JFK Assassination Conspiracy

[NinjaPuppy]

[ProfWag]

[Misha]

I have studied the JFK assassination in depth. Oswald was a "patsy" in the truest sense. The assassination of JFK was state sponsored with the CIA and elements of the military involved. The mob and the Cubans were indeed tools, but they were not the brainchild to the assassination.

Scepcop and forum members, have you folks read Douglas P. Horne's book - "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board?" Horne served as a military analyst, specifically, on the autopsy investigation surrounding the assassination. I have read all five volumes (1808 pages) and his works are compelling to say the least. I have also read Jim Douglass' book - "JFK, And the Unspeakable" and Michael Talbot's book - "Brothers." What are your thoughts on these works?

Moreover, I would like to point out that as a result of the 1992 JFK Act some of the information which was supposed to remain classified until 2029 came out during the "Review" and you can now read about it. This is how we learned of "Operation Northwoods."

[Misha]

For your edification. I thought I would find and post an excellent synopsis on the JFK assassination by Douglas P. Horne. This was posted on Chris Matthews blog - "Crimes of Opportunity" - on the anniversary of the assassination. Please read it:

Douglas Horne

insidethearrb
insidethearrb

Chris Matthews of MSNBC Still "Doesn't Get It"---WHY?

insidethearrb
November 22nd, 20:56

AN OPEN LETTER TO Mr. Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball," Written on 11/22/2011, On the 48th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Chris Matthews of MSNBC still "doesn't get it" regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. He proclaimed yet again today on his cable-TV program (as he has many times in the past) that Lee Harvey Oswald killed our 35th President 48 years ago today, and that he did it all by himself. He further opined that the reason so many "liberals" in America refuse to accept this, is because they have an emotional shortcoming: that they find it difficult to accept "that a nobody killed a somebody," and then blamed that shortcoming on William Shakespeare and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, by explaining that these great authors have trained us, with their great works of literature, to always expect to find that a Great Evil Force, or a sinister cabal, or an evil nemesis, was behind the murder of the Good, and that only a "Dr. Moriarity" could bring down a hero like Sherlock Holmes. In other words, Chris Matthews was telling the American people that we are not grown up enough to accept the truth.

I am writing this piece to intentionally and publicly challenge Chris Matthews by stating that it is HE who cannot accept the truth. There are only two possibilities here: either (1) Chris Matthews is such a "Pollyanna" about our country, so desperate to love it totally and without reservation, that he cannot accept the fact that our national leadership and our major institutions (the new 36th President, the Warren Commission, the FBI, and the Fourth Estate to which he belongs) failed us so completely in 1963 and 1964 by covering up the truth that JFK was killed by a crossfire in Dealey Plaza, and the more important truth that his public execution was the culmination of an ongoing struggle between JFK and his national security establishment over America's place in the world and the future of American foreign policy and the Cold War; or (2) he is willfully acting under the marching orders of others in promoting a position that he knows is untrue. For quite a long time I assumed it was option number one above---namely, that Chris loved America so much that he had a blind spot, and refused to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of conspiracy and cover-up in JFK's assassination because he just could not bring himself to believe that the America of his childhood was that badly flawed. But now I am not so sure that there is a benign explanation for Matthews' continued behavior every November when this dark anniversary rolls around again. For today, who was his guest on "Hardball" helping him to proclaim Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt and the "obvious" truth of the lone assassin hypothesis of the discredited Warren Commission? None other than Max Holland, a man recently outed by Mark Lane in his latest book, Final Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK, as a CIA third party surrogate whose primary job for years has been to sell the lone assassin hypothesis to the American people (who stubbornly still refuse to accept it, and in large numbers). Mark Lane makes this claim about Max Holland in his new 2011 book, with evidence that I have found persuasive. I encourage the readers of this piece to read Mr. Lane's book---if you wish to learn more about Max Holland---and to judge for yourself.

During the carefully orchestrated interview with Chris Matthews, Max Holland today likened Lee Harvey Oswald to the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh. And Matthews scolded all of us poor misguided Americans who believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK by accusing us of willful blindness, since as he claims, we are unable to accept that "a nobody" had killed a popular President.

I've got news for you, Chris Matthews: I have no trouble believing that Timothy McVeigh was an angry lone nut who blew up a Federal Building and killed many innocent people, and furthermore I have no trouble believing that Mark David Chapman, for instance, killed John Lennon all by himself, or that President Ford was stalked by a lone nut who attempted to kill him but failed. I have no trouble believing those things because the overwhelming weight of the evidence points in that direction in each case. In spite of my love for the Beatles, I did not have a strong emotional need that forced me to construct a conspiracy theory around how and why John Lennon was murdered. Get real, Chris---spare us the psychobabble.

If the evidence for Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt was as simplistic and as overwhelming as you and Warren Commission apologists like Max Holland claim it to be, I would have had no problem concluding many years ago that a lone assassin killed JFK. But instead, the reverse is true; there are numerous overwhelming reasons not only to doubt, but to disbelieve the lone assassin hypothesis, as follows:

(1) JFK's autopsy report in the National Archives is at least the third written version of that document; the first written draft was burned, and the first signed version is now missing. The autopsy report is therefore now impugned as evidence and would not be admitted as evidence if there were a trial proceeding.

(2) Numerous autopsy photos that are known to have been taken are missing, and many of the autopsy images in the existing collection in the National Archives have been repudiated by both the Parkland Hospital medical staff who treated JFK in an attempt to save his life, AND by key witnesses who were present at JFK's autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, including the official photographer and the two FBI agents present. Two skull x-rays are missing, and there is very robust scientific evidence (empirical, testable evidence) that the three remaining skull x-rays in the National Archives are altered copy films, not originals. The official collection of autopsy photos and x-rays, therefore, have been impugned as evidence and would not be admitted as evidence if there were a trial proceeding.

(3) The chain of custody of the so-called "Magic Bullet," Commission Exhibit 399, was impugned by a devastating FBI fact summary written in July of 1964 and published in the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of evidence. Its provenance is extremely suspect and it would not have been admitted as evidence at a trial.

(4) The contemporaneous eyewitness and earwitness testimony from Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that JFK's limousine was driven into a crossfire on Elm Street---an ambush---and that he was shot at from the front, from the side, and from behind. Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers, both beloved and trusted JFK aides, believed this, and they were present in the followup car, directly behind the limousine. (You were not there, Chris, and neither was Max Holland.) This strong evidence, along with the primary pattern of the exit debris (from the head explosion) noted in Dealey Plaza that day, is prima facie evidence of conspiracy. The acoustic dictabelt tape recorded by the Dallas Police Department, analyzed for the HSCA by two different consulting firms, is also proof of conspiracy since it unequivocally proves that at least one shot was fired from the right front.

(5) Lee Harvey Oswald was not an authentic Communist as you claimed on your show today; rather, he was almost certainly part of a "fake defector program" run by the CIA in the late 1950s, and he was without a doubt masquerading as a leftist lover of Fidel Castro when he was in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. In short, he was a patriotic U.S. ex-Marine who was being run as an intelligence agent both when he was in the Soviet Union, AND following his return to the United States in 1962. Most disturbing of all is the fact that during his infamous trip to Mexico City in late September and early October of 1963 (during which someone identifying himself as Lee Harvey Oswald visited both the Cuban and Soviet embassies), there is very persuasive evidence that he was impersonated by someone pretending to be him, both at the Cuban embassy (in person), and subsequently, on the telephone to the Soviet Embassy. This impostiture was clearly part of an attempt to "set him up" for the forthcoming murder of JFK, by providing a superficial link to both Castro's Cuba and to the officer in charge of Western Hemisphere assassinations at the Soviet embassy.

(6) Oswald did not get his job as the Book Depository in Dallas by chance, as you claimed today on your program. Ruth Paine (with whom his wife Marina was living in Fort Worth) was instrumental in helping him obtain that job---and in preventing him from taking an alternate job instead---and as author Jim Douglass has demonstrated in his book JFK and the Unspeakable, both Ruth Paine and her husband Michael had strong ties to the CIA. They took over the mentoring/babysitting of Oswald once his first handler following his return to the U.S., George DeMohrenschildt (a friend of LBJ's, and an agent of U.S. intelligence), left the U.S.for a clandestine assignment in Haiti in the spring of 1963.

(7) No credible witness saw Lee Harvey Oswald firing his rifle that day, and furthermore, the paraffin test designed to determine whether he had done so, produced a negative result. In fact, Oswald was seen in the second floor lunch room only 5 minutes prior to the assassination (not on the sixth floor), and based on the most careful analysis of the famous Altgens photo, Oswald was in fact standing in the front doorway of the Book Depository when JFK's motorcade went by. He was discovered calmly drinking a coke at the second floor lunch room soda machine less than 90 seconds after the assassination by Dallas motorcycle patrolman Marion Baker. Not only was his WWII surplus Italian carbine "junk," with a defective firing pin, but the rifle's scope was also junk, and was misaligned.

(8) Analysis of Oswald's denials of shooting anyone and his denial that he killed JFK, recorded during his brief captivity after the assassination, were subjected to PSE machine (psychological stress evaluation) analysis circa 1975, and he was found unequivocally to have been telling the truth when he made those two denials.

(9) Recent analysis in Hollywood of digitized frames from a high quality duplicate negative of the Zapruder film (purchased from the National Archives) have revealed crude black patches---visual effects, or artwork---superimposed over the back of JFK's head in key frames of the extant Zapruder film. These special visual effects---state of the art in 1963 but now clearly discernible using today's technology---were designed to hide the exit wound in the rear of President Kennedy's head (evidence of a fatal shot from the front) that was seen by all of the treatment physicians and nurses who assisted him at Parkland Hospital.

(10) The CIA and Secret Service had joint custody of the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination (on Saturday and Sunday evenings, 11/23 and 11/24) in Washington, D.C. at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (where briefing boards were made from frame enlargements of two different versions of the film---first, from the camera original, and then, from an altered film masquerading as the original); the camera original film was not in the hands of LIFE magazine Saturday evening in Chicago (as has previously been claimed). All indications today are that alterations to the Zapruder film (to hide evidence of frontal shots) were commissioned by the CIA and were performed by Kodak at a state-of-the-art lab at its headquarters in Rochester, N.Y. on Sunday, 11/24/63. LIFE magazine, at the request of the national security establishment, ensured the film was suppressed as a motion picture for 12 years, out of fear that the film's alteration would be discovered if it were to be closely scrutinized by experts. For this reason, LIFE only published selected still frames, but never loaned it or licensed it to be shown or studied as a motion picture, even though the magazine had paid Zapruder an additional $ 100K for motion picture rights above and beyond its original offer of $ 50K (for still picture rights only). After a bootleg copy of the film was shown on ABC television in 1975, LIFE sold it back to the Zapruder family for one dollar, never having exploited its huge investment in the motion picture rights. (The original intent---suppression of the film as a motion picture---had been circumvented in 1975, so LIFE no longer had any use for the film.)

(11) The "wrong rifle"---a 7.65 Mauser---was the first weapon found in the Book Depository, not the 6.5 mm Italian carbine that is so infamous today. This is another strong indicator of conspiracy, for Oswald did not own a Mauser. The Mauser was probably one of the weapons actually used in the assassination, whereas the Italian carbine was a "stage prop."

I could go on and on, but that is enough for now.

Let me conclude by making this public challenge to Chris Matthews: Chris, I just bought a copy of your book Jack Kennedy, Elusive Hero---and I look forward to reading it and learning even more about the life and style of our beloved 35th President. I commend you for your ongoing praise of his life, his courage, and his political skills. That praise if well-merited.

I challenge you to read just three books on the JFK Assassination:

My own five-volume work on the medical cover-up and the alteration of the Zapruder film, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (published in 2009 and available at Amazon.com); JFK and the Unspeakable, by Jim Douglass; and Brothers, by David Talbot.

That is all I ask---that you read these three books, and then tell us on the 50th anniversary, two years from now, whether or not you still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy. Don't be churlish and dismiss this challenge out of hand: read all three books. I suspect that up to now you have been cherry-picking the evidence and consulting only those books that support your own predetermined conclusions. Show some intellectual honesty here, and read these three books. And then tell us whether your views about the assassination have changed.

I served as a U.S. Naval Officer for 10 years, and was later the Chief Analyst for Military Records for the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB); I worked for that small, independent Federal Agency from 1995 until it shut down in 1998. I am the first U.S. government official to work full-time on an official body involved with the assassination's aftermath to have the courage to allege a medical cover-up in JFK's assassination, and I explain why in explicit detail in my book. You owe it to yourself to grow intellectually, and to seriously study JFK's death in the same detail that you have studied his life. Studying JFK's death informs the reader about how much was wrong with our government in 1963 and 1964, and indeed with our media. Many of those faults are sadly, still with us today.

John F. Kennedy's assassination was not the random act of a lone malcontent, devoid of political import or meaning. His assassination was the culmination of the ongoing "war" between President Kennedy and his own national security establishment, that lasted throughout the entire term of his Presidency. The stresses and fears of the Cold War (and our internal debate and conflict over how to manage it) warped our domestic politics to an unprecedented degree---to such a point that JFK, whose re-election appeared imminent, was eliminated before he could institute changes to the world order, and America's place in the world, that would be irreversible. He wanted to end the Cold War, and his frustrated opponents at the CIA and the Pentagon wanted to win it---on the battlefield. Part of the legacy of his assassination was not only the tragedy in Vietnam, but an extremely dangerous and fatally expensive nuclear arms race with the USSR, and a continuation of the Cold War for another generation. Another part of the legacy of his assassination was, unfortunately, the triumph of secrecy over openness, and of the Big Lie over Truth in this country, which all good Americans are still attempting to overturn today.

Chris Matthews, I say to you that it is not the members of the independent JFK research community who have an "emotional problem and cannot handle the truth"---rather, it is people like you who engage in knowing blindness and willful denial of the facts, and who prefer to deny conspiracy and cover-up rather than study facts which would conflict with your own ideas of what kind of country you grew up in, and are living in today. Please prove to me that you still have an open mind, and read the three books I cited above. And I really mean READ THEM, FROM COVER TO COVER---don't just peruse them, and don't depend on others like Max Holland to characterize them for you.

Read them yourself---and then I would like to appear on your show on the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination, for a 30-minute debate, and ask you, face-to-face, whether you have changed your opinion about his assassination. For in this story, there really was Great Evil confronting the Good, and unfortunately, Evil won out over Good, to the detriment of our country. It is my belief that only by facing the truth and admitting what really happened in 1963 (and later on in the 1960s, in the two assassinations of 1968), can our nation regain its self-respect, and the respect of other nations. END

2 votes

Reply#1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:25 PM EST

[ProfWag]

Thank you for your inputs Misha. They are quite interesting, though in my humble opinion, too much time was spent on Chris matthew. Who the hell cares what he thinks? He's paid to voice an opinion and that's all he did.

One of the points presented that I found quite interestint was this:
"(7) No credible witness saw Lee Harvey Oswald firing his rifle that day, and furthermore, the paraffin test designed to determine whether he had done so, produced a negative result. In fact, Oswald was seen in the second floor lunch room only 5 minutes prior to the assassination (not on the sixth floor), and based on the most careful analysis of the famous Altgens photo, Oswald was in fact standing in the front doorway of the Book Depository when JFK's motorcade went by. He was discovered calmly drinking a coke at the second floor lunch room soda machine less than 90 seconds after the assassination by Dallas motorcycle patrolman Marion Baker. Not only was his WWII surplus Italian carbine "junk," with a defective firing pin, but the rifle's scope was also junk, and was misaligned."

If true, then it appears that the author is trying to make us think he was on the 2nd floor all along. If that's true, why was he not seen for the missing 6 1/2 minutes?

To me, none of the other points presented really go very far to show he didn't shoot Kennedy, only that there were screw ups surrounding the entire event.

[Misha]

Hi ProfWag,

Agreed that too much time is spent on Chris Matthews as an individual, if this is even possible in our controlled media. But whether you or I like it or not, Chris Matthews' and MSNBC is the message. Therefore, it is the medium of indoctrination against the truth. Matthews' blog is nothing but a vehicle to set the record straight. That's it.

Please refresh my memory on the "6 1/2" minutes you speak of? What is your source?

"Screw ups?" Hmm? Have you read Horne's ARRB books?

[ProfWag]

[Misha]

The preponderance of evidence regarding Oswald does NOT lend him to be the assassin, this means the 6 1/2 minutes in question. It is important to see the overall context of who and what Oswald was. Moreover, it is my understanding that nobody saw Oswald descend the stairs from the Book Depository's 6th Floor. Yes, some of the employees were on the stairs at some point and did not see Oswald.

Please read Horne's book. The JFK Act had the mandate under the executive branch and also had subpoena power. All the records collected and testimonies gathered by the ARRB are now housed in the Suitland II archives. This is "actual evidence."

Furthermore, the information I presented by Horne is HIS synopsis. It did not come from his book per se. Also, how can we relegate the ARRB's investigation into the JFK assassination as screw ups. It was a cover up plain and simple. FYI, Horne who was an insider to the ARRB also stated that the Secret Service destroyed JFK's secret service itineraries for those months leading up to the assassination at the time the ARRB requested the files. Do we really think this is a screw up? You can NOW read all this in Horne's books.

[ProfWag]

[Misha]

Unfortunately, I too disagree with your conclusions. Again, if you read Horne's seminal work you will understand the modus operandi of how information and consumption works regarding the cover up. The Warren Commission, the 'Kennedy Deed of Gifts,' the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, the Pike & Church hearings and the HSCA minutes exposed during the tenure of the Assassination Records Review Board offers insight to what was supposed to be classified until 2029. It puzzles me that you will not consider reading another military man's work. He was there and interviewed the three pathologists (Humes, Boswell and Finck). In fact, he and Jeremy Gunn conclusively proved that the autopsy was altered by the mere fact that their testimonies are not in accordance with the Warren Commission and the Clark Panel. Please contact Jim Marrs on your 5 points. I'm sure Jim will only be too glad to clarify the Oswald record. Respectfully, ProWag. I think your mind is made up on the lone gunman thesis. Prove me wrong and read the best research on the assassination - "Inside the ARRB."

[ProfWag]

[Misha]

Hi ProfWag. I always try to the best of my abilities to be open-minded. Now, on the Brontosaurus, I am assuming you might mean the Plesiosaur? I am also in complete agreement to keep all avenues open when it comes to uncovering the truth.

Yes, ProfWag. I have done my homework. I do not want you to spend one moment chasing your tail. I don't. Keep in mind that you will not get the full context of Horne's research on the Internet. You need to have at your disposal all the pictures, figures, addendum, Illustrations and footnotes which Horne provides in the 5 volume set. It is well worth purchasing. In fact, Horne's work is a culmination of the fine research by his predecessors. If you haven't figured it out already I take great stake when military personnel come forward and answer the bell. You and I know that the United States Navy will not allow a psychologically unfit sailor on one of their nuclear boats. Horne spent 10 years (Lt. Commander) in the Navy if I am correct. This guy literally was picking gnat s**t out of pepper when he was a military analyst with the ARRB.

ProfWag, again. A day or two or Internet research is not going to give you a complete picture of the ARRB and Horne. Go to Amazon and you can get one volume at a time for twenty bucks a shot.

[ProfWag]

[Misha]

Well, it appears you just won't do the work, ProfWag. I guess Allan Dulles was correct. This comes from Mark Lanes' book "Plausible Denial," page 53.:

A few days later, reporters asked Warren when the facts about the assassination would be made known. Warren hesitated, studied the reporters, and said: "You may never get the truth in your lifetime, and I mean that seriously."
In langley, the celebration was under way. Warren had been encircled and captured. He had agreed to suppress data, distort the record, and issue a false report to the American people. He had been compromised, and now he would never again be a factor with which to contend. The cover-up had succeeded.
Langley had accomplished its goal with the help of its man on the commission. At a meeting of the commission members held on July 9, 1964, former CIA director Allen Dulles advised his colleagues not to be worried that their final report would be closely scrutinized. "But nobody reads. Don't believe people read in this country. There will be a few professors that will read the report...the public will read very little.

Now, ProfWag. Let's not chase each others tails. I do not have time to do this. Read Horne's research in its proper context. I promise you will be enlightened.

[ProfWag]