JFK - The political reasons for assassination

[Jordie Barretts sock]

It's all over the TV as it's 60 years ago this week.

Now, we all know Oswald apparently shot JFK from the book depository. And we know all the conspiracy theories about a second gunman.

Parking all that for the moment. Who would want to assassinate Kennedy? Very popular man, many problems too, obviously the Khrushchev/Castro had a beef with him, but would they kill him? Why would the CIA or FBI want to do away with him? Was Johnson a better more pliable alternative? Was there anyone else?

Or was it Lee Oswald and a second man, simply looking for their notoriety? Or was Oswald set up as the 'patsy' as he claimed?

I suppose, what I'm asking, is who had anything to gain from killing JFK?

[eharding]

Jordie Barretts sock said:

I suppose, what I'm asking, is who had anything to gain from killing JFK?

The conspiracy theorists, obviously.

[ScotHill]

I saw a documentary on this a few years ago, and someone knocked into Oswald in the book repository just as he was firing, causing him to miss the president completely. The unharmed JFK went on to be such a poor president that he himself travelled back in time to assassinate himself from behind the grassy knoll.

And he didn’t even tell the FBI about it - what a smeg head.

[2xChevrons]

Jordie Barretts sock said:

Why would the CIA or FBI want to do away with him?

I suppose, what I'm asking, is who had anything to gain from killing JFK?

The gist of most of the conspiracy theories is that a cabal of the CIA, various people and/or organisations from the military-industrial complex, anti-Castro Cubans and hard-right interests in American government, business, society and religion conspired to get rid of JFK. The mix of elements changes depending on the theory, but the CIA is usually the main mover/shaker, with the CIA using its contacts and interests in organised crime in the American South and Central America to fund and organise the operation.

Why did they want to get rid of JFK? Supposedly because, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the scare of the Missile Crisis he wanted to reach a reproachment with Castro. He had turned down a CIA plan to conduct widespread false flag operations to stoke up a war with Cuba in 1962. He had publicly committed to a thawing of relations with the USSR and nuclear/military deescalation. McNamara and Johnson both stated that, despite escalating US presence in Vietnam early in his presidency, JFK was moving towards a draw-down or complete withdrawal from Vietnam in a second term, and overall he didn't share Eisenhower's, the CIA's or Johnson's view that resisting the spread of communism in Asia was not only the USA's foreign policy priority but a akin to an ideological crusade.

Basically he - supposedly - wasn't sufficiently anti-communist for the CIA and the Pentagon. His domestic agenda was too 'Big government' for a lot of Republicans and southern Democrats. He supported Civil Rights. He was Catholic. All of which was enough to annoy/threaten a web of vested interests enough for them to kill him.

Of course, the actual evidence of Kennedy's actions as president rather go against of all this (he massively increased defence spending and ramped up the amount of assistance going to South Vietnam) so the theorists rely on the notion that he was going to radically change his political character in his second term.

[g4ry13]

JFK was a supporter of the Civil Rights movement and there was a large number of people who wanted segregation to remain.

There would certainly have been an incentive for some groups to take him out and push the Civil Rights movement back.

[Mortarboard]

<conspiracy theory mode>
CIA due to national security risks following his failure re:Bay of pigs.
Of note is the fact that Oswald was stripped of citizenship when he left for cuba/russia, yet managed to get his passport reinstated in no time at all.

M.

[Jordie Barretts sock]

So, assuming the CIA cabal was a real thing, was Oswald in on it, and if so, what was he gaining? Apart from worldwide fame and the electric chair.

Apparently there were also two 'foiled plots' in previous week's, one in Chicago which was 'rumbled' on 2nd November and another on 18th November in Tampa. The reasons behind why Tampa failed are somewhat unclear.

I suppose there was also the element of JFK being a bit of a loose cannon in that if it had a pulse, he was on it. See Marilyn Monroe for example.

[Legend83]

Watched interesting docu on this the other night - evidence from the trauma room or something it was called.

Basically showing how the testimony of the Parkland medical staff (the guys actually trying to shovel his brain back in) was basically ignored e.g. exit wound at back of head, entry hole in back not consistent with neck wound etc.

It was fairly compelling - I'd perhaps question the testimony of a couple of potential crackpot doctors, but this group was 6-7 strong, all there on the day with the body on the gurney - all saying the same thing: the forensic pathological evidence brought to the commissions was wrong.

[Terminator X]

eharding said:

Jordie Barretts sock said:

I suppose, what I'm asking, is who had anything to gain from killing JFK?

The conspiracy theorists, obviously.

He was mates with Sinatra who was mates with the Mob? Loose lips perhaps.

TX.

[andymc]

was it not a mob hit? Sam Giancana? I think it was more of a case of finding people who did not want to kill him, turbulent times in America

[Lotobear]

Legend83 said:

Watched interesting docu on this the other night - evidence from the trauma room or something it was called.

Basically showing how the testimony of the Parkland medical staff (the guys actually trying to shovel his brain back in) was basically ignored e.g. exit wound at back of head, entry hole in back not consistent with neck wound etc.

It was fairly compelling - I'd perhaps question the testimony of a couple of potential crackpot doctors, but this group was 6-7 strong, all there on the day with the body on the gurney - all saying the same thing: the forensic pathological evidence brought to the commissions was wrong.

I saw that and tought it was pretty compelling too, but I did not watch until the end.

A few years ago there was another documentray that postulated the fatal shot came, accidentally, from a CIA protection officers gun in the car presumably in the melee following LHO's 'missed' shot but I don't know if that was covered later on or whether it's simply another 'conspiracy'. But the fatal wound and rear exit point would be consistent with that.

[smithyithy]

I think this is one of those conspiracy theories that I could see having some actual truth behind it.. I don't believe (if it was CIA / internal agency) that it'll ever come to light during my lifetime, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it wasn't just a lone gunman acting on his own accord..

[Jordie Barretts sock]

My thinking too Smithy. I am no firearms expert, far from it, but even I know an exit would is usually bigger than the entry wound. The Zapruder film seems to show JFK holding his neck (presumably from the shot to the neck that all the Parkland doctors thought was an entry wound) and then the back of his head exploding outwards. Again backed up by the Parkland doctors.

For me, Oswald was the fall guy, given a sniper rifle and set up in the depository. I think there was at least one other gunman behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll.

I imagine the CIA/FBI/Hoover would have been quite happy to see the back of JFK as he was a bit of a liability for them.

[Legend83]

Jordie Barretts sock said:

My thinking too Smithy. I am no firearms expert, far from it, but even I know an exit would is usually bigger than the entry wound. The Zapruder film seems to show JFK holding his neck (presumably from the shot to the neck that all the Parkland doctors thought was an entry wound) and then the back of his head exploding outwards. Again backed up by the Parkland doctors.

For me, Oswald was the fall guy, given a sniper rifle and set up in the depository. I think there was at least one other gunman behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll.

I imagine the CIA/FBI/Hoover would have been quite happy to see the back of JFK as he was a bit of a liability for them.

Take away all human testimony since the event on either side of the argument, if we accept the Zapruder footage is genuine then this is the smoking gun (pardon the pun) for me:

a) JFK holding his neck and Mrs K clearly assisting him with something rather than continuing to wave at the crowds;
b) the headshot which clearly shows fragments shooting backwards, as well as his prone body being pushed back and to the side

I am no expert but to me I question how b) in particular could happen if he was shot by a high-powered rifle from behind.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Legend83 said:

Jordie Barretts sock said:

My thinking too Smithy. I am no firearms expert, far from it, but even I know an exit would is usually bigger than the entry wound. The Zapruder film seems to show JFK holding his neck (presumably from the shot to the neck that all the Parkland doctors thought was an entry wound) and then the back of his head exploding outwards. Again backed up by the Parkland doctors.

For me, Oswald was the fall guy, given a sniper rifle and set up in the depository. I think there was at least one other gunman behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll.

I imagine the CIA/FBI/Hoover would have been quite happy to see the back of JFK as he was a bit of a liability for them.

Take away all human testimony since the event on either side of the argument, if we accept the Zapruder footage is genuine then this is the smoking gun (pardon the pun) for me:

a) JFK holding his neck and Mrs K clearly assisting him with something rather than continuing to wave at the crowds;
b) the headshot which clearly shows fragments shooting backwards, as well as his prone body being pushed back and to the side

I am no expert but to me I question how b) in particular could happen if he was shot by a high-powered rifle from behind.

The bullet in the other guy's wrist and and all fragments in KFK's brain came from Oswald's gun.

If the video was a slam dunk that it wasn't Oswald it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory it would be "what happened".

Pretty good debunking of the conspiracy theories here:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/11/john-f...

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Tuesday 21st November 11:33

[Bigends]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Legend83 said:

Jordie Barretts sock said:

My thinking too Smithy. I am no firearms expert, far from it, but even I know an exit would is usually bigger than the entry wound. The Zapruder film seems to show JFK holding his neck (presumably from the shot to the neck that all the Parkland doctors thought was an entry wound) and then the back of his head exploding outwards. Again backed up by the Parkland doctors.

For me, Oswald was the fall guy, given a sniper rifle and set up in the depository. I think there was at least one other gunman behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll.

I imagine the CIA/FBI/Hoover would have been quite happy to see the back of JFK as he was a bit of a liability for them.

Take away all human testimony since the event on either side of the argument, if we accept the Zapruder footage is genuine then this is the smoking gun (pardon the pun) for me:

a) JFK holding his neck and Mrs K clearly assisting him with something rather than continuing to wave at the crowds;
b) the headshot which clearly shows fragments shooting backwards, as well as his prone body being pushed back and to the side

I am no expert but to me I question how b) in particular could happen if he was shot by a high-powered rifle from behind.

The bullet in the other guy's wrist and and all fragments in KFK's brain came from Oswald's gun.

If the video was a slam dunk that it wasn't Oswald it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory it would be "what happened".

Pretty good debunking of the conspiracy theories here:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/11/john-f...

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Tuesday 21st November 11:33

Watched this last night - the first attending doctors were hushed up over wht theyd seen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM-rqHroIDs

This is how the undamaged bullet appeared on the stretcher at the hospital. It was found in the back of the car, picked up and placed on the stretcher by a special agent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZeZUQkybNI

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 21st November 11:40

[Jordie Barretts sock]

BikeBikeBIke said:

The bullet in the other guy's wrist and and all fragments in KFK's brain came from Oswald's gun.

If the video was a slam dunk that it wasn't Oswald it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory it would be "what happened".

Pretty good debunking of the conspiracy theories here:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/11/john-f...

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Tuesday 21st November 11:33

Which is all well and good, but that doesn't explain the blast out of the back of his skull.

My money is on the mob/CIA or both having at least two marksmen. For Oswald to have shot Kennedy and Conally with one st is incredible. Especially after his first shot totally missed the car.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Jordie Barretts sock said:

Which is all well and good, but that doesn't explain the blast out of the back of his skull.

The link explains that - replicated in goats in the 40s.

There is no conspiracy theory on this that hasn't been debunked.

It's not possible for all the conspiracy theories to be true because they conflict. It *is* possible for them all to be false.

[dudleybloke]

The storm drain shooter theory is quite a good one.

[Jordie Barretts sock]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Jordie Barretts sock said:

Which is all well and good, but that doesn't explain the blast out of the back of his skull.

The link explains that - replicated in goats in the 40s.

There is no conspiracy theory on this that hasn't been debunked.

It's not possible for all the conspiracy theories to be true because they conflict. It *is* possible for them all to be false.

But just because they all can't be true because they conflict, doesn't mean that one isn't true. It's not a case of 'all of them or none of them'.