that regard but has not lived up to the high
    standard set.

    • Odd that. LeCarre never got around to doing Kennedy, more’s the pity.

  4. Anybody who believes the results of the Warren Commission Report has not done much research on American history. Although the movie “JFK” was a little strung out, dealing as it did with the differences between the people investigating the case, the problems they had in explaining the large details, such as the missing bullet, the angle of the second bullet, the fact that even the best sharp shooters in the US could not replicate the shooting (3 shots fired in quick succession from an antiquated rifle from 300 yards at a moving target), the shells being left behind in the library (any marine at that time would have automatically retrieved them as they had been taught), etc., etc. This was a setup if there ever was one. Ask any European about 9/11. You will get the same answer. Are we in Canada stupid? A lot of reporters have been watching too much of FOX TV, you have become indoctrinated with American propaganda!

    • 300 yards? Here’s your “Doesn’t Know What He’s Talking About” Badge; wear it in good health.

      • Thanks for the correction, Colby. Quite right. The distances apparently were at 175, 240, and 265 feet for the third shot. Attempted replication by “experts” as described by Wikipedia, were less than satisfactory.
        Here is a long version of Oswald’s capability as a marksman:
        During his Marine Corps service in December 1956, Oswald scored a rating of sharpshooter (twice achieving 48 and 49 out of 50 shots during rapid fire at a stationary target 200 yards [183 m] away using a standard issue M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle), although in May 1959, he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification than that of sharpshooter). Military experts, after examining his records, characterized his firearms proficiency as “above average” and said he was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, “an excellent shot”.[57]

        However, Nelson Delgado, a Marine in the same unit as Oswald, used to laugh at Oswald’s shooting prowess and testified that Oswald often got “Maggie’s drawers”; meaning a red flag that is waved from the rifle pits to indicate a complete miss of the target during qualification firing. He also said that Oswald did not seem to care if he missed or not.[58] Delgado was first stationed with Oswald in Santa Ana, California at the beginning of 1958 meeting him for the first time there and a little more than a year after Oswald first made sharpshooter.[59]

        Skeptics have argued that expert marksmen could not duplicate Oswald’s alleged feat in their first try during re-enactments by the Warren Commission (1964) and CBS (1967). In those tests the marksmen attempted to hit the target three times within 5.6 seconds. This time span has been heavily disputed. The Warren Commission itself estimated that the time span between the two shots that hit President Kennedy was 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. If the second shot missed (assuming the first and third shots hit the president), then 4.8 to 5.6 seconds was the total time span of the shots. If the first or third shot missed, that would give a minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the three shots.[60] Modern analysis of a digitally enhanced Zapruder film suggests that the first, second, and final shot may have taken 8.3 seconds.

        Many of CBS’s 11 volunteer marksmen, who (unlike Oswald) had no prior experience with a properly “sighted” Carcano, were able to hit the test target two times in under the time allowed. The only man who scored three hits was a firearms examiner from Maryland by the name of Howard Donahue.”

        My comment: I have a number of hunting rifles with variable scopes up to 10 power. Oswald had only a 4 power scope, which isn’t much better than an open eye sight, particularly at a moving target. As suggested above, he would to have been a better marksman than perhaps 75% of the military.

        • “As suggested above, he would to have been a better marksman than perhaps 75% of the military.”

          He was a Marine. It’s perfectly plausible he was in the 25th percentile or above with regard to marksmanship.

          • Oswald’s documented “sharpshooter” rating–obviously more relevant, as evidence, than the memory of some guy from his platoon–is one of those things you are hardly in a position to know about without having read the Commission report (though I think William Manchester mentioned it in his book). The popular belief is that Oswald was lucky to point the right end of his Carcano away from himself. Moreover, I gather there’s some doubt whether he had the scope attached.

        • *Many of CBS’s 11 volunteer marksmen, who (unlike Oswald) had no prior experience with a properly “sighted” Carcano, were able to hit the test target two times in under the time allowed. The only man who scored three hits was a firearms examiner from Maryland by the name of Howard Donahue.*

          But in fact, Oswald only scored two hits; the first shot missed, perhaps because it hit a traffic-light standard.

        • I’ve always wanted to know who determined – and how – that the time between the 1st shot and the last was 5.6 seconds. The documentaries I’ve watched this week demonstrate the total incompetence of every police or Secret Service official involved with this incident. JFK’s autopsy was done by two junior army doctors who had never before autopsied anyone who died of shotgun wounds. Just HOW was it determined that the shots were made in 5.6 seconds? Home videos in those days did not have audio.

          • They went over the frames of the one “authentic” movie that was made, determined the speed of the film, an then estimated the timelapse between the first and last shot. Others say there was a third shot, but the slug was never found. Apparently also a record of the sound of the shots was recorded on a motorcyle policeman’s walkie-talkie device.
            I purchased one of the best of the first Sony 8mm cameras back in 1962. It did not have a recording device on it.
            I am with the conspirators. There is no way you are ever going to convince me this was not a set-up. What were one of Oswalds last words? “I’m a patsy.”

    • And there’s the shibboleth.

  5. Studying Cold War history in high school, I was struck at the contrast between Kennedy and Eisenhower in terms of management. Eisenhower faced most of the same challenges as Kennedy – confrontations with the Soviets, civil rights tensions in the South. However, he never let the situations escalate to the crises faced by Kennedy. Eisenhower wasn’t glamorous or dramatic, but he was a superb leader and president. Kennedy often seemed to be in over his head.

    • Because Kennedy was not a leader and let things get to the point of crisis – remind you of a certain President of the US today?

      • No.

        • of course not

      • No.

      • Yes

    • Eisenhower was older and had more experience that’s all.

      ‘He was a five-star general in the United States Army during World War II and served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe; he had responsibility for planning and supervising the invasion of North Africa in Operation Torch in 1942–43 and the successful invasion of France and Germany in 1944–45 from the Western Front. In 1951, he became the first supreme commander of NATO.;

      • Yes, exactly my point. Eisenhower had the experience of commanding a massive multinational force in World War 2, and succeeded brilliantly. Not many others could’ve done the same. He then applied that skill and experience to the US presidency and international diplomacy. Kennedy wasn’t remotely so qualified. He’d commanded a small boat in WW2. He’d proven himself a hero under fire, but never acquired the skills & experience of running bigger organizations.

        • Well no one else had the unique experience that Ike did…and he presided over an America booming from post-war need.

          Kennedy started the US into space….and a new era.

        • If Ike ‘applied that skill and experience to the US presidency and international diplomacy’ then why was the cold war at it’s coldest by the time he was done as prez? Some diplomacy. Yes, he seems to have been a fine military leader. However, the fact is, most US presidents lack the “skills & experience of running bigger organizations”…and most have done well enough. JFK had strong leadership skills; he stood up to the oil and steel barons, the Fed, and the jerks in the Joint Chiefs, like Gen. Curtis Lemay who would have instigated a nuclear exchange over those soviet-made Cuban Missiles were he running the US during that crisis. JFK recruited the ‘best and the brightest’ for his cabinet without regard to their political affiliation (very rare these days of polarization) But, John Kennedy especially had political courage. He did plenty in his very short time as president (just 3/4 of ONE term). And the 2nd term that some of you (foolishly) think he would not win, was going to be his mandate to drive home Civil Rights (a JFK policy that LBJ continued and got the credit for…much like the Lunar landing that Nixon, of all people, was president when finally attained). JFK started the Peace Corps., JFK set the goal to land an American on the moon before the end of the 60s, JFK was about to pull out of Vietnam and let them win or lose their own civil war; JFK saved us from nuclear war by finding the better way to defuse the high tensions of the day. There’s a lot to admire about the man and what might have been if he had not ruffled so many powerful feathers.

      • It’s far more than “older and had more experience.” Eisenhower was a Colonel at the start of 1941. Ike was an extremely talented and skilled individual, talent that was recognized as early as WWI. From a pure executive leadership standpoint, Eisenhower was probably the most skilled individual to occupy the Presidency other than George Washington.

        • I liked Ike….but let’s not get carried away.

          Many of the things Kennedy got both credited with, and blamed for began with Ike.

        • just like Obummer!

      • and how ’bout Bathhouse Barry?

        • Don’t drink and post.

  6. Except there was no need for a crisis over the Cuban missiles at all. Even assuming they needed to be removed (and that can be argued), the whole thing could have been handled by quiet negotiation with the same ultimate deal, instead of the whole public confrontation, open act of war (the US blockade of Cuba), and terrorizing the whole world with the specter of imminent nuclear war.

    • Your joking aren’t you? Given the huge advantage we now know the US had over the USSR in ICBMs, B52 in SAC in the air 24/7, it is almost inconceivable once in place in Cuba any kind of negotiation would ever get them out.The Soviets weren’t the kind of fools to give them up without huge concessions either.
      No,Kennedy would have to have been an utter fool to allow them in 90 miles from the US coast.

      • Kennedy would have to have been an utter fool to allow them in 90 miles from the US coast.

        Yeah. It’s not like Soviet Hotel-class subs could bring R-13s with one-megaton warheads not merely “90 miles from the US coast” off the
        southern tip of Florida, but up to the territorial waters limit directly alongside the major cities of the Eastern seaboard, right?

        The Soviets weren’t the kind of fools to give them up without huge concessions either.

        Like, oh, the US agreeing to not to invade Cuba and to withdraw its equivalent missiles from Turkey and southern Italy? You know, the same deal that was cut historically?

        You want to justify JFK ‘s handling of the situation, it’s not enough to come to the conclusion that the US couldn’t tolerate the Soviets increasing their anti-US missile throw weight by 10%. You also have to explain, for example, why it was better to open with the Soviets by telling them on the 21st there was going to be a TV speech to the American people announcing a blockade, instead of saying back on the 18th at JFK’s meeting with Gromyko, “Hey, we know they’re offensive nukes. We aren’t going to let you go ahead. Let’s make a deal.”

        There was never any need for anything called the “Cuban Missile Crisis” to ever enter the history books. That it did is a deep black mark on JFK’s record.

        • Hindsight’s nice.

          • Isn’t “stands up reasonably well to hindsight” a condition that should be met before declaring an action “great”? Kennedy didn’t flunk missiles in Cuba, but the moment wasn’t a great one.

            And “Try making a deal before committing a public act of war against a hostile power armed with nuclear weapons” is not the sort of suggestion that you generally need hindsight to justify. Especially since it was on EXCOMM’s list of considered approaches, and there was no reason they couldn’t still have performed the “quarantine” if the Soviets had refused to cut a reasonable deal.

        • Source please, or is this your personal theorizing?
          I still think you’re being a little naive. Soviet subs may have been as. much of a threat as missiles in Cuba, but you’re overlooking the political aspect. No US prez would have got away with saying: ‘it’s not so bad really. They already have subs off Washington, so we’re all cool with Cuba right! ‘They would have lynched anyone at the time, especially a relatively young and inexperienced Democratic president. And we now know the Russian ICBM needed 24 hrs to even warm up.( not sure if that was known back then, of if it was hidden even from the Prez?)
          You give the Kennedy’s no credit for ignoring the first letter from NK ( which was a stroke of genius) nor for perhaps the real favour he did the world, ignoring the advise of his maniacle war hawks. No doubt the same is equally true of NK.
          edit: I don’t believe i claimed JFK’s claim to greatness rests soley on the CMC. You have to look at the total man.

          • 1) Not my theorizing; “diplomacy first” was on the list of EXCOMM options. Find, you know, any halfway decent scholarly book on the crisis written since the declassifications? (I don’t know, maybe there was something before then, too.) Say the second edition of Essence of Decision (Allison, 1999), which makes the clear point that whatever was driving the decision-making in the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it wasn’t rational thought.

            2) JFK didn’t have to say anything about the missiles until after trying diplomacy (much less announcing that they were fine), as amply demonstrated by the fact that he didn’t have to say anything for them for several days of not trying diplomacy.

            3) He couldn’t have gotten away with it? So, what, exactly, would have happened? You really think he’d have literally been lynched? Short of two thirds the Senate voting to impeach him, there was literally nothing that could legally be done if he said, “No, we’re not going to risk a nuclear war over something that hasn’t actually increased the risk to America”. Risking a nuclear war to avoid impeachment is hardly a profile in courage.

            4) How much credit do you give the guy who caused a crisis by his own asinine decision for not managing to incinerate the world in the process? Some, sure. But just some.

            5) Being less insane than the people he, as President, personally appointed to positions of national security prominence merely pushes the question back one step; why did JFK appoint them? Oh, and how many of those guys did he ask to resign, by the way, when they revealed themselves as maniacal war hawks?

            Yeah. “Did not push own mistakes as hard as possible” is something less than “handled with grace”.

            6) I wasn’t, beginning with my first post, addressing you rating him as great-because-of-whole-package in the other thread; I was addressing Colby couting the CMC as one of JFK’s moments of greatness. It wasn’t. It was a moment of stupid brinksmanship that fortunately didn’t backfire.

  7. Oh c’mon CC. One only has to take a boo at some of Kennedy’s speeches and it’s evident the man had something special. We’ll never know how the story might have ended[ JKG thought we might have avoided Vietnam] for him or for us.
    But Kennedy met the test of great man imo – just not a particularly good man. Compared to the plethora of fools, incompetents and charlatans that have followed him since, he’s holding up pretty well considering.

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Column+Obama+Kennedy/9181353/story.html

    I think it was Wordsworth who said: A glory has departed…[ maybe it was biblical?]

    • Speeches mean nothing. Only actions matter. I’ll stop before I violate Godwin’s Law.

      PS: The magic bullet theory can be debunked in seven words:

      Kennedy and Connolly weren’t sitting like that.

      http://www.cracked.com/article_20466_5-conspiracy-theories-that-are-shockingly-easy-to-debunk.html

      And re: the “mortal error” theory — the accused Secret Service agent sued that author for libel and all parties reached a confidential settlement. Alas, the agent is now deceased so the book/doc can be safely resurrected.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error:_The_Shot_That_Killed_JFK

      Is it really believable that none of the other agents would break down and admit that’s what happened, or that, maybe, the agent concerned might have drunk himself to an early death? I’ve seen Clint Hill talk about the assassination and decades later he still breaks down.

      • Isn’t that another way of saying “the accused Secret Service agent sued the author for libel but decided not to press for a judgment, having allowed the book to go through multiple printings”? And as far as I know, nobody is suggesting the event would have been any less upsetting if Donahue and Menninger are right. (Plus, Clint Hill is obviously in no position to have known firsthand who fired.)

        • You’re answering your own question: American libel law is pretty useless at the best of times, the fact that it’s basically speculating on an accident that wouldn’t really impact the reputation of anyone means that damages would be pretty low even if he won.

      • “Speeches mean nothing. Only actions matter. I’ll stop before I violate Godwin’s Law”

        Is that an attempt to conflate JFK with Adolph?

        Well it is a Kennedy blog so it’s only fitting it should attract the Queen of the SDA lunatic fringe. Can we expect Mark to drop by presently?

    • Nehru said it about Gandhi.

      • I know but it didn’t originate with him. For some reason i want to say WW but my poetry is a bit shaky these days.

        • And yet I know, wheree’er I go, that there hath passed away a glory from the earth. Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood by William Wordsworth (from memory, I didn’t look it up, so please excuse any misplaced apostrophes!)

          • But yet I know, where’er I go, That there hath pass’d away a glory from the earth.

          • Thank you. That was wonderful. I thought it might be the old sheep of the Lake District.

          • One of my favourite poems.

    • But yet I know, where’er I go, That there hath pass’d away a glory from the earth.

  8. Arrogant, in over his head, poor manager, narcissist, good at delivering prepared speeches.
    The similarities are eerie.

    • Let’s hope the big zero skips Dallas.

  9. Your comment “There are scenes in White House intern Mimi Alford’s 2012 memoir that make you wonder why it took so long for somebody to shoot the swinish bastard.” ruined your article – remember JFK was a father and no matter what did not deserve to suffer the fate he did. The loss of his last child oh 3 months prior to his death had a huge impact on him…he was changing….also an election was on its way…and he would have most likely lost the election…there was no need to kill him and destroy his family. Never judge another until you walk in their shoes…can you be so certain you would of behaved differently if you were raised with such wealth etc?

    • In my opinion, this is where LBJ comes in. If JFK was assured to lose the election, as you suggest, what would have happened to LBJ? See, unless he personally ran for election as a presidential candidate, what would the odds have been that he would have become the next president? Nil! Therefore, this fits in nicely into another conspiracy theory, suggested quite often, that he had some connection to the shooting of JFK.

  10. The event is momentous. I was only six and in grade 1 when it happened, and I remember it very, very well.

    And yes, I remember exactly where I was when his death was announced. Every single adult at my school was crying, nuns included.

    It changed everything really.

    America was a beautiful place in 63,.. very wealthy, very powerful, with the Greatest Generation firmly in the driver’s seat.

    • I’ve never understood the name ‘the greatest generation’…..but that was what people liked about JFK….his was a newer younger generation, full of energy and raring to go……and the tragedy was that he was shot down in mid-flight.

      For years the US was returned to the old men….Johnson, Nixon, Reagan….

      Now they have a chance for change again.

      • ‘Greatest Generation’ refers to the generation, both men and women, shaped by WWII.

        The last generation of real responsable adults, I guess.

        Compare Kennedy, despite his numerous faults, with the current inhabitant of the White House to get an idea of what I mean.

        • I know who it refers to….the generation that got us into the worst and the biggest war the world has ever seen,

          Not responsible, not great!

          Obama got in by a landslide, and will be remembered as one of their greatest presidents.

          • Yeah, right.

          • You’ll live to see it.

            And especially considering the mess Obama inherited, he’s doing a terrific job. You are concerned with your partisanship right today….he has to be concerned with a nation and it’s future.

          • “…And especially considering the mess Obama inherited…”

            Then managed to make an even bigger mess of it!

          • Actually things have improved immensely in the US…..which is why he won by a landslide.

            If he could run for a third term…..he’d win big again.

          • “…Actually things have improved immensely in the US…”

            Sorry what dreamworld are you orbiting at present? Right: the one with the robot plumbers and android gigolos…

          • Your backwardness is not my problem

          • `backwardness’ doesn’t even scratch the surface of your many problems, madam

          • I understand you are razzing me….I just don’t understand why. Is there some reason you want to appear a ‘dim-witted hick’ on here?

            And why are you discussing ME on an article about JFK?

          • not sure about `hick’ – but `dimwit’ describes you to a `t’. I explained already though: I take great pleasure deflating deluded self-important … people like yourself.

            It’s a public service, after all.

            As for the commentary, I don’t know that you’ve referred to the article once, except as a way of articulating some fan-girl infatuation with the present occupant of Kennedy’s office.

            Not sure why you think, thus, ignoring the article is some misdemenour.

          • Wow….not even a civil response…. now you’re the ‘dim-witted hick’ poster boy!

            I’m not interested in discussing me….or you for that matter.

            The article is about Kennedy.

            Ciao.

          • I’m not sure why you’re hiding behind the `civility’ b-s just now, when you’ve not observed common courtesy in a single post you’ve authored.

            No one else is interested in discussing you, either.

            The article is indeed about John F. Kennedy, the very subject you’ve failed to mention at any point.

            It’s not surprising: the last article propounded the myth of the angry white male… and you ended up discussing robot factories.

            I think you’re going to be continually disappointed, looking at the clock… waiting for the robot milkman to drop by.

          • If you don’t think I’ve talked about Kennedy, you haven’t read the thread.

            And why you’re blaming ME for robots I don’t know. If you’re not paying attention to robots in the world, no one can help you clue in. Actually you seem to be very much the angry white male.

            However, if you’re discussing ‘clocks’ and ‘milkmen’ you’re too old for it to matter. Ciao.

          • Don’t think I’ve blamed you for anything; ridiculed, yes. Blamed, not me!

            *if you’re discussing ‘clocks’ … you’re too old…* ???????

            You’ve even outdone yourself with non-sense now, Emmy.

          • *the generation that got us into the worst and the biggest war the world has ever seen*

            Really? because I thought it was a guy named Hitler who did that… someone born in 1889. It was the greatest generation (born circa 1920) who rescued the world from dominance by a guy born more than a generation earlier.

            Oh Emmy, stop being so damn entertaining, such a caricature of ignorance.

          • WWI and the treaty produced WWII….Hitler didn’t happen by himself.

            Now I’ve asked you nicely to stop attacking me and stick to the topics. But you can’t seem to manage it.

            So Ciao on any topic.

          • I’m not sure. You addressed the topic of the `greatest generation’ and so did I (accurately, in my case).

            are you saying you’re not actually sticking to the topic? It would seem so.

          • Topic is JFK….you’re talking about me instead.

            Plus, you don’t know what Ciao means.

          • … and you’re addressing the `greatest generation’.

            So we agree, you’re not on topic.

            btb, you’re free to not answer; you’ve said `chow’ more times than a cat (of which you have many, I’m certain).

          • Tom Brokaw called you that….I didn’t.

            But I am a Coot Magnet apparently.

          • Tom Brokaw has never called me, but then I’ve never called him either.

            I think it was Coupland who popularized the term `Generation X’, I don’t like it either but I guess I’m stuck with.

            I would think, too, that you would be happy to be considered a magnet, especially as you are surrounded by cats.

            Chow!

      • *I’ve never understood the name ‘the greatest generation’…*

        Just one of many things that eludes your understanding.

  11. Amid all the criticism of the Warren Commission’s ‘single bullet theory’ and the resulting conspiracy speculation, it is surprising so little has been made of the fact that the Zapruder film clearly shows Governor Connally was not hit by the first shot that struck President Kennedy. As the limousine emerges into view from behind the road sign we see JFK react to the first shot by raising both hands and Jackie reaches toward him, obviously to assist him. Connally, clearly visible directly in front of the President, shows no sign of being hit. He turns to his right to look behind him and then returns to facing forward. It is only a few seconds later, almost simultaneously with the fatal head shot, that Connally reacts as though he has been shot. The secret service agent directly behind the President said this in his sworn statement: “After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting and cheering. A disturbance… caused me to look forward toward the President’s car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head.” When all is said and done, the evidence shows at least two shots within less time than Oswald’s bolt action rifle alone could have fired.

    • this has all been gone over a thousand thousand times. no matter what way you try turn over the evidence, the only answer is that LH Oswald is the killer.

      • Please dont be such an evidently-illiterate and trusting boob, Glennie. READ! Try James Douglass’ book…or Mark Lane’s books. You’re apparently still buying the propaganda hook line and sinker. Ask yourself this: what national security issue can still be relevent 50 years later, that requires some of the evidence is kept from the public and wont be available for many years yet? Really? How about the likelihood that some of it might point to people alive in the day, but who would be dead when the info was finally published? Perhaps info that would really stir things up in the US if known?
        Critical thinking is not your strong suit I take it. Yeah, go ahead and let others tell you it was Oswald alone when there’s so much curiously odd stuff about it that clearly indicates something else happened.

        • No. Anyone who looks at the evidence, really looks at the facts as they are known, will conclude that Oswald is the killer. The only question that I ever had, was whether Oswald was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President. But, he wasn’t either. There’s no evidence for that, in spite of what you might have read in books published by Douglas or Lane or Thompson or Mars, or even the psychotic Jim Garrison.

          I will gladly state that these and other conspiracy narrators tell a much more compelling story than what the facts warrant. Fiction is always more interesting than fact. This is what these authors (perhaps excluding Josiah Thompson, who does try at least to stick to known facts) are spinning, that is a narrative, a fiction.

          `JFK’, for example, is one of the best films that Oliver Stone ever made (right behind `Natural Born Killers’). But it has as much to do with history as `Star Wars’ is representative of space travel.

          It’s really as simple as that.

          • Yes…it’s a simple as that…for any simpleton. As Garrison’s character in JFK says referring to the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission…’well, some of us still do read.’ I recommend you do the same. For those who have read extensively the books with opposing POVs, there’s an awful lot of smoke for something that’s not supposed to have any fire! I recall reading about a mock trial run by real lawyers (in Europe someplace, I believe). Turns out, they could NOT convict Oswald using the so-called facts presented by the Warren commission! Yet, Oswald, who probably was part of a program back in the day that sent ‘defecting’ Americans into USSR, gets the blame when it’s clear he appears more as the patsy. For a so-called traitor to the US, Oswald sure got back into America remarkably easily and faced no consequences whatsoever. Sounds like an operative to me. I’ve literally read dozens of books about the assassination and seen video and tons of other media because I’m a serious student of history and particularly of the JFK Assassination. Do me a favour. Read the books I’ve recommended and esp. watch the Howard E. Hunt deathbed confession, Ruby interview film, et al…then tell me they’re full of it…and explain why. Good luck.

          • Yes, we’re all simpletons, that’s the explanation.

            I will, however, assert that you have not read a single word of those twenty-six volumes; I doubt if psychotic Jim Garrison ever did either. I have, however, actually read the Warren report in its entirety. Have you?

            As for the `mock trial’, that’s a real command of the facts you have friend (`…. it was held somewhere in Europe…’). It was in Britain; and guess what, they brought in a verdict of guilty!

            As for Oswald being `part of a programme’… how many Americans defected to the USSR at that time? What evidence is there for this programme? There isn’t any evidence because it didn’t exist.

            As for the Ruby film, I must conclude that you are dishonest or did not see the whole thing. When he talks about `conspiracies’, he’s also alleging that guards at the jail he was kept were attempting to poison him while he slept.

            He was, in other words, as psychotic as that Jim Garrison.

            I will give you advice, which you will ignore, but I will provide it anyway: you must disabuse yourself of the conceit that everyone but yourself lives in benighted ignorance of facts of the murder of Kennedy by Oswald; people have looked at the evidence and come to the opposite conclusion as you. I believe that’s the only conclusion, but hey, it’s a free country and you can believe the opposite.

          • I’ve got a paperback of the Warren Report. Read it. Not impressed. One in a million might have the 26 volumes…and I certainly didn’t buy them when I was only 10!

            RE your comment about my trial in Europe ‘[my]command of the facts’: Guess what…Britain IS part of Europe (and it’s not just some recent event you missed either…been that way since Europe was first invented by a group of non-conspiratorial gnomes). 3 of those 12 jurors thought there was a conspiracy and 2 were undecided about conspiracy (a significant split). That’s a hung jury. Regardless, I believe there was a different trial that I was referencing or perhaps my memory on that one just failed. No doubt you googled the mock trial and didnt have a clue that Britain’s in Europe.

            In any event, the fake defector program would have been a logical step for intelligence and the details certainly would have been held top secret – perhaps that evidence exists in the material still being kept from the public for 75 years (something you accept as somehow normal!). Oswald had many contacts to people in intelligence like Bannister, Ferry and Shaw. Oswald had top secret clearance when in Japan. While in the military, Oswald also learned to be operationally fluent in Russian.

            Re Ruby’s filmed comments: I viewed the whole thing and what the frack do you know regarding what was done to him in an easily-controlled environment like prison!? If Ruby had a big truth to tell, no doubt he’d be concerned about being offed. Therefore, he had natural suspicions of being poisoned that he was venting when he spoke out (also as a way to get sympathy so he would be removed to DC). And now Ruby’s ‘psychotic’ you say? Interesting. So he’s a lone nut eliminating the other lone nut! Man you’re way too brilliant for us.

            Ruby was desperately trying to get to DC to feel safe so that he could speak his knowledge of events. They refused to do so…even for the last and most important living key witness, no less! If there were a conspiracy, Ruby’s easy access in prison is exactly what the conspirators would want. Instead, Warren & Ford could have taken Ruby to DC or had him transferred there, recorded all he had to say there and then send him back. Instead they make some lame excuse why they couldn’t. #fail.
            You’re right about free choice, you have the right to look at all the myriad things that point to conspiracy and still ignore them; in that you’re exemplary!

          • Entirely hilarious! I predicted exactly that you would assert that – in lieu of anything substantive to retort – that Britain is part of Europe!

            In Britain they often refer to `Europe’ as being apart from the U.K. It is semantics in any case. Britain is an island *off* Europe, not on the continent. My point was more so about your command of the facts: i.e., `In Europe some place they had a mock trial’.

            As to the defector programme, your language `would have been logical for the CIA to set one up’ and so on, confirms that yes, you have no evidence there was such a programme.

            Again, absolutely no evidence that Oswald defected for reasons other than what he claimed to have. No evidence he knew Guy Bannister, David Ferry (other than, years earlier, the latter posed in a picture with Oswald at some kind of sea scouts thing or something), or the poor old quire Clay Shaw, who just wanted to live his lifestyle in peace after having fought hard for his country during World War II, decorated for bravery not only by the U.S. but also France and Britain, and instead he’s hounded to bankruptcy and an early grave all for the psychotic vainglory of the Garrison mentality.

            Moving on to Jack Ruby: he’s not `now’ a psychotic because he died in 1967. He was during his lifetime completely psychotic, a violent bully who would move to fisticuffs at the drop of a hat.

            As for `what was done to in the easily controlled enviro of the prison’, do you have some evidence that he was poisoned – nor yet that his jailers (as he alleged at one point) were attempting to kill all the Jews? No, you don’t. Perhaps you believe the tumour that killed him was planted by the CIA, as well.

            And yes, there are plenty of lone nuts out there. One of them just a year ago entered a school in Connecticut and shot down twenty children – or was that a conspiracy, too, as some have alleged? Oswald was a lone nut; Ruby, at least, appeared to have friends, but any evidence suggests that he too acted alone.

            Got anything else?

          • My aren’t you the dumbassed psychic. Europe is Europe and all the islands within its boundaries count as part of the continent of Europe, fool. Britain is part of Europe, period. What a typically stupid rejoinder from you to quibble over nothing of substance. Yes, I had heard of a mock trial and what a big deal that I could only remember the continent not the country! Oooo-you consider THAT a debating point!? What of substance have YOU ever said to any of my points. Zip. Still waiting for your ‘expertise’ in physics so you can debunk the head snap and virtually everything else mentioned. Indeed, nothing makes the least sense to a Lone Nutter like you who misses the obvious importance of finding David Ferry in a photo with Oswald at a Civil Air Patrol camp. Hey…apparently it’s just another one of the many truly astonishing coincidences in all this, eh?

            Re Shaw: what’s a ‘quire’…perhaps you meant ‘queer’? And what does Shaw’s service have to do with anything? Indeed, how is his service pertinent to the suit brought against him?

            Re Bannister: Ex-FBI agent Bannister was in the very same building as Oswald and his Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Yeah, I’m sure that was just another amazing coincidence. I think it’s far more likely (a lot more than any Lone Nutter could ever possibly grasp), that they knew each other and their presence in New Orleans at that time was not some fantastic coincidence. If I had a eidetic memory I would recall where I saw that fact established, but I dont.

            Re Ruby: You’re a poor judge of character. You apparently believe Ruby’s initial crap about saving Jackie a return to Dallas for Oswald’s trial. Yeah right. Once in jail, Ruby at his interview was very measured in front of Warren & Ford, asking only to be taken to Washington DC where the commission could ‘get a fair shake out of me’. His comments were heavily insinuating more could be learned…but, sadly, Ruby didn’t realise they were not actually after the truth there.

            Dont confuse non-related events like the horror in Connecticut (where you say some kind of conspiracy was asserted by someone) to mean that those who accept there was a conspiracy in the JFK murder are automatic believers that everything bad must be a conspiracy. Only a dolt like you would insinuate that’s the view of all those sincerely seek after the truth in the JFK Assassination.

            Yes, unfortunately, Lone Nuts are capable of shooting children…how in hell is that relevant to the murder of the most powerful man on the planet, genius? Motive is hard to ascribe there…not so much when it comes to a change of administration during the Cold War years. It’s called a coup d’etat. From the moment of JFK’s murder, the Vietnam war was on again, making hordes of military manufacturers very wealthy. From the moment of JFK’s murder, LBJ’s being dropped from the ticket for the 2nd term, became irrelevant. So much I could say just from memory, but why bother…you’re really just a Lone Nutter waste of time who doesn’t want to know the truth because it might be uncomfortable and horrible to consider.

            Do you know anything re LBJ’s issues before that Lone Nut ‘lucky break’ made him president?

            Do you know anything about Hinckley’s ‘curiously coincidental’ connections wrt his shot at Reagan?

            Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? I thought so.

          • Glennie: my apologies for allowing my passion for JFK’s fine leadership and my evidently high regard for the man, get muddied by my angry retorts with you. I always hope to control that, but, too often fail. From my POV, it gets frustrating when others accept what I consider a foul whitewash and an evident coup d’etat. So…sorry about the tone of my reply(s). If you feel it worthwhile, here’s a link to a very interesting website with interesting ‘facts’ (I put the quotes on because there are no footnotes supporting the info in this instance). Still, if they are correct, it’s more than just a tad curious (to me at least):

            http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.ca/2009/10/jfk-assassination-trivia.html

            In the spirit of the season, I’d like to wish you and yours the best. We will probably never agree on the conspiracy-or-not question, but we have a right to our own beliefs however we arrive at them.

            Cheers & Merry Christmas!

          • that’s fine, I’m a big boy and I’m sure you’re a fine gentleman.

            I disagree with your point of view but I do uphold the right for you to hold such opinions.

            as for Kennedy himself, lots of people have been disagreeing about his relative goodness in the presidency, but the truth is I don’t find much of what he actually did in office by any means objectionable.

            I will conclude by returning your Season’s Greetings.

            Good luck and take care.

  12. Another typical “modern day” writer, trying to impose his limited knowledge of a man and an era through black and white rhetoric. I guess that’s fine for some, but doesn’t meet the litmus test for an informed opinion. This article belongs to the Enquirer genre of magazines, with its street slang. Macleans, you can do better than this hack…….

  13. I rather like this theory – that JFK wanted to control the money in the US instead of letting the banks do it, as told in http://www.michaeljournal.org/lincolnkennedy.htm .

    Whatever the truth is, who on earth has time to delve into it with so many other conspiracies and questions left unanswered, that take so much energy and time to explore. Where is the brain, why did the xrays disappear, how could anyone think that killing LHO was a good thing to do?

  14. “…We now understand the conquest of the moon as an expensive, beautiful art project…”

    An amazing feat of engineering was the moonshot – one could also describe it as the world’s most expensive science project.

  15. “global distaste for American imperialism” so where was the American empire? The British, French, Dutch, and Spaniards had empires. Czarist Russia and Bolshevik Russia had an empire. The entire idea of American imperialism is merely a marxist talking point, unsupported by any facts.

    • A thousand bases around the world, and invasions of a multitude of countries…..and that’s just in the half century since the war.

      Marx has been dead since 1883…long before American pretensions to global empire.

      • *Marx has been dead since 1883…long before American pretensions to global empire.*

        She / he did say `Marxists’, not Karl Marx. Unfortunately, the former didn’t die along with the latter.

        In any case, Avory is correct, there is no American `empire’.

        • Not anymore….it’s breaking up.

          • there never was one – well maybe following the Spanish American war, but that was piddling thing compared to what the Europeans had going in Africa and Asia.

            no matter, Emily, you’re wrong again.

          • Currently a thousand bases around the world.

            Biggest military in the history of the planet.

            Don’t talk rubbish.

  16. I read everything and the question that Stone asked that is still the most important is why was Kennedy shot? Answer that and you identify the killer/killers?

    • How do you propose to find out why he was shot before you identify the killers? You’ve accidentally captured the really dumb part of conspiracy theories quite well there.

      • Jeez Cosh, talk about dumb!! Dont you think that if JFK’s murder was due to a conspiracy formed by powerful interests, that the shooters would be so far removed from the sponsors that they’d be just as much in the dark as the general public were re their identity?! The dumb part of all this is: since it’s nearly impossible to prove a negative…it only gets more difficult to get at the truth when those with a deficit of critical thinking, keep extolling the lone-nut patsy POV (regarding political change) to the gullible. Coup d’etats have happened throughout history, but only in the USA do coups always seem to come at the hands of some lone, disturbed individual. I guess all those powerful people who hated JFK were simply the lucky beneficiaries of happenstance; how fortunate that some lone nut stepped up to remove the hated JFK administration for them! Dont be so bloody naive! Have you read James Douglass book, Cosh? Read it: “JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters”. Then tell me you still think it unlikely there was a conspiracy to remove JFK.

  17. …a severe trial for the ordinary news consumer under the age of 60, who cannot help being sick to death of Kennedy hagiography.

    Cosh you wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper, those of us over 60 are even sicker of toxic emissions from the 1960s. We’ve had to suffer them longer and had to watch as they spread like bedbugs. If you’re fed up with it after only 20 or 30 years of exposure, how do you think we feel?

  18. Contemptible – the moon landing as art project. Do people forget we got five sample returns? Thanks to them, we know how the Moon formed, and not a little now about how the Earth formed as well. It is knowledge we simply would not have without the rocks we got back.

  19. All I can say to the naysayers (the woefully ill-informed, overly trusting or just plain lamentable fools) is: read more about that time in history and THEN apply whatever intelligence you have to all the things you’ll discover suggesting the official story is a pantload.
    To those who think Oswald alone assassinated Kennedy (when there was plenty of evidence that he was indeed the ‘patsy’ he said he was), then please answer this: How does a bullet, hitting with the force of a sledgehammer blow to JFK’s head, move that head TOWARDS the location the bullet was supposedly fired (ie the School Book Depository)!? Look at the Zapruder film and tell me what happened to ordinary physics on that particular day! The fatal shot sent JFK’s head violently and qwickly backwards and to the left…which points unambiguously to a shot that EVIDENTLY came from the front and right of the limo somewhere (maybe the grassy knoll, maybe the overpass area).
    Please get your thick heads out of the sand (and that goes especially for you, Colby) and do some serious research on your own; don’t be so damned lazy! Read ANY of the books by Mark Lane (they are filled with info that’s generally not widely-known). There are lots of details about the event that most don’t know. Read James Douglas’s book “JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters”…it’s really brilliant. There are many other books confronting this historic event that are well worth a read. So read them before you prattle on! At the same time, there are certainly plenty of books written by kooks re some conspiracy angles too…I’ve read a few myself…(like Menninger’s book about the secret service (SS) agent accidently discharging his weapon from behind in the SS car) and there are also ones supporting the Warren Commission BS (like Posner’s and Bugliosi’s books). But yes, there are quite a number of well-researched books by scholars whose research and opinions are not fluff nor extolling some wild-assed theory to sell a book. Find out more for yourself THEN express a reasoned opinion in forums like this.
    While you’re at it, Google the numerous live and in-the-moment, eye-witness accounts from the day; Google Howard E. Hunt’s Deathbed confession re the conspiracy (curious how a Watergate operative ties into the event); Google Jack Ruby’s filmed interview where he clearly points towards a broader conspiracy. Google LBJ’s mistress’ (ie Madeline Brown) interview concerning what LBJ told her the day before JFK was killed. Google the Miami racist, Joseph Milteer’s, foreknowledge of the assassination in a secretly taped interview with an FBI informant named Willie Somersett (taped 13 days before the actual assassination)…and while you’re at it, Google a picture captured of Milteer…HE’S RIGHT THERE IN DEALEY PLAZA for the event – (it’s been confirmed he wasn’t at home back in Quitman, Georgia on the day – he perished in a house fire in ’74). Compare the known photo of Milteer to the crowd shot taken in the kill zone for yourself. If it isn’t the racist Milteer himself standing right there with his arms crossed, then he has an amazing doppleganger out there who just happened to be where the predicted assassination took place. Yeah right just some coincidence eh? Google the testimony of the Parkland Hospital doctors (the first ones to see JFK after his murder); they saw JFK’s throat wound as a a perfectly round and small bullet entry (not an exit) and they all noted the obvious damage to THE BACK of JFK’s head where the force of the bullet blast blew it out. Dont you think that a shot from behind (where Oswald was supposedly situated) would’ve entered the back of the head, all neat and round then, fragmenting inside, blow out the FRONT of JFK’s head!? Ask yourself why the limo that JFK rode in (which contained all kinds of important evidence such as bullet fragments and interior damage from bullet strikes) was promptly sent off to Ford in Detroit by someone in authority to be immediately and quietly refurbished, completely bypassing any kind of investigative scrutiny!? That car was evidence! Ooops, I guess they just FORGOT to preserve it’s evidenciary value in what was easily the biggest American murder in recent history. Sure. In Detroit, they cleaned out the bloody interior and replaced the windshield (which in several photos clearly show that a bullet or fragment had struck it!) Read people…then give us your new opinion, otherwise you only pollute the path that tries to uncover the truth with more BS! Like they say, if you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem!

    Kennedy wrote a book called ‘Profiles in Courage’ in the 50s. It won the Pulitzer Prize. The theme was historic occurrences of political courage, something JFK had plenty of! And no, I dont think it really matters that JFK had mistresses; practically every US president (and world leaders) including Ike had a mistress…or even several – so what? More than 50% of men AND women have affairs (just an unfortunate reality). What really matters here was JFK’s vision: Peace. JFK stood by West Berlin and instituted the airlift which saved the city from Soviet absorption; JFK’s efforts lead to the first nuclear disarmament agreement with the USSR. JFK’s last executive order, just before he was assassinated (and perhaps the one that finally got him killed) was to remove the first 1000 troops from Vietnam before Christmas, the one he never lived to see. Then, after JFK was brutally murdered, LBJ’s FIRST executive order was to rescind JFK’s ordered troop withdrawal (50,000+ Americans and even more Vietnamese died as a consequence). JFK set a more enlightened stage for international competition and/or cooperation, than always resorting to war: the Space Race. That space effort created all kinds of jobs, technology and plenty of spirit. JFK had the courage to print money that was based on the US’s gold & sliver reserves, bypassing the Fed Bank and their interest charges that added hugely to US debt (angering a wealthy and very powerful elite). JFK also angered the wealthy oil barons by removing their cherished oil depletion allowance. JFK was hard-lined with the steel companies to freeze their prices in aid of the US economic recovery. JFK, through his brother RFK, went after organized crime – J. Edgar Hoover (the self-serving idiot) maintained the Mob did not even exist in America! JFK angered southern bigots with his efforts to desegregate. I can go on and on, but I hope those of you reading this, will actually take the time to do your own research about the man and the tragedy of Nov. 22nd…and then, weigh in, give us an educated opinion (one closer to the obvious reality) re JFK. I’ll happily debate any of you…after you remove your brain from the darkness where you’ve kept it. And you really ought to smarten up Cosh! You in particular I’d love to debate…you’re supposed to be the freakin’ journalist. Do some research. READ!!

    • How does a bullet, hitting with the force of a sledgehammer blow to JFK’s head, move that head TOWARDS the location the bullet was supposedly fired (ie the School Book Depository)!?

      because it didn’t; examine the zapruder loop and you see the particulate matter from the president’s skull, shoot forward and away to the left – just as you expect given that Oswald shot him from behind and to his right. All very macabre this particular aspect of the thing, but that’s what happened.

      *Read ANY of the books by Mark Lane (they are filled with info that’s generally not widely-known). *

      yes, and for the good reason that he made it up.

      *There are lots of details about the event that most don’t know.*

      anyone who has looked at the actual facts, is quite familiar with them.

      *At the same time, there are certainly plenty of books written by kooks re some conspiracy angles too*

      they all are (except possibly Josiah Thompson’s).

      *While you’re at it, Google the numerous live and in-the-moment, eye-witness accounts from the day; Google Howard E. Hunt’s Deathbed confession re the conspiracy (curious how a Watergate operative ties into the event); Google Jack Ruby’s filmed interview where he clearly points towards a broader conspiracy. Google LBJ’s mistress’ (ie Madeline Brown) interview concerning what LBJ told her the day before JFK was killed. Google the Miami racist, Joseph Milteer’s, foreknowledge of the assassination in a secretly taped interview with an FBI informant named Willie Somersett (taped 13 days before the actual assassination)…and while you’re at it, Google a picture captured of Milteer…HE’S RIGHT THERE IN DEALEY PLAZA for the event – (it’s been confirmed he wasn’t at home back in Quitman, Georgia on the day – he perished in a house fire in ’74). Compare the known photo of Milteer to the crowd shot taken in the kill zone for yourself. If it isn’t the racist Milteer himself standing right there with his arms crossed, then he has an amazing doppleganger out there who just happened to be where the predicted assassination took place. Yeah right just some coincidence eh? Google the testimony of the Parkland Hospital doctors (the first ones to see JFK after his murder); they saw JFK’s throat wound as a a perfectly round and small bullet entry (not an exit) and they all noted the obvious damage to THE BACK of JFK’s head where the force of the bullet blast blew it out. Dont you think that a shot from behind (where Oswald was supposedly situated) would’ve entered the back of the head, all neat and round then, fragmenting inside, blow out the FRONT of JFK’s head!? Ask yourself why the limo that JFK rode in (which contained all kinds of important evidence such as bullet fragments and interior damage from bullet strikes) was promptly sent off to Ford in Detroit by someone in authority to be immediately and quietly refurbished, completely bypassing any kind of investigative scrutiny!? That car was evidence! Ooops, I guess they just FORGOT to preserve it’s evidenciary value in what was easily the biggest American murder in recent history. Sure. In Detroit, they cleaned out the bloody interior and replaced the windshield (which in several photos clearly show that a bullet or fragment had struck it!) Read people…then give us your new opinion, otherwise you only pollute the path that tries to uncover the truth with more BS! Like they say, if you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem!

      ah to ‘ell with.

      • Your comment about the head shot splatter deftly ignores the whole sledgehammer blow’s force imparted by a bullet traveling at 2000 ft per minute. If you want to convince anyone re your POV, then you might try to just as deftly answer that physics curiosity instead of sidestepping it. OR, perhaps you might try getting a friend to sledgehammer your noggin to see if there’s anyway in Hell you’re head will immediately be thrown back violently in the direction of the blow! Yeah…good luck with that.
        No…instead, you choose to inanely argue about a subjective thing (splatter interpretation) to point out the shot direction rather than the vastly more reliable evidence of JFK’s violent head snap…back and to the left. To me, that miracle of physics has always been the key that nobody has answered satisfactorily (least of which you) in defence of the idiotic lone gunman BS story. Remember: the Zapruder film was kept from the public for about a decade…probably because it clearly shows the results of a shot from the front. You’re terribly naive, buddy. In any event, re that spike of debris: it shoots upwards and very slightly forward; it’s purported ‘leftness’ is impossible to attribute in a 2-dimensional film (and you should bloody well know it). Moreover, those two outrider motorcycles to the left rear of the limo were seriously splattered with JFK’s watery brain matter and blood…but not the outriders on the right…nor were the occupants of the limo (sitting forward of JFK) splattered with much of his brainstuff (which would be expected if it were a shot from the rear). Good thing you’re not a detective.
        Lane’s first book ‘Rush to Judgement’ was one of the earliest written. The facts were certainly NOT ‘made up’. Indeed, Lane’s info was gleaned from witnesses whose memories were sharper being closer to the event and of course they were also interviewed well before the curiously numerous and utterly mysterious deaths of so many key witnesses occurred. He reveals all kinds of evidence pointing to the actual truth. Douglass’ book does very good job to explain the reasons JFK’s death matters.

        And how does your final comment ‘ah to ‘ell with.’ successfully answer my suggestions re watching the taped interviews available on YouTube that exist for anyone to view? Have you seen them? Sounds like you haven’t and that you probably wont (because it seriously contradicts your POV). Tell me why these folks would lie? Much as conspiracy theorists so often get slammed…you deftly ignore whatever evidence doesn’t suit your stubbornly-stupid lone gunman POV. RFK Jr. himself has said he believes there was a conspiracy as did his father. Ya, you just keep on believing the fairy tale that some lone nut offed JFK and that all his many enemies had nothing whatsoever to do with it…how conveeeeeenient for them, eh.

        • oh where to start.

          I sidestepped no `physics curiosity’; I stated what is evident on the film, that the president’s remains shoot forward and not back, as would be the case if there were a gunman on the so-called ‘grassy knoll’. The physics of this is that Mr Kennedy’s cerebral matter was forcibly ejected from his skull, cause an equal reaction in the other direction, that is `back and to the left, back and to the left…’

          I will restate that this is very macabre aspect of the whole sad case, and it seems to me that the conspiracy narrators (you’re not `theorists’) take an untoward fascination in the exact manner of Kennedy’s death, almost as though they enjoy watching the thing again and again, in and of itself, rather than any `scientific’ curiosity they may have with it…

          I will ask, are you certificate holder in physics? Do you have qualification in this field whatsoever? If not, well…

          As for the Zapruder loop `being kept from the public’, yes, Time Life did not choose to publish it, for the good reason that no one wanted to see their president’s head being shot off by Oswald from the book warehouse. On the other hand, bootleg copies of the film were shown long before 1975, so it was known to the public long before then.

          *Moreover, those two outrider motorcycles to the left rear of the limo were seriously splattered with JFK’s watery brain matter and blood*

          No, they weren’t. Please provide exact citations for this assertion.

          *…but not the outriders on the right*

          ummm, yes because Kennedy’s remains shot toward the left.

          As for the other occupants, you can see that yes, Jackie Kennedy was indeed pristine and free of blood after her husband was murdered right in front of her eyes.

          *Lane’s info was gleaned from witnesses whose memories were sharper being closer to the event and of course they were also interviewed well before the curiously numerous and utterly mysterious deaths of so many key witnesses occurred. He reveals all kinds of evidence pointing to the actual truth*

          It is a piece of crap; a compendium of distortion and half truth.
          As for `witnesses,’ simply compare what they say right after ward, with their stories a few years later, then some years later, then decades later… and of those who alleged conspiracy, the stories always slide into that narrative.

          Meanwhile, the witnesses present whose testimony comports with the truth of Oswald’s guilt, are ignored or attacked by the `assassination community’, which is an unwittingly apt title for these conspiracy narrators, as their central vocation is the character assassination of anyone who would get in the way of their fables as to what occurred on Nov 22, 1963.

          `to hell with it’, means life’s too short.

          Listening to conspiracy fabulists such as yourself, reminds of the pathological liars that I’ve had the misfortune to encounter in my life. A different name for this type of person is `fabulist.’ The more colloquial term is `bullsh*itter’.

          In my experience, the `bs’er’ is never caught in a direct lie. It is simply the accumulation of `bs’ that forces his auditor to say, `No. What you are saying is not the truth.’

          So, as for your final paragraph, it is all `bs.’ Howard Hunt’s `deathbed confession’, for example – the one made to his son, St John, the latter of whom faced hardship throughout his life (according to a `Rolling Stone’ mag `scoop’ on this particular subject St John was so badly off that his furniture consisted of lawn chairs), and was transparently looked for money with his story of a note purportedly written by his father, that of course he wouldn’t then and never has produced.

          I’m reminded, when reading conspiracy narrators such as yourself, of the gnostic: the latter doesn’t believe what he sees, he sees what he believes. The conspiracy fabulist’s constant refrain is, just that, `Who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes.’

          So yes, to hell with it.

          • I dont know what dang film you’ve watched, but it’s certainly NOT the Zapruder film. How can you claim YOU know better, when YOU dont even get the simplest pertinent details right!? Your first mistake (and a bloody idiotic error at that) was the early comment in your reply…you said:
            ‘I stated what is evident on the film, that the president’s REMAINS SHOOT FORWARD AND NOT BACK, as would be the case if there were a gunman on the so-called ‘grassy knoll’.’
            OMG – are you completely daft!? JFK’s REMAINS did NOT shoot FORWARD! The Grassy Knoll, relative to where Zapruder was standing when he took the historic film was behind Zapruder and to his right. In other words, Zapruder was ahead of, and to the right of, JFK’s limo. A shot FROM THE KNOLL, therefore, coming from AHEAD (NOT behind) of the president’s travel…and to JFK’s right, would naturally knock the presidents head violently in the opposite direction…ie BACKWARD and to the LEFT! How do you miss this stuff?! Here’s the Zapruder link to the film you’ve never seen nor understood:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq1PbgeBoQ4
            Oswald was in the School Book Depository, up 6 storeys, almost directly BEHIND the limo and a tiny bit to the right of JFK’s position. That means Oswald would have seen the back of JFKs head only. You must be directionally dyslexic!
            If, however, by ‘remains’ you meant that ambiguous word to mean the bit of bullet-caused spray then SAY spray. And that needle-like spray that stands out only indicates a piece of skull (most probably) got sprung vertically and a shot from either direction could have generated that. On the other hand, if that thing had ejected directly back in the direction of the knoll shot, then perhaps you might have something.
            Of course the film is macabre, and yes, those of us well-read enough to understand that a coup d’etat took place, obviously DO NOT choose to avoid the unpleasant, horrific and important evidence in that film – not if we ever hope to know what POV makes more sense. As I said, it seems clear that you’ve never actually viewed the film because of the blatant error in your original description of JFK’s ‘remains shooting forward’. Grow some stones and actually watch the film…not to feed any ‘morbid fascination’ of yours, but because you really need to flush out that BS story you’ve fervently glued to your mind.
            The forcefully-violent kick backwards and towards the left of JFK’s head CANNOT be produced by the jet of jello-like brain matter being ejected such that it would counteract the power of the original sledgehammer blow of the bullet. Yes, I took physics, did you? What are your creds? On that score I can guess we’re likely on an equal footing, so your point was…pointless. Where it differs is that you dont seem to know where the purported shot locations are relative to the film’s POV!
            Re the public knowledge of the film: What a pantload! Extremely few from the general public saw any bootlegs of the Zapruder film before Geraldo aired a bootleg copy on TV to millions (not hundreds) for the first time back in the 70s.
            Your dumb comment re Jackie being ‘pristine and free of blood’ singles you out for Full Moron status. Congrats re your upgrade from woefully misinformed. Jackie was pretty broadly covered with JFK’s brain and blood! Google the photos of Jackie from the day. She even refused to remove the pink, blood-splattered and soaked dress worn for LBJ’s swearing in on Air Force One at Love Field. She did that, as she said ‘so ‘they’ could see what ‘they’ did to her husband!’ Check the photos esp. note the blood spots on her right arm and the lap of her skirt (her stockings were fairly covered also). Yeah…you have the facts…in much the same way as worms have armpits.
            Re witnesses: just listen to the comments that Bill Newman made on the day (NOT years later): http://themanfrom2063.com/interview-bill-newman-eyewitness-jfk-assassination/

            Newman and his wife were famously photographed (& filmed) lying down on the grass next to the assassination point, protecting their two young boys…about 20 feet from the limo when JFK was hit. Newman said the shot came from behind them on the grassy knoll and he was in the military with experience of gunshots.

            Re the outriders: you think it natural that the kill shot that blew out the RIGHT side of Kennedy’s head, and coming FROM BEHIND(!), would NATURALLY(!) have drenched the LEFT side motorcycles! Yeah that makes sense. Your logic is impressive…assuming you’re a gerbil.

            You talk about E Howard Hunt’s deathbed confession being just some mysterious paper note that was never actually publicly produced and you also dress it up with all kinds of irrelevant crap about his son, St. John, being poor. OK then. Would an audiotape of E Howard Hunt’s voice with his confession about the so-called ‘Big Event’ perhaps satisfy a thick-headed gerbil like you then? Listen to this link:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsBiVJsgzmI
            You’ve evidently done NO real personal research yourself; you just ape the stupid talking points you’ve heard from the fools muddying the waters of this historic event. Therefore, you are part of the problem…not part of the solution. Assuming you do actually check these telling links to photos, testimony and audio I’ve provided, I’d be curious to know whether you still adhere to the epically-wrong Emperor-HAS-clothes POV. No doubt, you’ll find some dumbass way to dismiss anything that points away from your inflexible beliefs and towards a likely conspiracy.

          • First, a tip friend, your text would be more legible if you put spaces between paragraphs.

            I will, too, ignore your insults. It is, after all, par for the course for the `assassination community’, who are as a group (as noted) devoted to character assassination of anyone who doesn’t go along with their narrative.

            Starting from the beginning: there’s only one Zapruder loop. Poor Mr Kennedy’s cerebral matter shoots forward, as occurred when Oswald shot him from behind.

            I say `remains’ because I don’t want to indulge in the apparent proclivity of the character-assassination community in forensic porn. This is what animates you folks, I believe, this fascination with viewing a poor unfortunate man’s head being blown off, again and again and again. So no, I’m not going to indulge you in that.

            Moving on to my comments about Jacqueline Kennedy: it is difficult to tell in text, I know, but I was being sarcastic, directed toward your own comment that no one else in the limousine had blood on them.

            As to the `outriders’: I’m sorry, where are they exactly? There are no motorcycles on the left or right of the president’s limo. I’ve viewed the Z. home-video probably a thousand times; but just in case I missed it, I just viewed it again. There was no `outriders’ to the right or left of the car at that point. And yes, at frame 313 the bullet from Oswald’s gun causes blood, flesh and cerebra to shoot forward, as per expectations.

            As for Bill Newman, you directed me to a link at a web site promoting an apparent science fiction novel. Not a good sign at all, but whatever. I will assume that his words are quoted correctly in full – with the character-assassination community, this is a big if, given their history of distorting witness testimony.

            He thus says that a shot `seemed’ to come from the `mound’ (presumably, this is what has come to be known among the character-assassins as the `grassy knoll’). This is all. What does he say later? Well, in an interview in 2012, he says he simply `doesn’t know’ if there’s a conspiracy. His wife in the same piece, essentially confirmed what I said, that many of those who were eyewitnesses to Oswald’s murder of Kennedy, have `embellished their stories.’

            In fact, he even says in that story that he never claimed that the shot came from the grassy knoll!

            http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20121109-couple-who-witnessed-jfk-assassination-recall-infamous-day-the-shots-rang-out.ece

            [from the story:]

            “It was the visual impact [of the fatal shot] that made me think the shot came down over our head,” he said. “In all honesty, I have no idea where the shot came from.”

            When an audience member asked if they thought Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone or was part of a conspiracy, the Newmans leaned on 49 years of hindsight.

            “I think you could take either position,” Bill Newman said. “I tend to think there was only one shooter, but I really don’t know.”

            [-30-]

            Friend, I’m really resisting the urge to gloat at this point.

            As for the Howard Hunt `confession’ tape, this `evidence’ is nothing as advertised. He makes a number of accusations at Kennedy’s successor and other CIA officials. Whoop de do

            No smoking gun, no nothing.

            Lastly, referred to `personal investigation’. How do you mean this? Did you speak to witnesses yourself? Are you a ballistics expert or physicist? Have you done any primary research at all. Or does your quest consist of nothing more than linking to the web site of a science fiction novel?

          • Fine. Paragraph spaces will be inserted.

            Re the insults: that’s all I’ve been getting from you re how the ‘assassination community’ supposedly operates, so buck up, you Lone-Nutter buttercup.

            ‘Forensic porn’: What a pantload to dismiss that vital filmed evidence as ‘forensic porn’ as if those in the assassination community get some perverse thrill viewing it (Guess what…that’s insulting, buttercup!). As I said, the headshot is indeed a macabre bit of film, and, to me, it is also perhaps the most telling evidence of a conspiracy. So it’s NOT bloody likely, I would ignore it’s importance and implications as you do.

            Clearly the film is an aid to anyone trying to understand what occurred…not helpful to those like you, Conspiracy Deniers, who want to believe that such a horrific thing could NEVER occur. Therefore, your ‘porn’ comment (which is insulting, buttercup) indicates this is evidence you’d ignore because a) you feel it’s forensic porn of the voyeur variety, and not worth any closer inspection…an inspection that might have revealed: Hey, Regerino is right… there ARE 4 motorcycle cops flanking the limo!! -Who knew! Or the relative positions of witnesses – hey when you’re a Lone Nutter, who cares about stuff like that, eh!? Or the tell-tale head snap consistent with a bullet from the front right that knocked JFK back and to the left…AND/OR…the likelihood: your willful ignorance is because b) you’re just too much of a milquetoast; therefore, it’s so much better for your tender sensibilities to rush to a conclusion that somehow the kill shot could have originated from behind…one that somehow made a big freaking hole in the back of JFK’s head where the bullet fragments exploded OUT of his head and splattered the motorcycle cop closest to the left rear of the limo (Hargis). Oh yes, the ‘official report’ pointing to a Lone Nutter is so much more preferable and calming against the possibility that a coup happened in the world’s leading democracy. Perhaps you’d try to convince Rome that Julius Caesar was killed by a Lone Nut?

            Re Newman’s testimony: Figures you’d depend on Newman’s REVISED testimony (given decades after the event) over what he said ON THE ACTUAL DAY! Apparently you on the Lone Nutter side of the equation are determined to find ‘proofs’ that bolster your POV (the same kind of selective evidence you accuse the assassination community of). Here’s a link to what Newman said ON THE VERY DAY on Dallas TV:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf3Y3uI6IHo
            I cant wait to hear how you dismiss his sense of the event RIGHT AFTER IT FREAKIN HAPPENED! I prefer to hear Newman giving his opinion IMMEDIATELY after the murder: he said there was a shot from behind them as they faced JFK’s limo. His later testimony sounds like it had been revised and evolved from their first impression, probably owing to the gov’t official report (Warren) claiming all the shots came from behind. A lot of witnesses started to doubt their recollections because of the official BS story contradicting it.

            Re outriders: There were two motorcycles per side riding just off the rear area of the limo in the Zapruder film. How could someone supposedly as careful with detail as you claim to be, view the film again and still miss seeing them? Let me know if you have looked yet again and finally spotted these four motorcycles…kind of hard to miss. Check the Nix film then. Perhaps anyone reading our debate will check for you and correct your faulty powers of discernment. In the meantime, it’s apparent that your blindness extends into the visual range as well as the conspiratorial. RE the point that one of the left rear motorcycle cops was splattered with brain and blood: The official testimony of Bobby W. Hargis (the motorcycle cop) was taken at 3:20 p.m., on April 8, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission. Here’s the link to the testimony of motorcycle outrider Bobby W. Hargis: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscaharg.htm
            Yes he WAS splattered! Satisfied now Glennie!? Of course not…it’s just more evidence you’ll ignore.

            Re Jackie: You said ‘pristine and free of blood’ re her condition…and now, that’s supposedly just well-disguised sarcasm on your part. Yeah right. OF COURSE there was blood on the Connolly’s from the governor’s own wounds predominantly. Btw, Connolly himself thought he was hit by a different bullet than JFK was before the kill shot arrived (contradicting the ‘magic bullet’ theory put forward by then-congressman Arlen Specter).

            By now, perhaps you’re reasoned correctly that you’ve got nothing to gloat about, Glennie. But, I already know your mind is set in concrete (which explains a lot about your deductive reasoning). You arrogantly dismissed the head snap as being the result of some freakish jet of brain matter exiting forward and to the left (instead of back and to the left), a jet of matter which somehow manages to counteract the sledgehammer blow effect a bullet would have on the skull striking from behind. Your opinion here, deftly and willfully ignores the Hargis testimony and that of those closest to the event.

            So…you listened to the dying words of E Howard Hunt and dismissed it with a ‘Whoop de do’! Am I surprised? No, you did exactly what any Lone Nutter/Assassination Denier would be expected to do: when it doesn’t fit the BS, belittle it. Hunt is dying and he’s clearing his conscience about a serious matter, but to the cranially-cemented, like you, it’s of no value whatsoever! LOL – Indeed, it’s dismissed with reliable arrogance! You similarly dismissed Ruby’s comments pointing towards a conspiracy, whereas his initial reasons for killing Oswald was supposedly to spare Jackie a return trip to Dallas to testify! I can only ever expect you to choose to ignore anything and everything that points away from your tidy Lone Nut scenario.

            By ‘personal investigation’ I meant I have read everything I find about the JFK assassination pro and con. No, of course, I did not interview the damned witnesses, Glennie. Did you? Once again, we’re on the same footing – so what!? Get real, Glennie. In the real world, most of us dont get the opportunity to run such interviews, so we take it that the books that do contain the testimony by those who studied and researched the event, tend to be accurate (if not, they could be sued – nothing there yet!). Most of the books I’ve read have footnotes so one can check the references. Whenever I checked these references I found them to be accurate. I’m certain you’d done nothing comparable. From all my readings, I gleaned a POV re the event…not based, as you did, that: well…if officialdom believes so fervently in the Lone Nutter scenario then it’s probably safe for me to believe it too. You don’t come across as anyone who even read the books by Lane and Douglass that I recommended. If you want to debate honestly then do some research and read these books before you arrogantly assess them as made up facts or deliberate lies. These books have footnotes for the claims made. You did not read those books did you? No of course you didn’t; you rely on other’s assessments re these books then adopt their slanted Lone Nutter POV re their value.

            I guess, once a Lone Nutter, always a Lone Nutter, eh? To you, JFK’s assassination occurred just as all such events should occur…by a single ‘Lone Nut’ malcontent. OMG – with your head stuck so faithfully in the sand, how do you keep all that sand out of your ears!? You dont – you are a dishonest and arrogant Conspiracy Denier…but I prefer the term ‘Lone Nutter’ to describe those too afraid to accept that the US government changed due to a coup by powerful interests…and clearly, if true, it’s clearly not something you ever want to know either. The dark is where you belong, Glennie.

  20. Bizarre that a Canadian journalist feels compelled to carry on US propaganda. Maybe the author sees it as a career boosting move? Here’s an idea that would make an interesting piece of investigative journalism: those journalists who choose to drop truth and integrity in favour of pushing propaganda, how do the make he decision to do so, and how much do they wrestle with the problem? Do they put the pieces together on their own that challenging the story can bring career ending consequences? Are hints dropped by editors? Do they get paid to push lies? Do they actually buy into the ‘stigma’ of being labelled a ‘conspiracy theorist’? Do any seriously believe that label has merit – or do they understand it is bullshit in private, but don’t know if the public takes it seriously, and so fight against getting that label like a child afraid his peers will judge him to have cooties? Do they care at all what they write and just do what they have to do to pay the bills – (not an unimportant reason)? Do these same journalist talk about the dilemma frankly with other journalists? This topic deserves a book.

    • but the end “probably” comment is a nice contrast to the most rabid insistence I’ve read in a while that the slightest doubt of the Warren report is nearly a form of mental illness. Maybe the article was written with tongue in cheek?

Sign in to comment.