Who killed JFK?

[Heyo]

Interesting article. A few points come to mind:



I note that he is estimating the maximum number of people rather than the minimum. I would also consider that not every one of the hundreds of thousands noted here would all have the same amount of knowledge.

There were (I don't know how many) thousands of people on the Manhattan Project, and that somehow remained a secret until the bomb was dropped. And if someone did go on and on about how the government was building a secret weapon that can blow up an entire city, few people at the time would have believed it.

Moreover, the government would have pulled out all the stops to mock, ridicule, and discredit any such individual as some kind of loon or nutjob, which is pretty much the MO of most who criticize and ridicule conspiracy theories.



Just a point of order - all of these alleged conspiracies were exposed, since they obviously came out and have been widely disseminated. What still may be missing would be absolute incontrovertible proof that can be brought to court or other formal hearing where it can be heard. That's the thing. It's not that people don't know about these things or that they haven't already been exposed to the idea, but being able to produce sufficient evidence to convince the naysayers - that's the tricky part.

Another complication revolves around how much evidence is needed to prove a claim, and how does one deal with conflicting opinions regarding what constitutes credible evidence? I've encountered this a lot in studying the conflicting arguments about the JFK assassination.



How is one defining "keeping their mouth shut"? It's one thing to blab about things to close friends and family - and if they tell anyone else, it's the realm of rumor and gossip. But it's another thing to take the step of whistleblower and obtain evidence to bring to the press or to report to the authorities. They may not "keep their mouths shut," but few, if any, would really want to go "on the record," so to speak.

Woodward and Bernstein had a lot of doors slammed in their faces before they found someone who would talk, but they still wanted to remain anonymous. It just goes to show that a lot of people can be made to remain silent.

Good points and I agree. Grimes mostly shows that big conspiracies are practically impossible but conspiracies with few participants - like JFK or 9/11 - are possible to keep under cover.

 

[Stevicus]

For example...let's pretend the 2 Kennedys were just normal people...my older brothers, working as bakers.
One bad day the first is shot by a random customer. The police investigates .
After a while, even my second brother, Bob Kennedy is shot while working...By another random customer.

I go to the police department and tell the procurator : look...I believe there is a conspiracy against my family.

And the procurator tells me: conspiracies do not exist...it was just a coincidence.

It is hard to believe it was a coincidence...don't you think that?

Or maybe in the sixties there was a sort of Kennedophobia...that victimized many people...dunno

I think it would be different if it's ordinary people, depending on where they work and what area of the city they might be in. Some areas might be prone to higher rates of armed robbery and shootings.

With the Kennedys, though, there were quite a few factions against them. J. Edgar didn't like them, and the hardline anti-communists thought Kennedy was soft on communism. The racists were against them because of their support of integration and civil rights. The warmongers hated them because they wanted peace (particularly RFK, who was running on an anti-war platform).

If it's true that Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan acted alone, then they did for free what quite a number of people might have paid a lot of money for - if they thought they could get away with it.

I don't know about Kennedophobia. I suppose a lot of people were against them, but they also enjoyed wide appeal. He was quite popular with a lot of people. He also represented a new generation, nearly 30 years younger than his predecessor. My mom and aunt loved the Kennedys.

It is ironic that, considering how many powerful and highly-placed people would have a strong motive to want Kennedy dead, the one who purportedly did it had no apparent motive. Oswald said he was "just a patsy." Yet, he was ostensibly a communist, or left-leaning at least. Why would he deny it? Why wouldn't he use the opportunity to tell the country why he did it, if he did do it? He had certainly been vocal about his political views previously, so why clam up at all?

 

[Stevicus]

Good points and I agree. Grimes mostly shows that big conspiracies are practically impossible but conspiracies with few participants - like JFK or 9/11 - are possible to keep under cover.

I don't underestimate the power of appealing to one's patriotism and believing that what they do is for the good of America.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think it would be different if it's ordinary people, depending on where they work and what area of the city they might be in. Some areas might be prone to higher rates of armed robbery and shootings.

With the Kennedys, though, there were quite a few factions against them. J. Edgar didn't like them, and the hardline anti-communists thought Kennedy was soft on communism. The racists were against them because of their support of integration and civil rights. The warmongers hated them because they wanted peace (particularly RFK, who was running on an anti-war platform).

If it's true that Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan acted alone, then they did for free what quite a number of people might have paid a lot of money for - if they thought they could get away with it.

I don't know about Kennedophobia. I suppose a lot of people were against them, but they also enjoyed wide appeal. He was quite popular with a lot of people. He also represented a new generation, nearly 30 years younger than his predecessor. My mom and aunt loved the Kennedys.

It is ironic that, considering how many powerful and highly-placed people would have a strong motive to want Kennedy dead, the one who purportedly did it had no apparent motive. Oswald said he was "just a patsy." Yet, he was ostensibly a communist, or left-leaning at least. Why would he deny it? Why wouldn't he use the opportunity to tell the country why he did it, if he did do it? He had certainly been vocal about his political views previously, so why clam up at all?

I do love both Kennedys too. Very much.
That is why I am so passionate about this case but also because I have studied political murders committed by the mafia through the last 50 years and there is a unmistakable common pattern.
Also speaking of Bob Kennedy...how could Sirhan know Bob would secretely go through the kitchens?
It is obvious it was a trap...and that Hispanic guy who put the rosary beads into his hands?
That is the Mafia's signature. The Mafia was on it and RFK was fighting it. And he would have fought it, day and night.


As for JFK, the shooters were more than one...it is even so obvious by studying the videos of the attack.
He was shot from two opposite directions.
So, as James Files said...the deadly bullets came from him and Nicoletti.
If Oswald was one of the shooters, he played a marginal role and btw he would have exposed the fraud in the Courtroom. So he was eliminated by Jack Ruby who turned out to be a former delinquent, a nightclub owner and one of Nixon's informant.

 

[Heyo]

I don't underestimate the power of appealing to one's patriotism and believing that what they do is for the good of America.

I don't underestimate the power of compartmentalization, leaving little to no physical evidence and controlling the investigation.

 

[Estro Felino]

Jack Ruby and Nixon

 

[GardenLady]

Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick....

I'll never forget where I was that day -- 3rd grade in Catholic parochial school. I'll never forget my teacher crying or prayers over the PA system at school or my family glued to the TV all weekend. But it was a long time ago, and it doesn't matter much any more.

 

[Bluedragon]

The House Assassinations Committee disagrees with the Warren Commission findings of three shots fired. The rifle had no fingerprints found until after Ruby kills Oswald. While dissembling the rifle , the FBI finds one lone palm print ..on the barrel under the stock. If Oswald fires three shots in Dealy then kills Tippet ...He would have been loaded with gun powder residue. The paraffin tests conducted while he was in custody found no such evidence on him or his clothing. The rifle was a poor choice in a weapon, so bad even the Italian Military hated it. The FBI did a lot of work to make the rifle usable. The scope was off by a lot.

So four shots fired, not three. I'm not convinced Oswald fired one shot much less four.

 

[Petrus]

Anything possible is possible.
The KKK could've done it cuz he's Catholic.
The Jews could've done it cuz they're Jews.
The atheists could've done it cuz we hate God.
The commies could've done it cuz of Vietnam.
Without evidence & cogent argument, one can believe anything.

Conspiracy rumor going around is the Jesuits had it done....I do not buy it but thats what some believe....Kind of reminds me of the Lincoln assassination..All the conspirators were Catholic and wouldn't you know it the Jesuits had him killed.