Which JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theory Do You Prefer?

Anyone could of killed him, he went after every evil in the world, the official story is not the correct one, there's more too it....

I agree with Mark Lane that if LHO shot and killed Kennedy then the laws of physics weren't at work that day. CIA black op.

a reply to: CornShucker

The Zuprader film is missing 6 frames. That piece of evidence has been altered.

Which do I prefer? That's a horrible way to phrase it, but I digress...

I look at who had the most to gain...

Lyndon Baines Johnson. J. Edgar Hoover. Elements within CIA. Organized Crime. ...and various others within the military industrial complex, and the military itself.

The death of JFK rendered his brother Robert impotent as Attorney General. He was no danger until he became a threat to get into the White House...so he had to go, too.

None of these entities by themselves had the moxie to do the job. But an unholy alliance of some, or all, of these? That's something else entirely.

originally posted by: seagull
Which do I prefer? That's a horrible way to phrase it, but I digress...
-- snip --
None of these entities by themselves had the moxie to do the job. But an unholy alliance of some, or all, of these? That's something else entirely.

I gotta admit that I agree with your reaction as far as this thread's title. Once you title a thread, you can't go back (as far as I know). My impression was never that any disrespect was meant by it.

To your second point... I find it terribly sad and depressing, but I think you are 100% right when you suspect a full-on government alliance facilitated by the CIA but including compartmentalized groups of all of those suspected of being involved (including the Mafia and the CIA trained anti-Castro mercenaries).

They can say it takes a village to raise a child, but it takes a country to kill a president...

I've made the mistake of letting myself get mired down in John Newman's "Oswald and the CIA" and become a bit side-tracked. Originally I'd hoped to be able to incorporate parts in what I wanted to post next, but the format of how the "Agency" handled files and records back then makes it virtually impossible for me to lay out information that would be readable for the average person. After all, they were still depending on punch-card data entry back then.

Hopefully I'll have the info on the aborted Chicago trip in early November 1963 posted within the next few days. I've been concerned that the thread might be lost due to inactivity, but the Newman book sucked me in... If you can get past the arcane way they did things it's extremely interesting! When you compare the way Oswald's information was handled to that of other Americans in the Soviet Union, something just doesn't smell right when the CIA's image of Oswald's case is set alongside the case that the FBI and the Marines had on him. It's painfully obvious that he was NOT the loser/loner he was made out to be immediately after the assassination.

ETA:
JFK was seen in the eyes of the Cold Warriors as guilty of Treason for conspiring with the enemy to wage Peace. He paid for it with his life, but let there be no doubt...

Nuclear disaster was not prevented because of American bluster or fear of our country's military might. It was avoided by two men, John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev.

When Soviet Ambassador to the US, Anatoly Dobrynin, reported Robert Kennedy's words to Khrushchev, they nearly coincided with remarks from Castro.

RFK had said, "The President is in a grave situation and he does not know how to get out of it. We are under very sever stress. In fact we are under pressure from our military to use force against Cuba... We want to ask you, Mr. Dobrynin, to pass President Kennedy's message to Chairman Khrushchev through unofficial channels... Even though the President himself is very much against starting a war over Cuba, an irreversible chain of events could occur against his will. That is why the President is appealing directly to Chairman Khrushchev for his help in liquidating this conflict. If the situation continues much longer, the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power." [Covered in "Khrushchev Remembers" by Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev (p. 497-498) & "Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis" by Robert F. Kennedy (p. 561-562)]

Meanwhile the U.S. Air Force launched an ICBM from Vandenburg on 10-26-1962 (the day before the U-2 was shot down). While the unarmed missile was targeted for Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands, it isn't hard to see how easily this could have been misinterpreted by the Soviet Union. Just three days earlier Vandenburg had received a nuclear warhead and been placed on full alert. If the Soviets and responded, everything we had was armed and ready, DefCon-2. [Covered in "The Limits of Safety" by Scott Sagan (p. 79)]

American Strategic Air Command airborne-alert bombers intentionally flew past the routine return points toward the Soviet Union, something obvious to Soviet radar and a clear attempt at provocation... [Covered in "The General and World War III" by Richard Rhodes (p. 58-59)

Khrushchev had just received word from Castro that they considered a U.S. attack "almost imminent". [Covered in "Eye of the Storm by Carlos Lechuga (p. 88)

One needs to bear in mind that the Joint Chiefs had no way of knowing that there were actually live nuclear weapons at the ready in Cuba. That is one area where Khrushchev seriously miscalculated. He hadn't advertised the fact and we didn't know until the early '90s.

So just how close did we come to a full blown nuclear war? Not nearly close enough for our Cold Warriors. The biggest threat to the country that they saw was from a President lacking the b*lls to attack the Russians in Cuba.

On 10-19-62 the president met with the Chiefs and General LeMay argued strongly for an immediate attack on the Russian missiles. President Kennedy asked, "What do you think their reprisal would be?" LeMay stated there would be no reprisal as long as Kennedy warned Khrushchev that he was ready for a fight in Berlin, as well.

Admiral George Anderson spoke up in agreement and Kennedy's sharp reply was, "They can't let us just take out, after all their statements, take out their missiles, kill a lot of Russians, and not do...not do anything." [Covered in "Averting 'The Final Failure': John F. Kennedy and the Secret Cuban Missile Crisis Meetings" by Sheldon Stern (p. 123, 125)

a reply to: King Seesar

The official story is correct, but only as far as it goes.

Remember, the best lies always, always contain a kernel of truth. In this case? More than a little.

Oswald was involved. He just didn't know it was, ultimately, as a fall guy.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: King Seesar

The official story is correct, but only as far as it goes.

Remember, the best lies always, always contain a kernel of truth. In this case? More than a little.

Oswald was involved. He just didn't know it was, ultimately, as a fall guy.

Agreed...

This is one subject that is a bit like quicksand. The more you learn, the deeper you get sucked in.

I had heard of the Oswald look-alike over the years but never thought it worth investing much time in following up. Turns out that there was so much effort put into making sure the body double was seen in incriminating situations in the lead-up to the assassination that the Warren Commission wound up not being allowed to see any of it because it would be considered unbelievable.

Here we have another sub-plot that shows the ease with which someone serious about the assassination can get side-tracked trying to share what they've found in their research and be considered OCD by someone willing to accept simple explanations.

I think the best theory is that Oswald was being handled by the CIA. When I say CIA I don't mean the HQ building or the DCI, what I mean is, rogue elements within the CIA.

Oswald's narrative is too perfect, too convenient. But still, the contrived Oswald narrative was not enough for Gerald Ford, (not his real name), pardoner of Richard Nixon, who felt compelled to write and publish "Portrait of an Assassin", and this book basically amounts to Gerald Ford's calculated sand bagging for the Warren Commission.

Details, nagging details... like Marina coming from a certain Russian family... and the White Russian community in Texas... and how stupidly easy it was for Lee to migrate, expatriate, renounce his citizenship, get married and pretended to kill himself, and bring his new bride back to the USA and his first contact back in the states was...?

The above is one of the best basic overviews of the JFK assassination I have seen in awhile.I wanted to share this with y'all.

a reply to: mike dangerously

JFK is one event in a long sequence of events. I am starting to think the JFK narrative is a distraction from the Howard Hughes narrative in the 20th century, which includes, the Nixon rise to power, his downfall, his resurrection, his presidency & the fake Apollo moon landings, Watergate, Bay of Pigs, and Ford's pardon. This narrative of Nixon's ascendency to power is the bigger story... Nixon's exit from power is also a bigger story that doesn't include Watergate... it includes the movies he was watching during his presidency and the money he was getting from all sectors of the criminal conspiracy which elevated him to power.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: mike dangerously

JFK is one event in a long sequence of events. I am starting to think the JFK narrative is a distraction from the Howard Hughes narrative in the 20th century, which includes, the Nixon rise to power, his downfall, his resurrection, his presidency & the fake Apollo moon landings, Watergate, Bay of Pigs, and Ford's pardon. This narrative of Nixon's ascendency to power is the bigger story... Nixon's exit from power is also a bigger story that doesn't include Watergate... it includes the movies he was watching during his presidency and the money he was getting from all sectors of the criminal conspiracy which elevated him to power.

Yeah, Nixon's past is pretty murky... It says a lot that he had his meeting at Pepsi Cola and left Dallas by way of an early appearance the Murchison mansion. Then when asked about where he was and what he was doing when he heard the news of JFK, unlike 90+ percent of the American people, he was unsure and gave three totally different stories.

I forget who wrote it, but I saw commentary about Watergate with the author asserting that IT should be considered a second coup d'état by the CIA. Nixon was unsuccessful when he sent someone to the agency with a message asking for help and containing the implication that he knew things that would look bad if he had to make them known. It's obvious he got no help in some regards, but at least they let him "Get Out Of Dodge Alive"...

originally posted by: Biigs
The one where Oswald did it.

Occam's razor and all that.

With so many theory's and such, the actual told 'truth' is now considered a conspiracy!

The fact that Oswald was murdered before he got a chance to tell the public any more than "I'm a patsy," and on TV in the presence of 30 Dallas police officers throws Occam's razor on its ear. Occam's razor says he was shut up by some powerful people. There had to be a reason for that.

Whenever anyone quotes Occams razor in reference to he Kennedy assassination it's clear they have no idea what it means. The explantion with the least number of steps is the best, but not if you have to delete loads of data that doesn't fit to get there. So Occam's razor says Oswald did it, but only if you delete all the witnesses who saw someone else in the window, or saw Oswald somewhere else, or the NAA test on his cheek cast that came back negative, or the imposter in Mexico City, or how Oswald was able to waltz back into the USA at the height of the Cold War, with a new wife, the neice of a Russian MVD colonel, having defected to Russia and threatened to give away US radar secrets.

What they're really quoting is Occams Erazer, a powerful implement thst lets you erase all the evidence of conspiracy.

Any theory except the LHO, lone gun one.
The film was tampered with, LHO was shot, witnesses disappeared plus much other weirdness.
I honestly don't think we'll ever know and that is incredibly frustrating.

This is a fairly interesting site that dissects and analyzes issues with the Zapruder Film.

There are different sections they look at and the sections are listed in links at the bottom of the page.

assassinationscience.com...

a reply to: CornShucker

Yeah, Nixon's past is pretty murky...

As a Nixon fan I can tell you that his past is not murky at all - it is straight up gangsterism from 1946 onward - and it is all well documented.

Nixon often used the "Pepsi" cover on political visits to foreign countries during his time out of office, which some people call that time as the Nixon "wilderness years". However, this is a not a murky area in Nixon research. Nixon was totally active in Republican party politics, in law and in foreign relations, between 1960 and 1968.

Nixon's mob connections are all well documented and it was no coincidence that he was in Dallas on that day in November a mere 6 days before Americans celebrated the holiday of Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving is a quintessential American holiday. It represents so many things to the American Mythos. It also represents the time when Howard Hughes moved into Las Vegas in 1966 and it represents the time when Howard Hughes removed himself from Las Vegas in 1970 - on Thanksgiving.

originally posted by: stargatetravels
Any theory except the LHO, lone gun one.
The film was tampered with, LHO was shot, witnesses disappeared plus much other weirdness.
I honestly don't think we'll ever know and that is incredibly frustrating.

"incredibly frustrating" is an understatement!

What we have seen since November 1963 is cover up after coverup after coverup, the "official" story no longer exists! The only narrative that exists is on the internet, in threads like this one.

It should help you to know that both JFK and Nixon had connections to the mob.

When you watch the Godfather films you are being indoctrinated by mob mentality.

Mob mentality was something that Howard Hughes was very interested in. Hughes made "Scarface" in 1932 which is pretty much the quintessential gangster film.

Around and around and around I go, and where I stop, well, my favorite isn't the most likely but it is my favorite.

I prefer that JFK was killed because he was the only president since the whole space alien coverup began to demand it be made public. His being shot dead ten days later may be a coincidence, but some coincidence! One among many.

Russia, Cuba, Cuban Mafia. Why.
Oswald was in both in Cuba and Russia, likely recruited in Russia.
Russia and Cuba had the missile crisis with the US under Kennedy.
Bay of Pigs attempt to overthrow Castro under Kennedy.
Several assassination attempts on Castro under Kennedy.
For Russia Kennedy was a President willing to repeatedly attack and Ally and bring the world very very close to WW III
For Cuba and Castro, if nothing was done regarding Kennedy they would likely be invaded and Castro would wind up assassinated, It was personal. Kennedy had double crossed Sam Giancana after taking payoff money from him and they shared a girlfriend. It was Mob liquor money that had made the Kennedys in the first place so he was headed for a fall.
Sam Giancana issued a threat against the life of JFK as a result and mentioned they had an assassin in place who would be thought to be a crazy loner type. "Giancana was killed shortly before he was scheduled to appear before the Church Committee[27][28] investigating CIA and Cosa Nostra collusion in plots to assassinate President John F. Kennedy". (wikipedia) Cuba used the Mafia and it's connections to the US Mafia to help orchestrate the assassination. Russia was probably orchestrating the intelligence end. I wondered if the CIA learned of the plot but did not act as Kennedy was likely going to get us into a major war with Russia at some point and was reckless and failed in the Bay of Pigs operation, his military instincts were not good, and the CIA is charged with protecting the US and not a president that might be dangerous to the national interest.
a reply to: Blue Shift

a reply to: starswift

You've got some facts right there, but one glaring problem. Throughout the '50s and '60s the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the pentagon wanted to invade Russia with nukes and during the Bay of Pigs and the missile crisis they proposed plans to use false pretexts as an excuse to invade Cuba and take Castro out. Kennedy nixed them all. He was the only reason we didn't go to war back then. All the hawks in DC hated Kennedy and perceived him as a coward and weak, and he didn't trust them either. After the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy's fate was sealed. Read through JFK's "Peace Speech" that he delivered at American University to see what his goals were during that period.

Forgot to mention Vietnam. You know Kennedy's stance on that don't you? NSAM 263 issued on October 11, 1963 pissed a lot of those guys that hated Kennedy off. He was proposing to bring all US troops home by 1965. You know what happened to that when Johnson took over the reigns?