Top 10 unanswered JFK questions

From The Independent in the U.K. Check out the ultimate question,  #10. It’s the most important question for 2013.

30 comments

  1. Neil says:

    Good article. Not surprising that it comes from a foreign newspaper.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      How true. Most of the points listed below are relevant to the continued search for the Truth overall. However, #7 &10 are most relevant to the most important issue at hand that anything can be done about at this time.
      The importance of the information on Joannides, Phillips/Bishop, and Morales among others could provide key insight necessary to understand the overall scope of the assassination.
      Withholding it tends to confirm it’s importance.
      We may never know how many shot’s were fired, from where they were fired, by who. Or exactly what shot hit JFK when from where.
      But we might figure out part part of how it happened and why.
      If the 1150+ files are released.
      Could we then begin to believe a little bit in our Government, Honesty from it, Transparency within it???

    • Jordan says:

      It’s not unusual for someone outside of the U.S. to have a clearer perspective on the internal goings-on of the U.S.

      In fact, the U.S. is not the only country with documents related to JFK being held hostage by the Government….

      In Canada, we have a battle for the Louis Bloomfield archives.
      You might already know that Bloomfield was heavily involved with FBI Division 5, Permindex, the OSS, Clay Shaw, CMC, Operation Gladio etc…

  2. Jonathan says:

    I agree that Question #10 — what’s in the CIA files scheduled to be declassified in 2017 — is of great importance.

    Historically, I believe the question of the authenticity of the backyard photos is most important. The backyard photos, which are highly suspect, were used right away to try to convict Oswald in the public mind. They have substituted, in reality, for any facts connecting Oswald to the murder of JFK or Tippit.

    • Thomas says:

      I don’t think the authenticity is as important as it seems. It’s possible they even if they are real that the true purpose of Oswald being asked to pose for them is unknown. In other words it could have been part of a cover story that he accepted at the time as part of his “undercover work.” Or even a joke.

      Let’s assume for a moment they are real. Why would a person create such incriminating photos? If he took great pride in such a militant image why would he deny murdering the president instead of embracing it? The psychology is mixed up.

    • Neil says:

      What bothers me about the Backyard Photos is that Oswald’s facial expression and the shadows look exactly the same in both photos despite the different poses. I’m no photography expert but it seems logical that there should be slight changes in the shadows and facial expressions between the photos.

      But I agree with Thomas’ view as well. If he photos are authentic it’s kind of similar to the videos Suicide Bombers make before they become ‘martyrs’. If the photos are authentic and related to the Walker assassination attempt, it shows that Oswald would’ve been proud of what he did and maybe not claimed he was innocent if caught. It’s rare for political assassins to refuse to claim responsibility for a political murder. Even if Oswald was the lone assassin, it suggests his motive wasn’t political.

  3. anonymous says:

    “9. Was Jack Ruby an FBI informant?
    a nightclub operator in Dallas, is a staple of many of the Kennedy conspiracy theories….
    According to the HSCA report Ruby was casually employed as a provisional criminal informant… ”

    So this unanswered question, was actually answered by HSCA over thirty years ago??
    A better question is: What was the Nixon and LBJ relationship with Jack Ruby? Ruby did work for Nixon in the forties…

    Ruby did assist the authorities in getting their original conspiracy theory straight – Ruby attended a midnight police station press conference at which he corrected the Dallas DA. When the DA told reporters that Oswald belonged to the Free Cuba Committee, an Anti-Castro outfit , Ruby pointed out that the DA had meant Fair Play for Cuba, a Pro-Castro group.

    Good luck with the tenth unanswered question ( CIA assassination files ) – The CIA refused repeated orders from Nixon,to turn over to him the assassination files:
    http://crimemagazine.com/richard-nixons-greatest-cover-his-ties-assassination-president-kennedy.

    Another question is How was Zapruder film altered? or Why was the Zapruder film altered?
    See JFK’s revenge part 1- the Zapruder film was altered:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA

    • Jonathan says:

      You touch upon a touchy subject: Was the Z-film altered (e.g., at the CIA’s Hawkeye Works in Rochester, New York)?

      Touchy because there are strong feelings pro and con in the community of those who dispute the Warren Commission.

      There are lots of question marks hanging over the extant film in the National Archives. It doesn’t match with Clint Hill’s statements regarding how he forcibly pushed Jackie Kenned back down into the limousine. It doesn’t show the limousine stop, although it indicates Greer braked the limo in the kill zone. It shows persons lining Elm Street who are motionless as the limousine approaches and passes, as if they are mannequins.

      I don’t believe the extant film would be admissible in evidence at a trial; no clear chain of title.

      • Melvin Fromme says:

        I’m with you on that issue, Jonathan. If the UK journalists notice in the JFK 50th TV overkill last month the 2 subjects avoided on US TV were the Zapruder film alteration allegations & the blow out to the back of JFK’s head. Even though the Newman family & Mary Moorman (Khramer) were standing mere yards from Zapruder & were interviewed several times, not one of them was asked if they agreed with the Zapruder film versus what they saw transpire with their own eyes. Zapruder tampering leads back to government operatives & JFK’s read head blow out leads to a frontal shooter; discussing both is obviously forbidden on US TV. The UK essay should have included both topics, the USA doesn’t own the UK (does it?). I thought this country was broke.

      • anonymous says:

        “film would be admissible in evidence at a trial; no clear chain of title.”

        It was 12 years before the Zapruder’s film was shown on TV. Even then , stabilized Zapruder film was only shown in slow motion ,hiding animation mistakes.

        http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/fast.html

        Jack White and John Costella describe finding animation mistakes:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnnxwijxG7Q

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqDwyDbbDOs

        Life took care of the film…In 1967, Life claimed that four frames of the original (208–211) had been accidentally destroyed, and the adjacent frames damaged, by a Life photo lab technician on November 23, 1963 . In The CIA and the Media, Carl Bernstein stated that Henry Luce’s Life magazine cooperated regularly with the CIA:

        http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/09/25/part-2-viva-zapata-3/

  4. S.R."Dusty" Rohde says:

    Let me address question numbers six and two. Question six asks if the original autopsy images have been tampered with. We, “the general public” haven’t been shown those images so how can we answer? Some of the images in evidence are claimed to be autopsy photos but are not. Post-autopsy images have been substituted for “Pre-autopsy” images. These Post-autopsy images have most certainly been tampered with, as they have been photograghically altered, proven…not theory. More importantly, the body itself was altered as these images were taken AFTER the morticians “patched” up the head for funeral services, well documented and easily proven. Was the head “patched” up? Bone and scalp (hair and skin) were missing according to testimonies and even Cmdr. Humes autopsy report. So how can you photograph something that isn’t there, but “magically” shows up in post-autopsy and Ida Dox images?

  5. GM says:

    I am not sure the backyard photos are that important. Oswald was a former Marine anyway. I have been reading Summers’ Not in Your Lifetime, and he says that Oswald was struggling to pay back the loan from the State Department, and then around the time he bought the rifle, he was able to pay the loan off as well.

    A question I have about the files is the ones held by American intelligence on John Martino. Summers says that they had been held back as well. Does anyone know why? In addition, have the Naval Intelligence, Army Intelligence and the FBI still got files on Oswald to release? Moreover, does anyone know why Oswald was not prosecuted by the American authorities on returning to the USA after his ‘defection’, and declaration that he would tell the Soviets about America’s military secrets (the ones he knew about anyway)? After all, surely this is tantamount to treason, given that it was at the height of the Cold War, and Oswald was seemingly supporting the arch enemy over his own country.

    • Jonathan says:

      GM,

      Your comment makes a key assumption, a critically important assumption: that Oswald bought the Manlicher-Carcano now in the National Archives.

      The postal money order allegedly used to pay for the rifle was never cashed by Klein’s. The envelope in which it was mailed shows a postmark inconsistent with Oswald’s work record for the day the envelope was mailed. At the time Oswald supposedly ordered the rifle, Klein’s was selling only 36-inch Carcanos. The National Archives model is 40(+) inches long. The rifle allegedly was shipped to A. Hidell at a Dallas P.O. Box; but there is no record whatsoever ANYONE picked up the rifle from the post office in Dallas.

      I could go on considerably in the same vein. The point is, to assume Oswald bought the rifle is unsupported by the record.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        And, I believe CIA Agent Richard Case Nagel said A./Alex/Aleik Hidel/Hidell was a pseudonym used by more than one CIA agent. Correct me if I’m wrong, been a while since I’ve read about him. This could lead to the three wallet’s.

        • S.R."Dusty" Rohde says:

          Ronnie…you or anyone interested in the Alek Hidell alias, with connections to Jack Ruby and Ruby’s potential intelligence connections should visit this site http://www.whokilledjfk.net/JackRuby.htm. Pay particular attention to the DPD General Offense Report filed on behalf of Mary Bledsoe indicating the fight between Ruby, Hidell and Grant.

      • GM says:

        I thought that the order form had Oswald’s handwriting on it? Summers seems to think that Oswald ordered the rifle, and that the backyard photos were genuine. Although I am sceptical of the official version of the JFK assassination, I am not sure it is does much good to deny everything that casts Oswald in a bad or dubious light.

    • S.R."Dusty" Rohde says:

      GM…Bill Kelly posted a great article on the ONI/Oswald files being witheld. See it here http://www.jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com.
      There are also reports on John Martino in DPD records which may provide clues or answers regarding him.

  6. James O'Neill says:

    The only surprising thing about The Independent’s 10 questions is that they are still being asked. The newspaper seems completely unaware of the ARRB and not only the evidence they adduced but what has been revealed by the 2 million plus pages of documents released pursuant to the JFK Records Act.

    All of their questions have been comprehensively answered by researchers such as McKnight, di Eugenio, Horne, Douglass and others. The Independent in common with most of the msm persist in raising these questions as though they are only being raised by so-called conspiracy theorists. In fact, for those bothered to do the reading, the answers are readily apparent.

    • echelon says:

      Hear, hear.

      I scoured the UK press for genuine investigative articles in the lead-up to the 50th, and as a collective they are just as “blindfolded” as their counterparts in the US.

  7. George Simmons says:

    In relation to point number 10, also worth remembering that the files relating to George Joannides are being illegally witheld by the CIA. Due to his role in 1963, and his role with the HSCA in the 70′s, George Joannides is obviously assassination related and as such his files should have been released by now. Judge John Tunheim, former chair of the ARRB, have stated that the records should have been released.

    So, what is it about the role of George Joannides in 1963 which the CIA is so keen to keep away from the public eye? We cannot know for sure. But we do know that the CIA considered it important and sensitive enough to commit a crime in the 70′s to keep it secret. They did not disclose to the HSCA the true role of George Joannides in 1963 which meant they were lying to , and misleading a congressional investigation into the murder of a president.

    The CIA should obey the law, and release these files now.

  8. Robert Fernandez says:

    What an irresponsible piece of journalism. It mingles actual unanswered questions with the speculation of amateurs like Stone about issues that have long been settled by medical and forensic experts. And by mixing the two together, it makes it more unlikely that those real questions – about CIA documents and activities – will go unanswered because they can be dismissed as conspiracy theories.

  9. John Kirsch says:

    I know that many people believe JFK was “turning” against the pressure for constant war and preparation for war and that this alleged change on his part is what got him killed, presumably by all or part of the “military industrial complex.”
    Actually, I think it’s all quite murky.
    In that regard, I recommend “There Will Never Be a Unified Theory of JFK What a year of retrospectives missed about the martyred president” in The New Republic online.
    The article paints a picture of a very equivocal leader who gave mixed signals. It also makes the point that JFK’s American University speech came at a time when the U.S. held a massive advantage over the Soviets in nuclear arms and U.S. power and prestige generally around the world was at a high point. So when Kennedy (appeared) to offer an olive branch to the Soviets, he was doing so from a position of tremendous strategic advantage over them.
    Which is a long way of saying that I remain unconvinced by the portrait some have tried to paint of JFK as a kind of proto-peacenik.
    I think that’s really more about some people projecting their views onto Kennedy than it is the result of turning up real, convincing evidence of a “turning” on his part.
    Kennedy, as Richard Reeves has written, may have mistrusted the military, but that doesn’t mean he had any intentions of dismantling the “military industrial complex.”
    Kennedy’s father was one of the wealthiest men in America (and an extremely reactionary one at that). JFK himself was the product of an elite upbringing.
    Even if he had managed to come to his own conclusions about the role of the U.S. in the world, I find it difficult to believe that he would have made any radical changes in policy if he had not been assassinated.

    • JSA says:

      John,

      Do you think the post-Civil War Reconstruction in the South might have been radically different had Abraham Lincoln lived to serve out a full second term, instead of Andrew Johnson being President?

      Just wondering…

      • John Kirsch says:

        JSA, your comment suggests that you see a connection of some kind between the 2 assassinated presidents but I can’t tell from your comment what you think that connection might be. Why don’t you tell me what your subtext is.

        • JSA says:

          I don’t believe entirely in the “great man” theory of history, but I do think that some people (Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington—to name a few off the top of my head) actually made a big political difference by being alive and in positions of leadership when they did. I see JFK as having some of these qualities in tempering the hot heads from going to war, as he and his brother stood almost alone in opposing a strike against Cuba in October of 1962. I also don’t think Kennedy would have bought a Gulf of Tonkin event as a prelude for full forces on the ground, as LBJ evidently did. I think they were vastly different leaders, yielding vastly different political outcomes, even though LBJ kept many of Kennedy’s advisors. Ultimately the buck stops with the President, who sets the tone, as Doris K. Goodwin wrote in describing Lincoln’s use of diverse advisors in “Team of Rivals.” I think Kennedy was in the same vein. He set the tone. When he was gone, although the culture was beyond his control, and natural events were beyond his control, I think he set a tone. To make another comparison: I think if Al Gore had been given the presidency that he clearly won, rather than Bush, we would have not lost so many American lives in Iraq. That’s my take.

          • John Kirsch says:

            I gather that you believe Kennedy would have avoided getting the U.S. as deeply involved in Vietnam as Johnson did. Is that correct?
            I’m no historian but there does appear to be some evidence to support the notion that JFK resisted pressure from his generals for a quick military attack on Cuba. On the other hand, at that time the U.S. had a huge nuclear advantage over the Soviets, which allowed Kennedy to bargain from a position of strength.
            You could make the argument that the Kennedys brought the missile crisis on themselves. Would Castro have allowed Soviet missiles in Cuba if the Bay of Pigs hadn’t happened? Yes, Kennedy successfully resisted his general’s pressure to support the anti-Castro exiles. Nevertheless, the “invasion,” botched as it was, did happen. And Castro knew the U.S. was trying to assassinate him.
            I keep coming back to my inability to buy the idea that JFK had become some sort of foe of the national security-military apparatus. My sense is that he was given to playing double games, with the result that his advisers, military and civilian, often did not know what he wanted them to do. That’s a management “style” that is almost guaranteed to result in subordinates coming up with their own plans.
            I’m not in any way suggesting that Kennedy brought his own death on himself, only that he seemed to have a very equivocal, even secretive, management style that must have been very frustrating for his subordinates.
            My sense, and it is only a sense, is that Kennedy viewed the military with skepticism. Richard Reeves has given much support to that view. But Kennedy was a creature of his time and place and I find it difficult to believe that he would have struck out in bold new directions if he had lived.
            It’s tempting to think that he would have but I think the evidence for that is thin. The American University speech was inspiring, yes, but we will never know if it would have actually resulted in a significant lessening of tensions. My sense is that Kennedy was given to making bold pronouncements in his speeches but had difficulty translating his ideas into policy. Like most presidents, I suspect he spent most of his time worrying about his career and waiting for something to happen.

  10. John Kirsch says:

    The government and its helpers would prefer that critics of the Official Story stop asking questions. Their attitude reminds me of Boss Tweed, who is reputed to have thundered “Stop them damn pictures!” in response to Thomas Nast’s scathing cartoons.
    In that regard, I recommend “If You Believe the Government, You’re Stupid” by Jon Schwartz on the Consortium News site.
    The article gives an extremely revealing glimpse into how the government really felt about reporters during the Vietnam War. The attitude would have done Boss Tweed proud — stop asking all these damn questions and just print what we say.
    The damning part of the article is where the Pentagon spokesman says reporters would be stupid to believe anything government officials told them. As a former reporter, I had to at least give the the guy points for honesty.
    I see parallels between Vietnam and 11/22. I never did hear the government come up with a convincing reason for us to be in Vietnam. Since I was of draft age during that time, I took a very keen interest in what the government said about Vietnam. Fortunately I had a safe lottery number,the one thing that softens my heart toward Nixon.
    Similarly, I never have heard the government come up with a convincing account of what happened in Dallas. If memory, serves, even some members of the Warren Commission itself had to be pressured into signing it.
    Nevertheless, the government and its helpers continue to peddle their ludicrous account of 11/22. When confronted with questions, their response is, trust us, the same response the Obama administration had when the Snowden revelations started to come out.
    But the Pentagon PR official quoted in the Consortium News piece gave the game away years ago. We lie to you, he said to reporters, and if you object, he suggested, we’ll get you in trouble with your bosses back home.
    If the government was capable of lying about Vietnam, it was (and is) certainly capable of lying about 11/22.

  11. I do not understand why more people do not mention the statement of amos euins under oath to the W.C.He was the best positioned to see the 6th floor window and he made a partial identification that was not Oswald.Is it the bigotry of people like O’reilly and Bugolosi?Also how come nobody seem to realize that the tramps were doppelgangers not shooters.Charles Harrelson sure does resemble Jean Souetre.

  12. Why did Billy Lovelady and Billy Shelly both go back to the first floor elevator right after the shooting.According to Baker they were there before him as Vicki Adams seems to identify them as the two men Baker saw 90 seconds after the shooting.Their statements to the W.C. appear to be perjury.Why?Was A switcheroo planed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more