TALK AT YOU LATER

RICHARD

You’re right, about any government group keeping such a secret. I think the rogue elements in our government do their assassinations with half-truths and twisted-info leaks to the NY Times, et. al.

There was a great deal of “CYA,” the so-called “benign coverups,” where civil service bureaucrats would want any potential spotlight to just go away, so it’s always possible some important evidence or information was lost that way. But I seriously doubt there was actual involvement by any in our own government.

By 1963, the CIA was more than a little anxious about whether Cameron might be “shining them on” — results were always just out of reach. It makes sense they might have wanted to place a low-level contractor into the Montreal hospital as an employee, and the Louisiana job experience would fit that scenario. In any event, on Nov. 22, 1963, A Dr. Wolff from one of the Ivies, and a couple of other heavyweights, visited and toured Cameron’s wards, asking repeatedly “Is this typical of your success?” Before leaving, they had jerked his funding (lawsuits by/for lobotomized patients were settled in 1990-1991, with nondisclosure clauses). But even IF Oswald was used for low level contracting, he was a loose cannon — one of the benign cover-ups (CYA) following JFK’s assassination was by an FBI agent in Dallas, who ripped up an angry, threatening note Oswald had left for the agent, who had interviewed Oswald’s wife. The Soviet’s records on Oswald indicated they thought him “unstable” and “unsuitable for recruitment,” not likely to have been encouraged by U.S. to defect to them, nor useful for their side. The Soviets apparently believed JFK was killed by right-wing elements here — Richard Helms was so bent out of shape hearing that, he came to believe the high level Soviet defector who said it must have been a plant, and Helms put him through extreme psychological duress trying to find out. The Soviet never changed his story.

So, who killed JFK? He did double cross the mob – or his father did, same thing (I often wondered if big Joe’s stroke was caused by Jack’s and Bobby’s “independence”). But Sam Giancana was Chicago, not Louisiana. Marcella of Louisiana had his own ax to grind — Atty Gen Robt. Kennedy had Marcella physically abducted and dumped in South America somewhere (”Spooks” by Jim Hougan I think). And “La Casa Nostra” may have been just Valacci’s little joke. Walk into any good Italian deli and order salami and Provolone on casa nostra, and you’ll get a tasty sandwich on hard Italian bread — like asking for ham and cheese on Holsum or Butternut, it’s like a brand name, “bread from our house.” While it’s possible some particular East Coast mob crew referred to profits from their own independent enterprises as “casa nostra,” distinct from the wider mob interests such as bookmaking, etc., the term was not familiar to Chicago wise guys for anything other than lunch until the Valacci Papers case hit the news. Besides, the mob had a more direct, low profile method if they wanted to take out JFK — his weakness for women (including one he and Giancana shared), and habit of slipping away from the Secret Service to meet with same. A cocktail in his cocktail would be easier, less messy, and avoid the heat and risk of a big, public investigation. Right wing? Howard Hughes comes to mind – he despised Kennedy. All of the Kennedys. Hughes even ranted about the “grotesque” funeral arrangements for JFK. But how about the Penn-Central merger Kennedy quashed? Cost some people a ton of money — and a Board Chairman involved — was it Maurice Stans? Something like that – he was a money man for the Committee to Reelect (CREEP) Nixon.

Heh, heh. God, I LOVE conspiracy theories! Try this one: The most closely guarded secret of the Kennedy White House was the health of the President (Secrecy and Power by Richard Gid Powers); the Kennedy family controls their own intelligence service, composed of highly trained (former) spooks — with the resources and savvy to find out anything worth knowing, a category under which I’d sure include who might’ve killed a relative of mine, and why. I suppose there could be valid reasons to keep it private, such as corruption that would spoil the family name and future political prospects; but the “health of the President” raises a very different and interesting possibility. The appearance of “vigor” was extremely important to JFK; an encroaching, debilitating terminal illness would have been devastating, to say the least. But a dramatic, highly charged and public assassination could have, and might have, established a presidential dynasty of Kennedys. It was JFK who countered the Secret Service detail order to have the bubble over the limo. JFK looked around and said, on getting into the limo, “You know, if someone wanted to kill the president, it wouldn’t be all that difficult.” The limo was a crime scene after the shooting, yet a secret service agent hosed it down, washed away all of the gore and brain matter — making post mortem analysis, well, maybe he wasn’t trained in securing crime scenes? Makes you think, though, doesn’t it?

The range of commentary re- the assassination reveals something very humanistic. Americans develop their views on whether there was a conspiracy or not based on their predisposition “going in”. Those not likely to believe in conspiracies in general lean largely “lone nut”. Those inclined to be skeptical of panels such as The Warren Commission sway heavily “was patsy”.

Undoubtedly some Americans do this, perhaps many, maybe most, but I doubt that all except you are “predisposed” to one view or another. I suspect most Americans are “predisposed” to skepticism of government AND critics thereof.

The truth may never be known.

Only a split-second after death. Until then we can only approximate it, and feebly at that.

If the memo mentioned on Wikipedia turns out to be genuine, it might explain a few things, particularly regarding the circumstances of his return to the US. In addition, there is every possibility that while he was in the USSR that Oswald could have been “turned”, and been working on behalf of the Soviets.

I have to admit, that one of the things that has always bothered me about the whole thing was the assassination of Oswald by Jack Ruby, before he could be subjected to a really good interrogation. Very convenient, and very weird.

La Shawn, Michael is right. I have seen the Zapruder film and can tell you that the shot came from the rear. As a member of the International Wound Ballistics Association which is made up of police, medical and forensic experts who conduct wound ballistic research, analysis and commentary, the physical reaction of the President’s head to the shot is consistent with a high velocity projectile entrance from the back of his head. In autopsy photos of the wounds, the entrance and exit are consistent with the behavior of the 6.5 Carcano round that Oswald was using.

Regardless of whether you cling to a theory of “more than one shooter” or not, the wound is such that it COULD have been fired by Oswald, thus not proving anything one way or another, other than if not fired by Oswald, it would have to have been fired by someone with close to the same angle of fire and the same caliber rifle, or one that fired a cartridge with similar ballistic properties.

I then articulated why I was still right, and you wrote:

La Shawn,

As eloquent as you are at articulating an argument, it is quite possible that you could convince me to ignore what I know of forensic science and just go with your theory. That is, given a lengthy and persuasive post by you on it.

I thought my work was done!

The truth may never be known.

Scott McClare had it mostly right, all but the nylon part. I am quite certain that all material brought along to the moon is of a fire-retardant variety (think Apollo 1).

I will admit that I don’t actually know and will further concede that the falg may have been stored outside eliminating (reducing?) the fire threat.

I liked the Lincoln-Kennedy thing. Interesting (and someone needs a hobby).

I started to comment on this yesterday, but I decided not to since we had a lengthy exchange on it not too long ago. But, I couldn’t stand it any longer so I am commenting today! You already know my opinion on the matter of Oswald and the JFK assassination.

This is one of those world changing events that seem almost fictional, even to many who were present on the scene. Because its effects were so momentous on this country at the time, it is hard for many people to comprehend how one man acting alone could have pulled it off. Consequently it is human nature to want to attribute the assassination to a conspiracy involving other individuals, organizations or countries.