This article made my day today so I am hoping that a few LQ member also enjoy it!

https://www.fff.org/2017/05/11/jfk-conspiracy-theories/

Thanks. That is an interesting article but I caution against using the "broad brush" on the term "conspiracy theory" as it has come to imply nutjobs. The truth seems to be that some conspiracies are real, especially the ones that involve just a few participants, but also many are simple fear mongering and expressions of doubt and distrust. Critical thinking does need to be applied and some conspiracy theories dismissed as unlikely if not vacuous.

In the case of JFKs murder, if LHO wasn't a "lone gunman" the number of those involved was small enough that they did the job by the numbers, dotted most of the i's and eliminated sufficient evidence that we will likely never know the whole truth.

Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that JFK drove into a sniper's nest, in a quintessential "right-hand man coup d'etat," in that "right-hand man's" home state of Texas.

Most-importantly, we must always remember to disconnect the word, "conspiracy," from the word, "theory!" Conspiracies happen all the time. (Anytime "the desired outcome" is anything more than "the least of them can hope to accomplish on their own," then by definition(!) "a conspiracy™" is required.) Thus, in general parlance, "theory™" is customarily reserved to refer to "any and all possible interpretations which might be contrary to The Official Version™," however improbable the official canon might be. The term is often very-explicitly pejorative in practice, quite-intentionally denigrating the opinion-holder for daring(!) to hold such an opinion.

The problem is that often untruths can nestle in with just a few truths and appear sensible. There is a very interesting video, which on it's own is extremely convincing regaridng the JFK assassination. It is of an ex special forces sharpshooter turned criminal who has been serving a long sentence for unrelated crimes, named James Files. It can be found here -- James Files Claims He Fired The Kill Shot From the Grassy Knoll --

As I said on it's own the information seems very reasonable and logical and his delivery is near perfect of the very picture of a man telling a truth for which he cannot be prosecuted for lack of evidence, and who spices it up by refusing to reveal details that would incriminate others that might silence him permanently. It's entirely believable UNTIL it is researched thoroughly and found to have a foundation of quicksand. A book was published based on this man, Files, and the author has since been condemned for fabricating evidence and he has admitted it since. It is exactly because if there was a conspiracy it was done so well that because it can never be nailed down, so it is basically open season on speculation. Add to that the fact that the event was a critical point in History that took an abrupt turn toward authoritarianism, secret police and military power. Whether it was a coup d'etat or not doesn't change the enormity of the effect, but it surely makes books and interviews lucrative for a very long time..

Many people gained by JFKs permanent removal and among them was Allen Dulles and the entire CIA and with Mr. Dulles overseeing the Warren Commission for a time that is a classic case of "the fox guarding the henhouse". It isn't hard to imagine that at the very least that if Dulles knew about it, he conveniently ignored it. However because it can't be proven, it must remain imagination however likely the possibility. If ignoring information is conspiracy, then ignoring chatter just prior to 9/11 is by that definition one such conspiracy. However many (and yes sundialsvcs, I know you are one of them) choose to expand that into not just ignoring information but actually participating if not engineering altogether.

In hindsight given the powder keg that was Texas and Cuba at the time, it seems crazy to me that JFK would visit Dallas at all, let alone in an open convertible car but then those seemed to be more innocent times. They certainly didn't feel innocent after November 22, 1963. That we know for certain.

Even the Zapruder film was altered, to make it appear that the first shots were fired farther down the street – where Oswald's window was in view. Actually, the sharpshooters began firing as the limousine first turned the corner, and the car slowed down to almost a complete halt. (One bullet struck a street-sign that subsequently disappeared.) Markings had been added to the sidewalk – still faintly visible today – to help the gunners determine distance as the car slowly approached.

It was an easy, "sitting duck shot" for any professional shooter.

I doubt that the CIA had anything to do with it, however. One man had the motive, the ability to have it done, and the ability to cover it up. He also had the brass to do the dirty deed in his home state of Texas. LBJ palpably despised Kennedy, wanted him dead, and arranged to have it be so. As I said, a classic "right-hand man coup d'etat." European newspapers, recognizing the classic signs of an event that was fairly familiar to them, even described it as such.

There were no television cameras in this area, although there had been television coverage before and beyond it. Oswald instantly knew that he had been set up. He didn't anticipate that he would be gunned down – on television.

If JFK didn't let those folks die in Cuba, he might still be alive.

LBJ had nothing to do with it.

A single undamaged bullet from a 40 year old weapon wasn't the only one.

However Oswald was a remarkable person. His skill at language was and example of the language teaching skills some places have.

If you choose to believe that "a remarkable person" actually was the "lone wing-nut, acting alone, from an extremely poor shooting-point," then I am not going to be the one to further argue otherwise.

Unfortunately for all of us, there is no "remaining objective evidence" of what actually happened that day. Abraham Zapruder "took his million dollars," and turned-over the film. The only film that we now have is the one that the US Government subsequently returned, and there is plenty of evidence (thanks to the computer technology that we have today) that the thing is more-or-less a complete forgery. Thus, we simply do not have any "indisputable" evidence of this grim event, today, at all.

(Unfortunately for all of us, there is an increasingly-disturbing body of evidence ... much of it only obtainable using the computer technology of the past decade or so ... that the "Zapruder film" that all of us "pored-over so very carefully, frame-number by frame-number," might not in fact have ever been what we all assumed it must be: "the actual strip of film that was in Abraham Zapruder's camera on that fateful day!"

What we do know is that a man whom the then Vice-President hated was gunned-down ... in Dallas, Texas. Many observers immediately identified it as a coup d'etat, as excellently presented in this Scribd document.

(Incidentally, I would encourage all of you to very ... carefully ... read it, in its entirety. "Just shut up and..." ... ... read it.)

Beyond that – it's up to you.

I don't have any opinion as to Oswald being able to use a mail order weapon and making shots from it. No one that I know has had a chance to fire the weapon for accuracy. He may have been able to do part of it. I doubt he was alone. I doubt the famous single undamaged bullet that killed JFK and hit Connally. I've read about Oswald from reports and he seems to have been at least gifted with an ability to learn languages. Connally finally wound up being upside down in a financial bust and they lost everything. It would be more likely to suppose the LBJ wanted Connally dead.

LBJ had nothing to gain either way. He was rich and powerful before being a VP. The LBJ estate today involves many trusts worth millions and millions, even after they lost their credit card franchise and bank of the hills.

The friends and relatives of those left to perish in Cuba had a score to settle. Big time. There is where you have the skill set, ambition, ability to do this.

I am perplexed. On one hand, jefro, your first line makes it seem as if you are or have been Military as vets are the most common folk who blame Kennedy for that Military fiasco. On that subject, BTW, since the Military was misinformed that there were no launch ready nukes in Cuba yet, had the military actually convinced JFK of the necessity and assured conquest ("the people will rise up and greet us as heroes") those brave but betrayed few would have been joined by many millions, possibly billions.

OTOH if you are or were military I'd think you would know something about full metal jacketed ammo if not the recreations with such ammo through hog carcasses let alone on actual battlefields. Also, weapons have existed for in excess of 100 years that still fire accurately if properly maintained. Guns are simple, rugged devices, especially bolt action rifles. It has been proven the Single Bullet Theory is at least possible,. Whether it actually occurred in Dealy Plaza is another story but the pristine bullet is no longer a deal breaker. Other situations are a lot more unresolved and suspicious.

Oswald was indeed a "remarkable person" at least compared to barroom politicians who are "all hat and no cattle". Whatever else he was, true believer, activist, assassin, hired patsy, lone misfit nutjob, I don't see what language skills have to do with the issue at hand other than possibly keeping his wife in the dark. He apparently had no success at talking Officer Tippit out of any further action than mere questioning.

John F. Kennedy was one man who got to be president of the United States; his administration was filled with very smart rational people with the " common good " at heart!! The " entrenched powerful elite " were against everything that he, and his administration, stood for so they got rid of him; and everyone else that dared to champion any " cause of the United States masses "!! I am a proud principled United States citizen, but I am ashamed of the actions of my government here and abroad!!

Oh, John Kennedy was no "saint," and neither was his brother. Lurking just-behind all of them, the entire time, was "pappa Joe," a rumrunner (about which point the WikiPedia article has been conveniently redacted, except for a give-away "first sentence, third paragraph") who openly intended for his namesake son, "Joe, Junior" to get all the glory ... except for the inconvenient fact that "Junior" got himself killed in World War 2, in a flying-aircraft-bomb mission for which "Pappa" blamed "that crippled son of a bitch who killed my son." To fulfill his raving political ambitions, "Pappa" therefore had to "make do" with the next two sons that he had: "Jack," and "Bobby."

Both sons, in due time, got killed in their respective pursuits of their father's proxied ambitions. (And their wretched father got to watch them both "do nothing more than die.")

The fourth and final son, "Teddy," managed to avoid getting himself bumped-off, but nevertheless did not avoid the family tradition of controversy . . .

Yes, I respect Jack for being, in his own way, "someone who saw through" the political situation of the day, as did his brother Bobby. But both of them were doomed, I think, by their father. In the end, I think that only their youngest brother was the one smart enough to keep his head down and stay in the Senate.

... (perhaps very-fortunately for him, he lost his one "get out of the Senate" bid to Jimmy Carter, failing to secure his party's nomination) ...

... and stayed in the Senate ...

Where, it might or might not be argued, "he [had, and subsequently did] manage[d] to do some good," in a series of moves that [had] occurred mostly after the death of every other(!) male member of his family.

Well in light of your most recent (and mostly quite accurate post) let me then raise a glass and a salute to those not so afraid to "keep their head down" but actually stand tall for what is right and good in the evolving human race.

Just as in the moderately prescient H.G. Wells book and subsequent film starring Raymond Massey, Things To Come there will always be power freaks or warlords who have come up hard and learned the expedient value of violence and don't concern themselves with the long view. At one time, and for a very long time, that view worked, at least for a powerful few. Once automatic weapons and WMDs became reality bringing the distinct possibility of wiping out most life above bacteria on our planet, this has become less and less viable, yet those in power are not likely to step down quietly or from any egalitarian sensibility.

John and Bobby indeed were by no means saints and in Bobby's case it took his brothers murder to broaden his perspective. That said, they did accomplish a great deal beyond "nothing more than to die" if only a shining example of what is possible when tolerance and collaboration are valued higher than grinding one's enemy into the muck. I shudder to think what might have happened if LBJ, let alone Richard Nixon !, were president during the --- The Cuban Missile Crisis --- As it was The Doomsday Clock hovered around seven minutes till "midnight" and was too slow to alter that evaluation in 1963, but the fact remains that we, as a species, were in fact perilously close to annihilation. If the Military had their way back then it wouldn't have played out like Things To Come but rather a whole lot more like Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

So it is entirely possible that John F. Kennedy, regardless of his ancestry or how he came to power, quite literally saved the future of Mankind, for at least a few score of years. His loss, as well as what he accomplished, is quite literally immeasurable.


PS - Oh yeah, almost forgot..... SALUT! Here's to them wha's like us, damned few, and they're a' dead.

Aye, I think that "all three of the (then-surviving ...) Kennedy brothers" – each in their own respective ways – "did great honor to the nation that each one of them" – each, in their own respective ways – "served." (Regardless of whatever "external circumstances" may have been imposed upon them.)

• In two of three cases, "the grim circumstances that exterminated their mortal lives" did not extinguish what they stood for.
• And in the third, "he served the Senate, and his State, with great distinction."

Also, I also think, "none of them ever received the honor, in life, that they were due."

Today, may each of them – and their respective spouses – [rest in | continue to enjoy] "honored glory," and "the appreciation of a grateful nation."