Somebody Here, On This Site, Actually Asked..

[WillyT]

What Does It Matter If We Ever Solve Who Killed Kennedy???

It's history... and we should just move forward.

Anybody else agree with that ?

[Lex]

1. Like on SouthPark?

[villager]

2. Where have we heard "just get over it" before, I wonder....

n/t

[WillyT]

4. Yep... They Can Dish It Out, But They CANNOT Take It...

[woo me with science]

37. +1

[BeyondGeography]

3. Nobody cares about Kenney

[WillyT]

5. They Do On SouthPark...

Thanks for the heads-up.

[sabrina 1]

7. I don't care about Kenney either. Btw, who IS Kenney?

[Art_from_Ark]

10. I think he's the guy who gets killed in every episode of South Park

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. We do know who killed Kennedy.

The people who believe in a conspiracy will never be satisfied with any evidence, though. (Even though most of the people who believe in a conspiracy don't even seem to know what that evidence is.)

[icymist]

8. It gives them something to talk about.

Hey, you want them out getting drunk instead?

[RobertEarl]

9. Know what's weird?

We have all these people who are certain of something. So certain that they have invested hours upon hours trying to convince ANYONE who claims they might have it wrong.

At least it is keeping them off the streets.

Meanwhile 70% of the People are not certain, even 50 years after the fact.

Guess those who are certain they know what happened are pretty much certain failures at their efforts to convince others? They must be awfully frustrated, eh? 70%.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. Well, no, see, here's the thing

we have people who are certain that the CIA or LBJ or whoever had to've had Kennedy killed. Who are 100% convinced it couldn't have been some loser like Oswald, with a cheap rifle, all on his lonesome. But pretty much all of them have no idea what the evidence says, and make outlandish and easily disproven claims, or ask absurd questions that only show how ignorant they are of the evidence. (For instance, asking how a cop knew to stop Oswald and being unaware that an eyewitness saw a man in the TSBD window with a rifle and gave the police a description that went out over the radio.)

[RobertEarl]

12. That's just not true

A bit of it was. But overall, just wasn't truthful.

70% of the people are not certain. That's evidence that that the people know better than to trust in the short story of the WC. Now, when they tell us everything they have gathered and quit hiding stuff, the people may become more certain.

[HangOnKids]

19. Here's the thing, wanna show some proof of those assertions

Like links to all you have stated. Specific links. Thanks. Make sure they back up what you posted. thanks again.

[brush]

83. Even if Oswald killed Kennedy he isn't really the one who killed Kennedy

That would be the people who put him up to kill the president.

Who are those people? That's the most ignored question of all.

And do you actually think those people wouldn't hedge their bets and make sure someone else was also shooting?

If you're going to kill a president you damn sure are going to make sure because the guy you've set up as the fall guy with a cheap rifle might miss.

There's much speculation that there was a second shooter.

If there was, he wasn't caught.

Oswald was and was taken out by the same people who killed Kennedy.

[Spider Jerusalem]

84. There are no "these people"

because there's no evidence that anyone BUT Oswald did it. But Oswald was out in Irving the night before begging his wife to come back to him, telling her he'd rent an apartment, buy her a washing machine...she said "no", and he left his wedding ring and almost every penny he had in a teacup on her nightstand, and took his rifle to work that morning. (And there's no evidence he was in contact with anyone in the four days before, after the motorcade route was confirmed.)

[brush]

85. You can believe that if you want

I don't.

And why was it so important then to kill Oswald before he could talk?

[Spider Jerusalem]

86. It wasn't.

Oswald's transfer was announced on the radio as taking place at 10am. Ruby heard it on the radio. He had no reason to think it wouldn't happen. Oswald's transfer was delayed because the US Postal Inspector showed up and wanted to question Oswald about his post office boxes. And was delayed again because Oswald wanted to change his sweater. These are things Ruby could have had no control over.

Ruby wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been going to the Western Union office to wire money to one of his employees. He had a receipt in his pocket with a timestamp of 11.17am. He left his favourite dog in the car outside the police station. That's not something he ever would have done if he were going to be arrested and unable to go back for her.

All the evidence available, and the timing, around Ruby's shooting of Oswald says it wasn't planned and wasn't part of a conspiracy, that it was a coincidence that wouldn't have happened if Oswald had been moved on schedule, or if Ruby had been five minutes later getting to the Western Union office.

See here: http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Jack_Ruby/Logical_approach_to_Ruby.html

[sabrina 1]

13. And the numbers are growing. I just watched 'The Smoking Gun' and I'd like to hear

what the Deniers have to say about this documentary. Wow, so much 'science'. Isn't that what they claim they wanted? So disturbing, to see the testimony of people who were actually in the Autopsy room.

I am now thoroughly convinced that the WC and especially Arlen Specter, had an agenda, at least some of them. Maybe not Warren himself, who appears to have been undermined, his orders ignored, but definitely a very interesting and thought provoking, not to mention disturbing, documentary which will most likely increase the numbers of skeptics.

[RobertEarl]

14. Let's imagine being on the commission

Someone you never met walks up to you on the street and tells you the president was killed and so you must know what can happen to anyone.

Was not a good time to be sitting in judgement of people that are skilled at murder and getting their way, or of pointing a finger at the SS and FBI and making them look like fools.

[ancianita]

21. Even the composition of the commission itself raised flags so long ago. It should now.

[Hissyspit]

16. That's not what the OP is about.

[Katashi_itto]

22. You mean fictitious conspiracies like "Operation Northwoods"? The Govt would never kill it's own

Civilians or lie...

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

[Spider Jerusalem]

38. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4079811

[Major Hogwash]

24. I was going to ask you where JFK's brains are.

But, there is no sense in me asking you how they could lose JFK's brains since you obviously don't care what happened to them.

One would think that would be rather significant to someone like you, but I guess not.

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. No, I actually know what happened to JFK's brain.

This is pretty well-established, and there's no real mystery. This is one of the many things that the HSCA covered in their investigation. RFK had the brain and other remaining tissue samples from the autopsy buried when JFK's body was moved to its permanent gravesite at Arlington in 1966 because he was afraid they'd become some sort of grisly relics if held in the National Archives or Smithsonian. See here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/brain.txt

[Major Hogwash]

64. Sure you do. You believe what you've been told: Oswald acted alone.

You know what you have been told is the truth, therefore there is no question left unanswered for you.

Even Jackie O thought there was a conspiracy.
I guess she didn't believe everything she had been told about the assassination, either.

[Spider Jerusalem]

66. The House Selective Committte on Assassinations asked that question, and it was answered.

There is no real reason to doubt or disbelieve those answers. It's not just "what I've been told", it's the evidence of repeated investigations. "Where's the brain?" is a red herring; there are photos, there are X-rays. We know where the shots came from. Examining the brain again wouldn't tell us anything we didn't know before. Multiple re-examinations of the forensic evidence have all reached the same conclusions regarding the number and direction of the shots and the nature of the wounds.

[riderinthestorm]

45. Then why aren't they releasing everything? Why is any of it still classified?

Its as though they're trying to keep something (s?)a secret....

[Spider Jerusalem]

59. Why is it still classified?

The law pertaining to classified information specifies a period of classification of not more than 75 years. The Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 changed the date of declassification for records relating to the assassination from 2038-2040 to 2017.

The Act requires that each assassination record be publicly disclosed in full, and be available in the collection no later than the date that is 25 years after the date of enactment of the Act (i.e., October 26, 2017), unless the President of the United States certifies that: (1) continued postponement is made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations; and (2) the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assassination_Records_Collection_Act_of_1992

The answer to "why is it still classified?" probably has more to do with bureaucratic inertia than anything else (and if it weren't for the 1992 law it'd be classified for another 25 years).

[riderinthestorm]

75. Bureaucratic inertia?! I can't believe you honestly think that

Nothing about the Kennedy assassination and aftermath indicates that keeping this stuff classified is about "bureaucratic inertia".

[tavalon]

48. Poppy Bush

But the files that would put him away are closed until he's dead.

[Spider Jerusalem]

61. Nope.

Lee Oswald. His rifle, with his prints, found in his workplace, with three spent shell casings, that matches the bullets that struck Kennedy and Connally. TSBD employees on the fifth floor heard the shots coming from inside the building from directly above them. Oswald was the only TSBD employee who went missing before the police sealed the building. He was seen by a witness in the window with the rifle firing the shots. The description that witness gave went out over the police radio. The rifle was seen protruding from the window by multiple witnesses. Oswald was stopped by a police officer who he shot and killed. There were witnesses who saw him fleeing the scene, shell casings and a bullet from the body? Matched to his revolver. If it wasn't Oswald explain why his rifle was in the building. Explain why he lied about owning a rifle to the police. Explain why he lied about where he was, claiming he was eating lunch with the men who heard the shots coming from the floor above who denied they'd had lunch with him. Explain why he shot a police officer and tried to shoot another when arrested.

There's so much evidence that says "it was Oswald" that it's really hard to see how anyone can reasonably think it wasn't. It's about as close to an open-and-shut case as you can get. If he'd not been killed by Jack Ruby he would've been tried, convicted, and executed.

[former9thward]

69. You are making stuff up.

No one identified Oswald as shooting from the window. The rifle that was found there was junk.

The US Army marksmen could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.443.

According to the FBI’s firearms specialist, Every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. … We fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact.: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.405.

Problems with the bolt and the trigger mechanism: There were several comments made — particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. … There was also comment made about the trigger pull … in the first stage the trigger is relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire the weapon.: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.449.

The pressure to open the bolt was so great that that we tended to move the rifle off the target.: ibid., p.451.

Oswald passed the paraffin test. He did not fire any weapons that day.

The picture of Oswald with the rifle is the biggest joke of all. He is holding copies of the Militant and the Worker. These were publications of the Socialist Worker Party and the Communist Party. Two organizations that HATED one another. One was Trotskyist and the other Stalinist. Nobody on the Left would be tied up with both. Spin away.

[Spider Jerusalem]

74. No, I'm not.

An eyewitness named Howard Brennan saw a man in the window with a rifle and gave a description to the police. That description went out over the radio.

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as the parade came by, I watched it from a distance of Elm and Main Street, as it came on to Houston and turned the corner at Houston and Elm, going down the incline towards the railroad underpass. And after the President had passed my position, I really couldn't say how many feet or how far, a short distance I would say, I heard this crack that I positively thought was a backfire.
Mr. BELIN. You thought it was backfire?
Mr. BRENNAN. Of a motorcycle.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you observe or hear?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, then something, just right after this explosion, made me think that it was a firecracker being thrown from the Texas Book Store. And I glanced up. And this man that I saw previous was aiming for his last shot.
Mr. BELIN. This man you saw previous? Which man are you talking about now?
Mr. BRENNAN. The man in the sixth story window.
Mr. BELIN. Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you saw him this last time?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher on the Houston side.
Mr. BELIN. Well, let me ask you. What kind of a gun did you see in that window?
Mr. BRENNAN. I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a high-powered rifle.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan.htm

Regarding the rifle:

It will be recalled from the discussion in chapter III that the assassin in all probability hit two out of the three shots during the maximum time span of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds if the second shot missed, or, if either the first or third shots missed, the assassin fired the three shots during a minimum time span of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds.795 A series of tests were performed to determine whether the weapon and ammunition used in the assassination were capable of firing the shots which were fired by the assassin on November 22, 1963. The ammunition used by the assassin was manufactured by Western Cartridge Co. of East Alton, III. In tests with the Mannlicher-Carcano C2766 rifle, over 100 rounds of this ammunition were fired by the FBI and the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the U.S. Army. There were no misfires.796

In an effort to test the rifle under conditions which simulated those which prevailed during the assassination, the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory had expert riflemen fire the assassination weapon from a tower at three silhouette targets at distances of 175, 240, and 265 feet. The target at 265 feet was placed to the right of the 240-foot target which was in turn placed to the right of the closest silhouette.797 Using the assassination rifle mounted with the telescopic sight, three marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle Association, each fired two series of three shots. In the first series the firers required time spans of 4.6, 6.75, and 8.25 seconds respectively. On the second series they required 5.15, 6.45, and 7 seconds. None of the marksmen had any practice with the assassination weapon except for exercising the bolt for 2 or 3 minutes on a dry run. They had not even pulled the trigger because of concern about breaking the firing pin.798

The marksmen took as much time as they wanted for the first target and all hit the target.799 For the first four attempts, the firers missed the second shot. by several inches. 800 The angle from the first to the second shot was greater than from the second to the third shot and required a movement in the basic firing position of the marksmen.801 This angle was used in the test because the majority of the eyewitnesses to the assassination stated that there was a shorter interval between shots two and three than between shots one and two.802 As has been shown in chapter III, if the three shots were fired within a period of from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, the shots would have been evenly spaced and the assassin would not have incurred so sharp an angular movement.803

Five of the six shots hit the third target where the angle of movement of the weapon was small.804 On the basis of these results, Simmons testified that in his opinion the probability of hitting the targets at the relatively short range at which they were hit was very high.805

Considering the various probabilities which may have prevailed during the actual assassination, the highest level of firing performance which would have been required of the assassin and the C2766 rifle would have been to fire three times and hit the target twice within a span of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. In fact, one of the firers in the rapid fire test in firing his two series of three shots, hit the target twice within a span of 4.6 and 5.15 seconds. The others would have been able to reduce their times if they had been given the opportunity to become familiar with the movement of the bolt and the trigger pull.806 Simmons testified that familiarity with the bolt could be achieved in dry practice and, as has been indicated above, Oswald engaged in such practice.807 If the assassin missed either the first or third shot, he had a total of between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds between the two shots which hit and a total minimum time period of from 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for all three shots. All three of the firers in these tests were able to fire the rounds within the time period which would have been available to the assassin under those conditions.

Three FBI firearms experts tested the rifle in order to determine the speed with which it could be fired. The purpose of this experiment was not to test the rifle under conditions which prevailed at the time of the assassination but to determine the maximum speed at which it could be fired. The three FBI experts each fired three shots from the weapon at 15 yards in 6, 7, and 9 seconds, and one of these agents, Robert A. Frazier, fired two series of three shots at 25 yards in 4.6 and 4.8 seconds.808 At 15 yards each man's shots landed within the size of a dime.809 The shots fired by Frazier at the range of 25 yards landed within an area of 2 inches and 5 inches respectively.810 Frazier later fired four groups of three shots at a distance of 100 yards in 5.9, 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds. Each series of three shots landed within areas ranging in diameter from 3 to 5 inches.811 Although all of the shots were a few inches high and to the right of the target., this was because of a defect in the scope which was recognized by the FBI agents and which they could have compensated for if they were aiming to hit a bull's-eye.812 They were instead firing to determine how rapidly the weapon could be fired and the area within which three shots could be placed. Frazier testified that while he could not tell when the defect occurred, but that a person familiar with the weapon could compensate for it.813 Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the assassin aiming at a target which was moving away. Frazier said, "The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would not be necessary to take any lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you." Frazier added that the scope would cause a slight miss to the right. It should be noted, however, that the President's car was curving slightly to the right when the third shot was fired.

Based on these tests the experts agreed that the assassination rifle was an accurate weapon. Simmons described it as "quite accurate," in fact, as accurate as current military rifles.814 Frazier testified that the rifle was accurate, that it had less recoil than the average military rifle and that one would not have to be an expert marksman to have accomplished the assassination with the weapon which was used.815

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html

Regarding paraffin tests:

The unreliability of the paraffin test has been demonstrated by experiments run by the FBI. In one experiment, conducted prior to the assassination, paraffin tests were performed on 17 men who had just fired 5 shots with a .38-caliber revolver. Eight men tested negative in both hands, three men tested positive on the idle hand and negative on the firing hand, two men tested positive on the firing hand and negative on the idle hand, and four men tested positive on both their firing and idle hands. 93 In a second experiment, paraffin tests were per formed on 29 persons, 9 of whom had just fired a revolver or an automatic, and 20 of whom had not fired a weapon. All 29 persons tested positive on either or both hands. 94 In a third experiment, performed after the assassination, an agent of the FBI, using the C2766 rifle, fired three rounds of Western 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition in rapid succession. A paraffin test was then performed on both of his hands and his right cheek. Both of his hands and his cheek tested negative. 95

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-10.html#paraffin

Oswald backyard photo? Not faked, according to fairly recent analysis. Oswald subscribed to both the Militant and the Worker. Apparently the contradiction bothered him less than it does you. (Ruth Paine testified to the Warren Commission that both were with mail Oswald hadn't collected on the 23rd, because he'd been arrested by then.)

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/tr10.pdf

[former9thward]

77. "Saw a man"

He did not I.D. Oswald as you stated in your post.

[Spider Jerusalem]

81. He gave a description that reasonably fit Oswald.

Oswald's rifle was found in the TSBD. Oswald was the only TSBD employee who went missing before the police sealed the building. He testified to the Warren Commission that he felt he couldn't be sure his recollection hadn't been affected by having seen Oswald on television and in the newspapers after his arrest. But based on the other evidence linking Oswald to the assassination, a reasonable process of elimination says it was Oswald he saw in the window. (and MULTIPLE witnesses saw the rifle sticking out of the window.)

[former9thward]

82. I would love to debate this with you.

But it is really impossible on an internet discussion board. The posts would be too long (afterall countless books have been written on all these things). We'll have to disagree. Have a good day!

[elleng]

78. Right, we do know,

but we don't know why, that's the continuing mystery.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. Intellectually Lazy..IMHO

[loudsue]

17. Nope. It matters.

We pretty much know that our government crawls with bottom feeders as well as heroes. But when it comes to Kennedy...well, both Kennedys and MLK, we pretty much know the bottom feeders won.

[Sgent]

18. How does it matter?

What does it change?

Take an well known theory, and assume that its true. How does that change our current lives? If Edgar Hoover, LBJ, or the mob were responsible, they are all dead / disbanded along with the colleagues, etc. Anyone who was in the workforce at the time is retired or has passed away.

Its a bit like saying that the southern conspiracy thing was just a front for John Wilkes Booth who was secretly working for the British who were trying to get their confederate war bonds paid. Even if its true, what does it matter?

[ancianita]

20. I don't agree, but theirs raises another question about its relevance today, and if the young can

even see it. If not, we should find out why. I'd like to know more about how they think.

[LWolf]

43. Some of my students

are currently reading Profiles in Courage. I didn't tell them about the anniversary ahead of time. When I told them this week, they started turning their attention to the world's remembrance; it was relevant to them. When I then added the assassination of RFK those short years later, whose foreward they read, they were shocked, to say the least. Then I mentioned MLK. At this point they asked, "Why? Why so many in such a short time?"

I told them that it was a time of fundamental changes, and that change, any kind of change, positive or other, will always meet with fierce resistance. Change that affects those in power most of all.

I can guarantee you that they find it relevant. These are young people raised in a red, rural area. There are some more moderate, and plenty of tea partiers. They weren't taking any party lines.

[tavalon]

49. You rock as a teacher

[ancianita]

67. This is heartening. Consider their judgment adult and mature and they will be that way. I love this.

[TuxedoKat]

76. Good

for you for talking about it with your students. None of the teachers in any of my daughters' classes (6th and 12th grades) mentioned either the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address or the 50th anniversary of Pres. Kennedy's assassination last week. I find that both sad and pathetic.

[ErikJ]

23. Cuba hated and killed Kennedy-mystery solved. Next?

[AgingAmerican]

25. Yes because it will never be 'solved'

I got bored with the Kennedy conspiracy nonsense decades ago. It hasn't evolved into anything new since. It is a dog chasing it's tail.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Then they should release all the files, right?

I mean, what better way to put the whole thing to rest.

[blue14u]

27. Shocking

that someone would say,,,

"what difference does it make"

Hummm... guess I will stop thinking and just go blank

from now on... Believe everything I am told, don't ask questions..

sit down and STFU!!!

OK... I got it...
Thanks

[immoderate]

28. Why should ignorance of history take precedence over any other kind of ignorance?

--imm

[Prophet 451]

29. To an extent, I think that's true

Let's say that any particular conspiracy theory is true. Let's say that a coalition of Mafia and Cuban interests had Kennedy killed and that's finally uncovered in some irrefutable manner and publicized. Now what? Kennedy is still dead, virtually everyone who could conceivably have been involved is also dead and the political climate now is so incredibly different that it's questionable if anything useful could be drawn from it.

And that's true of most of the conspiracy theories. Yes, in a few cases, someone is still alive who could be charged (I read one that placed Bush Sr. at the centre) but even if they could be, what concrete difference would it make? Now, that's not to say that people should give up looking, the search for truth is it's own justification, but it is to say that expecting the truth to be world-shattering is probably a fool's errand.

That said: I have no idea who killed Kennedy. I don't know a great deal about the assassination (I've never even seen Stone's film), it's not something that affects my field of study much (forensic psychology) and, being British, it's not something I'm especially concerned with beyond a vague intellectual curiosity. The official explanation seems somewhat lacking to me but so do most of the conspiracy theories.

[sabrina 1]

39. Well, you could say that about any murder. What difference does it make, the person is still

dead no matter whether the criminals are exposed and prosecuted or not.

In a case like this where a crime is committed against the nation, where so many people feel they have not been told the truth, maybe it has something to do with 'those who ignore history are destined to repeat it'.

We moved forward from Iran Contra, let the criminals off the hook, people like Elliot Abrams and others who were behind the scenes. They lied, they committed treason when they went behind the back of a sitting president and made deals using people's lives to do so and pushed Reagan into the WH AND Bush Sr (that man pops up everywhere there have been problems in this country for decades now).

Clinton stopped the investigation, those who had been prosecuted were pardoned by Bush who himself should have been prosecuted.

Lots of people thought we were better off 'moving forward'.

Then Bush Jr took over, those neocons were waiting, having suffered no consequences for their previous crimes against the country, they lied us into a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.

They broke International law and we demanded they be prosecuted. But once again, we were told we are going to 'move forward'.

So what we are now is a country where criminals can commit crimes at the very top of our government (remember Valerie Plame eg) and we have established a system of government where if the criminals are powerful enough, no matter how egregious the crime, we will 'move forward' because 'what is the point of prosecuting them after a certain amount of time goes by'?

Is that a democracy? I don't think so. When some are above law, above even being questioned, we are not a democracy and we have set up a very dangerous system where the bad guys know they can murder and torture and suffer no consequences because 'what's the point'?

I would like to see the Iran Contra criminals tried and jailed for what they did, no matter how much time has passed.

I would like to see the Bush War Criminals who lied us into war, prosecuted and convicted.

I would like to see the Wall St criminals brought to justice for what they did to the world's economy.

And if there is any doubt at all about who murdered a US President, we should not stop until the truth is known.

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

[WillyT]

63. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[ancianita]

68. Well said. Totally agree.

[Major Hogwash]

65. They don't get it, they're sheeple.

They move along like a herd of sheep being told to move to another field where they are told there are no wolves.

[Blue_In_AK]

70. Absolutely right, Sabrina.

[annabanana]

72. Thank you Sabrina. . .n/t

[Morphia]

30. In a way it does not matter becasue NOTHING will be done anyway

Cheney is on video tape ADMITTING to war crimes and we do not do a GD thing about it.

The fucker was even GLOATING about it.

If this President will not even investigate nor prosecute people for war crimes that happened since 2001 he damn sure is not going to do anything about a murder that happened over 50 years ago.

Nothing is going to happen because the PTB don't want the truth out.

[pampango]

31. Ignoring history because "it doesn't matter" is always a bad idea, whatever

one's view on the Kennedy assassination is.

[Scuba]

32. Put your faith in those who seeks the truth. Doubt any who claim to have found it.

[Kaleva]

33. I think the person being qouted is saying that CTers are basically harmless...

and it really doesn't matter if they ever "solve" who killed Kennedy. Non-CTers already believe the case is solved. Oswald did it and he acted alone.

[tavalon]

50. Except my husband did the exact moves Oswald was supposed to have done

He could not have been on the second floor drinking a soda and not out of breath in the time it took, which was reported by two witnesses. And then Oswald strolled out the front door, fully unaware of the people about to descend on him. He would have been aware had he even been one of the shooters.

And even if he was, he wasn't the shooter of the magic bullet. No one was. Those were multiple bullets shot from the wrong angle from the book depository. Somebody planned for Oswald to be the patsy but no one ever told him.

And the Depruder film (sp) - it amazes me that that got out. It should still be classified. That was the actual smoking bullet.

[Kaleva]

55. Odds are great that you, your husband and others will never "solve" the murder.

I don't think there is any harm in believing that Oswald didn't act alone and unlike the person who was quoted in the OP, I don't think those who believe there was a conspiracy ought to just move on. If they wish to discuss this and do research on it (the various Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories), that's fine with me.

[tavalon]

90. And many do, because to move on is to open the door to it again.

[Spider Jerusalem]

60. ...

In an effort to determine whether Oswald could have descended to the lunchroom from the sixth floor by the time Baker and Truly arrived, Commission counsel asked Baker and Truly to repeat their movements from the time of the shot until Baker came upon Oswald in the lunchroom. Baker placed himself on a motorcycle about 200 feet from the corner of Elm and Houston Streets where he said he heard the shots.357 Truly stood in front of the building. 358 At a given signal, they reenacted the event. Baker's movements were timed with a stopwatch. On the first test, the elapsed time between the simulated first shot and Baker's arrival on the second-floor stair landing was 1 minute and 30 seconds. The second test run required 1 minute and 15 seconds. 359

A test was also conducted to determine the time required to walk from the southeast corner of the sixth floor to the second-floor lunchroom by stairway. Special Agent John Howlett of the Secret Service carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor along the east aisle to the northeast corner. He placed the rifle on the floor near the site where Oswald's rifle was actually found after the shooting. Then Howlett walked down the stairway to the second-floor landing and entered the lunchroom. The first test, run at normal walking pace, required 1 minute, 18 seconds; 360 the second test, at a "fast walk" took 1 minute, 14 seconds. 361 The second test. followed immediately after the first. The only interval was the time necessary to ride in the elevator from the second to the sixth floor and walk back to the southeast corner. Howlett was not short winded at the end of either test run. 362

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#actions

[polichick]

35. Some Dems are big on "moving forward" - at all costs.

[BainsBane]

36. It matters in terms of historical knowledge

but that's it.

[sendero]

40. I think it matters..

.. but I don't think we'll ever know the real truth. I don't spend time thinking about it any more.

[bigtree]

41. some of the perps might still be alive

[avebury]

42. It does matter.

What is the saying? Those who don't learn from the pass are doomed to repeat it. Far too many times in the last few decades, government officials were not held responsible for their actions resulting in politicians acting like they can do as they please without repercussions. Maybe if people in authority actually realized that actions do have consequences, things might be very different today.

Edit to add: If the official position remains that Oswald was a lone assassin then why on earth should the government continue to bury all of the Kennedy Assassination documents? If there is nothing to it, then they should go ahead an make all documents public. Failure to do do will always put the events of that time period under a cloud of suspicion. What is the other saying? Trust by verify.

[The Midway Rebel]

44. Yeah, it matters and here is why.

""The assassination of President Kennedy was a major watershed in American conspiracy thinking – away from the status conscious, angry and white “pseudo-conservatives” who populate Richard Hofstadter’s brilliant articles from the exact time I’m discussing here, and towards a more ideologically diverse group of thinkers.[5] Conspiracy and political paranoia became much more ecumenical after Dallas, spinning off into a raft of new theories, helped along by the FBI’s misdeeds and the Church Commission’s revelations, that culturally mainstreamed the entire enterprise. People who used to hand-crank mimeograph machines to print angry diatribes about fluoride in municipal water supplies morphed into big-money book authors, feature film directors and television documentarians. Just ask Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura, Bill O’Reilly or members of the Wu Tang Clan who killed JFK, and you’ll see what I mean.""

tl;dr American conspiracy thinking used to be restricted to the right-wing.

read more at http://s-usih.org/2013/11/the-jfk-assassination-and-american-conspiracy-culture-guest-post-by-jonathan-earle.html

[arely staircase]

46. who killed kennedy has been solved

some just refuse to believe it.

[tavalon]

51. Because the pieces of the puzzle don't fit

See my post above. He was the patsy and no one even told him he was going to be the patsy. It might have pleased him, until he got shot.

[arely staircase]

52. given the fact his rifle with his prints were found at his work place

which he and he alone fled after the shooting which was also the place from which the president was shot and then someone saw him shoot a cop.

pretty solid case

he did it

[tavalon]

53. He didn't flee at first

He hung out on the second floor drinking a soda, then sauntered out the front. He was smarter than his handlers thought he was though and he figured out that he would be fingered and probably killed so he ran.

[arely staircase]

56. nah

he waited until the cops went past him to the next floor then he bolted before they found his gun.

[tavalon]

91. Also a pretty solid case for a set up and a patsy smart enough

to realize, albeit much too late, that he was set up.

The Zapruder film makes this not a solid case.

The magic bullet, not shot from the book depository makes this not a solid case.

Warren was a good Justice. To force him to head the Warren commission destroyed his reputation. It wouldn't have for a solid case. It was lies guilded with lies. Warren knew. I hope he wrote something that will be declassified 50 years from now. It's him I feel so sorry for. He knew it was a lie and yet, he was a company man. Hard.

[Octafish]

97. That allegation would not stand up in court.

Lt. J. C. Day, the forensic guy from Dallas PD didn't follow procedures; not even those he, himself, had followed earlier, like taking photos of each print as it came off the various parts of the Mannlicher-Carcano carbine.

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/palmprint.htm

[Spider Jerusalem]

100. Yet more easily refuted nonsense.

At 11:45 p.m., the rifle and film negatives of the prints were turned over to the FBI’s Vince Drain. In a 1984 interview, Day said that he pointed out to the FBI man the area where the palm print was, adding that he “cautioned Drain to be sure the area was not disturbed.”97 Though Drain denied that Day showed him the palm print,98 crime-lab detective R. W. “Rusty” Livingston, who was standing nearby, recalled that another FBI agent was there pressuring Drain to leave. “Drain was half listening to Lieutenant Day and half to the other FBI man and evidently didn’t get the word about the palm print at that time.”

(Bugliosi, Reclaiming History)

And the latent fingerprints from the trigger guard were verified by photograph at the time.

n 1993, Savage turned the photographs over to Frontline for its thirtieth-anniversary special on the assassination. Frontline asked Vincent J. Scalice, the leading fingerprint expert for the New York City Police Department who had also been the HSCA’s fingerprint expert, to compare the latent prints in Livingston’s photographs with fingerprint exemplars of Oswald’s. Scalice had already examined two of the five Dallas police photos depicting the latent fingerprints on the trigger guard for the HSCA in 1978. At that time, he agreed with the FBI and Warren Commission that the photographs of the latent prints were not clear enough to make an identification.117 After examining all five photographs for the first time in 1993 for Frontline, he said, “I found that by maneuvering the photographs in different positions, I was able to pick up some details [of the fingerprints] on one photograph and some details on another photograph. Using all of the photographs at different contrasts, I was able to find in the neighborhood of about 18 points of identity…These are definitely the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald and…they are on the rifle. There is no doubt about it.”118

Scalice told the press that had he seen all of the photographs in 1978 (not just two of them), “I would have been able to make an identification at that point in time.” After consulting with Scalice, Captain Jerry Powdrill also agreed with Scalice’s judgment—that the fingerprints on the trigger guard were those of Oswald.119

(Bugliosi, Reclaiming History)

So making the argument that the palmprint was "planted" doesn't make the prints on the trigger guard go away. And those prints are Oswald's.

[Octafish]

102. Bugliosi, the only book Spider Jerusalem needs.

Others might want to read:

Rush to Judgment -- Mark Lane

Accessories After the Fact -- Sylvia Meagher

On the Trail of the Assassins -- Jim Garrison

Whitewash -- Harold Weisberg

The Echo From Dealey Plaza -- Abraham Bolden

Plausible Denial -- Mark Lane

Spy Saga -- Philip Melanson

Not in Your Lifetime (Conspiracy) -- Anthony Summers

The Man Who Knew Too Much -- Dick Russell

JFK and Vietnam -- John M. Newman

Deep Politics and the Death of JFK -- Peter Dale Scott

Oswald and the CIA -- John M. Newman

The Last Investigation -- Gaeton Fonzi

Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case -- James DiEugenio

Deadly Secrets -- Warren Hinckle and William Turner

Act of Treason -- Mark North

JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy -- Fletcher Prouty

Crossfire -- Jim Marrs

High Treason -- Harrison Edward Livingstone and Robert J. Groden

High Treason 2 -- Harrison Edward Livingstone

Killing the Truth -- Harrison Edward Livingstone

The Killing of a President -- Robert J. Groden

Coup d'Etat in America -- Alan J. Weberman and Michael Canfield

First Hand Knowledge: How I Participated in the CIA-Mafia Murder of President Kennedy -- Robert D. Morrow

Who Killed JFK? -- Carl Oglesby

Brothers -- David Talbot

A Farewell to Justice -- Joan Mellen

Family of Secrets -- Russ Baker

Breach of Trust -- Gerald D. McKnight

Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA -- Jefferson Morley

Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam -- Gareth Porter

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters -- James Douglass


Currently reading:

The Last Word -- Mark Lane


These have been recommended to me over the past few weeks. I plan to read them in the coming months:

Treachery in Dallas -- Walt Brown

Nexus: The CIA and Political Assassination -- Larry Hancock

Crime and Cover-Up -- Peter Dale Scott

JFK vs. CIA: The Central Intelligence Agency's Assassination of the President -- Michael Calder

[Spider Jerusalem]

104. I've read several of those.

I can cite underlying sources if you want. There are extensive citations of essentially every fact. Conspiracy books like those you list, on the other hand, are notably light on such citations and generally omit, distort, misrepresent or outright fabricate.

[tavalon]

47. No, sorry

To not know history is to be doomed to repeat it. It didn't go down the way the powers that be said it did. We need the truth. We need the truth about 2001 and about the full Bush Presidency. This history is vital in helping us to go forward with important and correct information.

[treestar]

54. We will probably never know for sure

Is anyone continuing to investigate? For real and not from a keyboard

[ZombieHorde]

57. I agree with the first question.

Everyone will just believe whatever they believe. Doesn't matter what actually happened. No action will come from the news.

[arthritisR_US]

58. I don't ! nt

[Captain Stern]

62. I agree with it to an extent.

I think that it's always best to know, and preserve history.

However, the further into the past the Kennedy assassination slides, the less it matters.

[Blue_In_AK]

71. I've been kind of surprised, too,

by the people who don't seem to care if "history" is accurate or not. I suppose these same people wouldn't be too concerned if it went down in the history books that we invaded Iraq because there were weapons of mass destruction there or that the Vietnam war happened because Ho Chi Minh was a threat to the United States. We should always be re-examining history in light of new information.

[99Forever]

73. Can't say I "agree" with it.

But there are other things and issues that are more current and relevant to my world that I have to focus on. I don't expect to ever know for sure what happened that awful day in Dallas, by whom, and what the real reasons behind it were.

There are a number of other things I don't expect to ever know the why or how of, too. That doesn't mean they aren't important, it simply means I accept that I might never know.

Sorry if that makes no sense, but it's the best I can explain it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

79. If you're referring to my thread, you have it wholly wrong.

And I reiterate my question: suppose, for example, the CIA killed Kennedy. Just SUPPOSE.

What would be done with that information?

Is anyone from that era still in the CIA? Are they even ALIVE? (No, and probably not)

Would it be meaningful to do something to the CIA? (No...no one involved is alive, and in any case the CIA's been doing shady shit that's much better known and no one's done squat about it, not even Obama)

Would we have learned anything shocking? (The CIA kills people? The DEVIL you say! :eyes


Scoff all you want. I'm still curious to know what is to be done with information like that that has any true meaning.

[Octafish]

88. So, you're saying the CIA and its officers are unaccountable?

If this is a democracy, they will be held to account for their crimes, including treason and murder.

[Dreamer Tatum]

92. I agree. After them, let's track down that John Wilkes Booth and give him what-for. nt

[Octafish]

95. Ha ha. It is to laugh at Fascism.

Don't know about you, but I think secret government not only is un-democratic, unaccountable, and unconstitutional -- it's un-American.

[Dreamer Tatum]

96. But we can't do anything about it until the JFK matter is solved?

When someone is actively clobbering you, I don't see the point of studying the history of clobbering.

[Octafish]

98. The two are related, certainly.

While I try to shine light on the fascist crapola from 50 years ago, I also shine light on stopping it in the present day.

It's also why I vote Democratic. Our party does something about it, like standing for Peace with Tehran and standing up to the NSA-Supreme KKKort Spy Ring.

[Chan790]

80. Yeah, pretty much.

If we woke up tomorrow and had definitive proof it was Bob Shitstack, a 20-veteran of the CIA, it wouldn't matter. Bob Shitstack has probably been dead for 30 years at this point, the superiors that gave the orders have been dead for 30 years, the motivations that lead to their ordering the killing of Kennedy have been over for 50 years and knowing will change nothing at this point as there is no more of a connection between that CIA and today's CIA as there is between that CIA and today's USPS.

Holding it against today's CIA doesn't change anything regarding the motivations of the Kennedy killing...it just makes it that much harder for US intelligence agencies to fulfill the functions they perform today.

It's important at this point solely as intellectual exercise and a hobby.

[aikoaiko]

87. I'll admit that it won't change anything for me if there was a conspiracy.

I already know that the CIA, politicians, mob, and lunatics sometimes do evil things.

Learning of something new in the JFK assassination would be likely learning something new about the Lincoln assassination. Interesting, but not a game changer.

But I am for historical accuracy so I support reasonable searches for the truth.

[OmahaBlueDog]

89. It's been 50 years.

I realize that there are folks who still want to discuss the Lincoln conspiracy. My view is that the time to investigate this has come and gone. Most of the players (if there had been a conspiracy) are dead.

[Dreamer Tatum]

93. + about a gazillion nt

[Paladin]

94. Do what you please.

I'm getting on in years, and I choose not to piss away more valuable time on a tragic occurrence that I don't think will ever be completely solved.

[Orsino]

99. Depends on what the answer is...

...and whether that information tells us anything useful.

I mean, proof that Oswald acted alone, for instance, wouldn't be all that surprising--and that assumes the proof is also convincing. Other more surprising answers could astonish, outrage and motivate.

Some conceivable answers would be much more important than others.

[gopiscrap]

101. FUCK NO it's extremely important to know!

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

103. That's a GWB type rationale

and makes me crazy...........