JFK Assassination 40th Anniversary Thread (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

Other than its being interrupted by cheesy commercials and ABC's corporate presence being everywhere, last night's Peter Jennings's-hosted special was truly involving. Excellent.

As was, also, the you-are-there documentary that aired on most PBS stations the previous night.

In fact, that live-as-it-happened PBS documentary brought that day back to vivid life for me; my heart was pounding by the time the president concluded his speech in Fort Worth. (I'm one of the few in this thread who actually remember President Kennedy, who is a major hero of mine).

What I'm getting at is this: The conspiracy "theorists," by their very nature, trivialize this pivotal, tragic event in American history. I don't understand those people, and I don't want to.

 

[Brian Perry]

Will the ABC special be re-run? It sounds fascinating.

 

[Eric Paddon]

No, it won't be rerun but you can buy a VHS or DVD from them. They had a phone number for that I can post when I check the tape again.

 

[nousername]

Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination Beyond Conspiracy (DVD)

 

[Prentice Cotham]

I watched a part of the Men Who Killed Kennedy talking about the LBJ connection. Oswald was the lone gunner in this scenario, but it didn't really focus on the events at Dealey Plaza. Some things from the program:

The former mistress of LBJ said that he told her he was going to get those goddamn Kennedys and it would all be over soon. She also told of a party at a Texas oilman's house the night before the assasination. She said that J Edgar Hoover was there as well as LBJ. At one point, a group including Hoover and LBJ went off to a room by themselves. A maid for another related household confirmed that there was indeed a party there and a co-worker who was the driver had gone to pick Hoover up from the airport to take him to the party and he took him immediately back to the airport after the party. He said Hoover did not tip him. The mistress talked to LBJ the morning of the assasination and he once again mentioned how it was going to be over soon.

They mentioned that there was an unidentified latent print from the Texas Depository. The print was taken to one of the formost latent print analysts w/ 35 yrs of experience. He matched it to one of LBJs strongarms who had been previously tried for a murder. The print was submitted to the FBI and after 18 months the FBI said there was no match. This expert swore on his life that this was an absolute match. Does anyone know more on this fingerprint?

A doctor who was trying to save Oswald's life was called away from the ER to take a phone call. It was LBJ on the other line asking him to get a death confession from Oswald. The doctor was shocked to be taking a call like that and he told the lead doctor about it. LBJ denied making this phone call, but the switchboard operator of the hospital confirmed that LBJ had indeed called and had demanded to be connected to the ER.

It was some shocking stuff if true. The motives for the assasination were that Kennedy was going to remove troops from Vietnam cutting that big military spending, slowly take away the CIAs power, and he was going to cut into Texas oil profits (not sure on those specifics).

I am enjoying reading the discussion thus far.

 

[Eric Paddon]

"The former mistress of LBJ"

There is not a scintilla of evidence that she ever was a mistress of LBJ.

"said that he told her he was going to get those goddamn Kennedys and it would all be over soon."

This is what is known as hearsay and innuendo from an unreliable source.

"She also told of a party at a Texas oilman's house the night before the assasination. She said that J Edgar Hoover was there as well as LBJ."

Hoover was in Washington on 11/21 and LBJ was in Fort Worth with JFK.

"The mistress talked to LBJ the morning of the assasination and he once again mentioned how it was going to be over soon."

LBJ stayed in the same hotel as JFK and attended the same morning breakfast. This is just more BS from someone who can be blown out of the water in ten seconds by those with an elementary knowledge of the basic chronology of the assassination.

"They mentioned that there was an unidentified latent print from the Texas Depository. The print was taken to one of the formost latent print analysts w/ 35 yrs of experience. He matched it to one of LBJs strongarms who had been previously tried for a murder. The print was submitted to the FBI and after 18 months the FBI said there was no match. This expert swore on his life that this was an absolute match. Does anyone know more on this fingerprint?"

No, because the story is bogus. There was no latent print on the 6th Floor of anyone other than LHO.

"A doctor who was trying to save Oswald's life was called away from the ER to take a phone call. It was LBJ on the other line asking him to get a death confession from Oswald. The doctor was shocked to be taking a call like that and he told the lead doctor about it. LBJ denied making this phone call, but the switchboard operator of the hospital confirmed that LBJ had indeed called and had demanded to be connected to the ER."

More garbage. This is Charles Crenshaw who already spun some tall tales about his supposed involvement in trying to save JFK's life when he wasn't even there. White House phone logs reveal no such phone call to Dallas, and LBJ was at that moment not in any position to make a phone call.

"It was some shocking stuff if true."

Except that none of it is. This is just third-rate tabloid stuff that is too often broadcast in a slick fashion so that those who know better would have to do ten hours or so in rebuttal to show why all of that stuff is garbage to begin with. It is so easy to tell a simple lie in a few seconds and it takes so much longer for the damage caused by such lies to be wiped out.

"The motives for the assasination were that Kennedy was going to remove troops from Vietnam"

This is just the fantasy wish of left-wing people who think JFK was going to become a 60s flower child in the White House had he lived. The fact is that JFK was a traditional Cold Warrior who just three weeks before his own death guaranteed a deeper US committment when he directed the coup that led to the murder of South Vietnamese President Diem. And Bobby Kennedy repeatedly insisted in oral history interviews for the JFK Library in 1964 there was no Vietnam pullout plan, ever.

"cutting that big military spending, slowly take away the CIAs power"

What does either of that mean? That JFK was going to become an appeaser of the Soviet Union and give them a unilateral military advantage even though JFK had won the Presidency by campaigning about a "missile gap"? And that JFK, who had used the CIA to implement assassination plots against Castro, was going to gut America's leading intelligence agency and give the Soviets an advantage? Just try to imagine Kennedy pushing those ideas before a Congress that wouldn't give him anything while he was alive because they thought he was a lightweight, and you'll find that no "coup" needed to murder JFK to prevent those kinds of appeasesment policies from being implemented. The Congress, which would have to approve any such measures, would have stopped JFK in his tracks from doing such things detrimental to American security, and JFK would have been run out of office by an irate American public.

 

[David Von Pein]

I just watched the ABC documentary for a second time (already). It's even better the second time around!

For those who might be a little irked at ABC for throwing so many darts at Oliver Stone and his 1991 film....I would just counter with my belief that it's about time a documentary like the ABC one was aired, to deflate (at least somewhat in some people's skewed eyes) the balloon of conspiracy that Mr. Stone suggests in
his fan-fic-film.

Although I do still love the film (and John Williams' excellent music), but as entertainment and not fact, I think it's about time that some major network (like ABC did) knock Stone off his lofty, know-it-all perch. I love the way ABC knocked the movie down multiple pegs! (Fact-wise, that is.)

I thought it somewhat humorous that, right in the middle of being battered from pillar to post, Warner Home Video chose to advertise its new 2-Disc Special Edition of Oliver Stone's "JFK" during the two-hour ABC broadcast on Thursday. (Though I guess it made sense to advertise the DVD during that program, given the overall subject matter. But I chuckled a bit anyway when viewing the ad.)

I think it would have been really nice if ABC-TV had countered the Oliver Stone commercial with a little ad of their own. Such as.....

"After watching your new copy of Oliver Stone's 'JFK', go on-line to http://www.abcnewsstore.com/store/in...gory_code=HOME immediately if not sooner to swim in a river of reality again regarding the events of 11/22/63! We're gonna rip you off (money-wise), by charging you the arm-and-a-leg sum
of $35.90 (!!)(inc. S&H) for just a single 88-minute program, but we won't rip you off regarding the facts of November 22nd! Order today! Great gift idea for the JFK fans on your Christmas list -- if your wallet is that big!" :b

 

[David Von Pein]

As I said before here, I also loved Michael Paine's admission that Oswald showed him (Paine) one of the famous (supposedly "manufactured") backyard photos. A fact that would demolish all the various work done by conspiracy theorists, who insist upon passing those pictures off as fakes. If Oswald EVER had one in his mitts, they cannot be fakes.

I commend ABC highly for presenting a non-conspiracy view of the JFK assassination, something that's been all too rare from the major TV networks since CBS' fine program ("The Warren Report") in 1967, which DID back up the Warren Commission findings nearly 100%. (CBS' later "JFK: Facts, Not Fiction" and "JFK: The Final Chapter" were also good, in that they presented available evidence as "facts", instead of relying on wholely impossible-to-prove conspiracy scenarios.)

Anybody know how the ABC JFK program did in the Thursday night ratings? I hope it won. It should have.

 

[Pete M]

Not too bad, considering it was up against CSI and ER.

TheFutonCritic.com

As for the show... this guy spent 10 building this digital model, and we saw it for a combined, what?, 4 minutes? I really enjoyed the background on both LHO and Ruby, but was expecting more "proof" from the Warren Commision. At least the CourtTV special showed why some of the conspiracy theory's were wrong. And 89-year-old clicking the trigger 3 times in 7.8 seconds? Oh, never mind - it must've been LHO. :rolleyes

 

[RobertR]

It was some shocking stuff if true.

Eric has done a great job of demolishing this nonsense. Another aspect which shows how ridiculous it is is the claim that John Connally was involved in the "conspiracy", since Texas was his "turf", which meant that he "controlled" all aspects of Texas law enforcement, and "they" lured Kennedy to Texas for that reason.

This overlooks the fact that Connally was in the same car as Kennedy and was also shot. We're to believe that Connally was willing to be shot and potentially killed for the "cause"?? What loons these people are!!

 

[David Von Pein]

...this guy spent 10 [years] building this digital model, and we saw it for a combined, what?, 4 minutes?

Yeah, I wanted to see more of the animations as well. But what was shown, with the 360-degree panning around the limo, was nice. I wonder, too, why the model wasn't used more in the ABC Special.

I wonder if there's any way to access Mr. Myers' excellent work on the Internet someplace?? It'd be great to be able to control the model from a home computer.

(You'd think he would want his painstaking work to be seen more than just the few minutes during the ABC special.)

 

[Tyler Gagnon]

What ever happened to "Proven quilty in a court of law" Oswald was proven guilty in the court of public opinion, Never given a lawyer, Which is everyone's right as an american, Then he is disposed of three days later, There is way to much evidence to suggest someone other than lho pulled the trigger, To think this little puny man acted alone is laughable.

 

[David Von Pein]

What ever happened to "Proven quilty in a court of law" ...

I guess, then (since he died before trial), we should just ignore the fact the every single piece of physical evidence points toward Oswald being guilty...without any hard evidence to suggest any other shooters (except CT speculation).

There have no doubt been cases where murderers have been convicted on one-tenth the evidence that exists against Oswald.

 

[RobertR]

To think this little puny man acted alone is laughable.

You're expressing the attitude of conspiracy buffs--that a crime of such colossal magnitude (It's fascinating to see conspiracy buffs elevate Kennedy's status to that of Savior of the 60s--if he had lived there would have been no Vietnam War, no civil rights riots, the Cold War would have ended, peace and justice would have been established everywhere, etc. etc.) could ONLY be carried out by an equally colossal group of criminals. Quite the contrary, the meams by which Oswald acted alone is well established. He had access to the necessary vantage point, he had the necessary weapon, the necessary shooting skills, the political/sociopathic makeup, etc., NONE of which required the participation of anyone else.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Israeli prime minister Rabin was cut down by a lone nut. Egyptian president Sadat was cut down by lone fanatic who charged the leader's viewing stand in full view of a large crowd. U.S. president Lincoln was assassinated by a deranged, lone actor. Pope Paul VI was shot by a solitary loon. An opportunistic, obsessed Sirhan Sirhan cut down Robert F. Kennedy.

Why is it so difficult to accept the fact that a single, obsessed, disturbed man would be capable of an extraordinary crime?

Way, way too many people are focusing on this one aspect of the Kennedy legacy, ignoring the world in which it took place (America was a very polarized nation then, and Cold War ideologies prevailed) and ignoring the facts of the man's political history and career.



Just because the magnitude of a crime is astonishing doesn't mean the Mob, the CIA, LBJ, the entire town of Dallas, Castro, the USSR, the BBC, Capitol Records, Campbell's Soup, and Chase-Manhattan Bank all have to be involved.

Best advice: Read your history. And not just about JFK's death, but about his rich and extraordinary life. Richard Reeves's President Kennedy would be a good start. You might also want to read about the Cold War. Stick with facts, not appealing flights of fancy.

 

[AjayM]

To think this little puny man acted alone is laughable.

So if he were 7ft tall and 400lbs he could do it? What does his size have to do with it?

Think of all the assassinations (attempted or successful) throughout US history, how many had massive conspiracies? How many were done by a single "puny" man?

Andrew

 

[Tyler Gagnon]

Just because the government say's he is the killer does not make it fact, Guilty until proven innocent, And since lho never stood trail he is still just a suspect, There are way to many questions that raise reasonable doubt.

 

[RobertR]

Guilty until proven innocent, And since lho never stood trail he is still just a suspect

So if a jury had convicted him, all of the conspiracy buffs would not have come up with their pet theories about who else was involved? And you would not be talking about "unanswered questions"? I don't buy that for a second.

Where do you get this notion that a jury verdict is the ultimate determination of truth? The O.J. Simpson trial is proof that jury verdicts do NOT necessarily coincide with the evidence. Also, a jury trial could not possibly have produced a more exhaustive investigation than what was undertaken (and would not have been more "independent" of the "evil government forces" that conspiracy types focus so much on). Witnesses were interviewed, physical evidence was gathered, motives were explored, etc. to a degree that no jury trial could have exceeded. The presence of a jury doesn't magically produce more or better evidence, so your focus on the absence of a trial is worthless.

 

[AjayM]

There are way to many questions that raise reasonable doubt.

Such as? List all these questions that aren't answered from the existing evidence.

Andrew

 

[Eric Paddon]

"Oswald was proven guilty in the court of public opinion"

No he wasn't since public opinion almost from the beginning wanted to believe conspiracy.

"Never given a lawyer, Which is everyone's right as an american"

Because he specifically asked to be represented by one attorney, John Abt of New York, whom no one could get hold of that weekend.

"Then he is disposed of three days later"

Kindly go back and read my earlier post on the timing factor which shows how this theory is ridiculous.

"To think this little puny man acted alone is laughable."

Is it anymore laughable then a nut like John Hinckley coming close to murdering Ronald Reagan for one of the most bizarre reasons on the face of the Earth (impressing Jodie Foster)? Stop and think about that one for a moment.