Would it make any difference if we knew who killed JFK?

Pablo asks a good question:

I would not say I am an expert on all things concerning the assassination of our president, but one question nags me to no end, what will happen, if and when, we find out the truth? I ask because I have brought up the question to colleagues of mine. Say we find out what really happened on November 22, 1963…what do we do then? What will the government tell us? Sorry?

“This happened but it was a different form of government back then and it will never happen again.”

Can the government really admit something to us that could potentially make us question our government, not that we do not already?


I’m not looking to the government to tell me the Truth.  I’m looking for the government to practice Full Disclosure.

To put it another way, the truth will set us free from the misconceptions of the past about November 22. Full disclosure will empower us to hold government accountable in the future.

CIA & JFKSo, while the truth of what happened in Dealey Plaza is important, I say let people make up their own minds based on the facts.

Was the liberal president ambushed by right-wing enemies in Dallas?  Before we can answer that question definitively, we need to see the evidence the government is hiding. Among other things, we need to see the 7 JFK files the CIA still keeps secret. The unredacted records will tell us something significant about CIA operations and Oswald in 1963.

The issue in 2016 is full disclosure. I’m not looking for the U.S. government to tell me “Who Done It?”  I’m looking for the U.S. government to say to the American people in October 2017  or before:

“The JFK assassination story is your history and you deserve it all, without redactions.”

That would be significant. That would be important. That would demonstrate that the CIA is willing to obey the law when it comes to the JFK assassination story, something that has not always been true.

It won’t be easy. Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, the CIA hates the idea of full JFK disclosure. The agency doesn’t respect the JFK Records Act or the will of Congress. The CIA, for example, retains 1,100 records related to JFK’s assassination (some 15,000-50,000 pages of material!).

The CIA plans to keep some of these secrets even past October 2017 when the law requires that they be made public.


The CIA insists that it is hiding nothing, even as the fact show otherwise. For example, in 2003, I sued the CIA for certain JFK records. Thirteen years later, the agency is still spending the taxpayer dollars to fight me in court. My FOIA lawsuit had no “public benefit,” said Justice Department attorneys in federal court last years.

Never mind that the New York TimesFox NewsPolitico, Boston Globe,  Associated PressDallas Morning NewsHuffington Post and Daily Mail ran stories about the lawsuit and what I uncovered: a CIA officer who got a medal for stonewalling Congress about what he knew of the events of 1963.

Naturally, the CIA sees no benefit in being forced to disclose such a disturbing story. The agency would prefer you and I didn’t know about such things. So the CIA argues that the law prevents them from disclosing what would embarrass them. It doesn’t. The law requires full disclosure.

In my new ebook, CIA and JFK: The Last Assassination Secrets, I give a comprehensive snapshot of what is known about a dozen CIA officers who handled pre-assassination intelligence on Oswald and/or participated in assassination operations in 1963. There’s no theory here, only facts.

The role of the next president

The role of the next president is important.  We can be sure that the CIA plans to keep some of if JFK secrets after October 2017 when the law requires that they be made public. But to do so, the agency has  to get the explicit permission of the president.

President Clinton or President Trump (or President Gary Johnson) will decide whether the CIA can evade the law or has to practice full JFK disclosure. That’s why

Full JFK disclosure is an issue in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Clinton and Trump have spoken on the JFK issues.

In 2008 candidate Clinton endorsed the idea of full JFK disclosure in principle but she left herself a big “national security” loophole, so her commitment cannot be called strong.

Donald Trump has offered a bogus JFK conspiracy theory but has no known position on full disclosure of JFK records.

Of course, the JFK story isn’t the only secrecy issue in 2016, just the oldest.  JFK secrecy is the precursor of–the granddaddy of 9/11 secrecy–as exemplified by the withholding of 28 pages from the 9/11 Commission’s report about Saudi Arabia’s role in the attacks.

The issue in both cases is the same: can the people force the government to come clean?

The next president will decide.





51 thoughts on “Would it make any difference if we knew who killed JFK?”

  1. Bill, I’ve not read your entire article yet but thanks for this quote “covert operation… so planned and executed to conceal the identity of or permit plausible deniability”, U S Department of Defense Dictionary. Revealing, incriminating and insightful regarding also Allen Dulles, James Angleton and the CIA at the time.

  2. I suspect that the skeptics and the anti-conspiracists will respond very differently to any new discoveries that come from the release of these documents.

    The skeptics of the official account, by and large, seem open to new ideas and new evidence. They understand that we do not, as yet, know the entire story, and that there is still much that can be learned.

    The anti-conspiracists do not seem to be interested in the evidence at all. For them, Oswald was a “sociopath” and JFK was a mediocre president with few accomplishments. One wonders why they bother to spend so much of their time writing and thinking about such a dull, uninteresting story.

  3. Excellent book Jeff. Some excellent more recent JFK assassination info

    Adding up all the events regarding GJ , DRE, Appointment of GJ to HSCA, DRE using LHO for propoganda purposes pre and post assassination , GJ 1963 role for psych warfare , AARB release of Hoover memo regarding LHO impersonation , Hoover phone call to LBJ regarding LHO impersonation, the CIA failure to provide the photo and audio evidence to debunk Hoover impersonation claim, 2 separately written statements by government counsel claiming CIA obstruction , Antonio Veniccia recent statements – it’s nearly impossible from a probability basis to claim that someone(s) was trying to manufacture LHO as acting on behalf of Castro pre assassination and senior members of the CIA trying to hide this LHO sheep dipping post assasination ( for decades and in some cases doing so in an illegal manner ).

    The big question remaining I s why ?

  4. Make a difference? You’re kidding. I get where the question is coming from because the reality is the American public would look up from its smartphone for a second, shrug, and go back to whatever it was they were doing. It’s that behavior that has given us a corrupt, lying Democrat versus a moron reality tv star for our Presidential election. But past that, confirmation of the coup and its team would help immensely in understanding how our democracy doesn’t work and how important it is to do everything we can to protect it.

  5. Well put Jeff and the information in your book is incredible IMO and adds more facts establishing LHO relationship with the CIA.

    That the CIA and Joanides repeatedly lied to investigators that the CIA funded the DRE during 1963 is a bombshell as we know the DRE used LHO for propaganda purposes, both before and directly after the assassination and its unlikely Joanides, Phillips and Helms were unaware of this. Helms tapping GJ to be the HSCA point person adds credence to this knowledge and not letting it become public. Backtracking the LHO was working on behalf of Castro conspirators was materially important to the assassination investigation. Its a rather odd but also revealing coincidence that Joanides was a psych warfare specialist.

    Lining and adding up these events with the LHO Mexico City incident, Hoover memo and LBJ phone call regarding LHO being impersonated and the CIA missing evidence that would have debunked Hoover’s impersonation statement makes it nearly impossible to believe on a sheer probability basis that someone wasn’t trying to backtrack LHO to be Pro Castro. Tom also did a very good job with the impersonations story.

    Furthermore combining the material in your book and the written statements made by the counsel of both HSCA and AARB, separate government lawyers with similar very allegations provides additional solid evidentiary basis of CIA shenanigans (for decades) surrounding their relationship with LHO.

    IMO your book has some of the best new and shocking JFK assassination material released in the last 5-10 years.

  6. Note the heading assumes that “we” don’t know who killed JFK.

    I’m afraid the “we” will never “know,” since they will reject any answer that they don’t like, and they don’t like the truth.

    1. “I’m afraid the “we” will never “know,” since they will reject any answer that they don’t like, and they don’t like the truth.”

      That sounds a LOT like the global warming denialists, who deny that manmade carbon emissions are warming the planet, despite the overwhelming peer reviewed scientific evidence that it is happening.

      What proof convinces you that Oswald acted alone and was the killer of JFK, John? Do 97% of historians think that JFK was killed by Oswald alone, or is it a smaller percentage?

  7. The shame masquerading as “hollowed institutional credibility” belies the carefully crafted fairy tail of orderly government. Power concedes nothing without a demand. In this perpetual power based struggle are the haves and the havenots. The former determined to maintain control, and the latter determined to wrest from the controllers, some modicum of livable wage and equitable economic security. This perpetual activity usually is decided in the body politic, either through election, compromise, or negotiated settlement – that is, until November 22, 1963. The public execution of JFK in Dealy Plaza was both symbolic and symbiotic. Symbolic in that the assassination itself was the culmination of a covert plot that achieved its public purpose; and, symbiotic in that the separate branches of government moved to suppress the truth and reasons why JFK was killed, by whom, and how it was achieved without exposure. Lee Harvey Oswald could not have killed JFK, even according to the Warren Omission. What now stands as “government” is a fabrication built up over 50+ illegitimate years in power, because of the lies of men sworn “to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America…” Instead, what we have found are people who serve the agendas of supra-national corporations, banking and war interests, and advance policies which gut the Constitution in favor of a national security/military state. What JFK would not allow on his watch was achieved by coup d’etat on 11/22/63. “Operation Northwoods” (DOD/JCS) was not just about Cuba or Russia, but could be adapted and applied to any perceived enemy of the NATIONAL SECURITY STATE. These selected enemies, whether real or created, produces the climate for gutting the United States Constitution. Coups are about regime and policy changes, not personalities. “My enemies came against me with force and violence and prevailed; but, my legacy was the greatest weapon raised against them” – Kennedy63.

    1. I also think that President Kennedy was most likely killed by a consortium of powerful people who staged a coup and were able to cover it up with lies, threats and blackmail afterward, but I don’t think this kind of power play began with JFK’s assassination. In 1865, frustrated with the done deal of slaves being freed, a group of disgruntled losers for the Southern Cause tried to take down the US government, and succeeded in killing the president. Although they weren’t powerful people, it was a coup attempt that partially succeeded. As for lies and fairy tales told to the general public, this was nothing new either. Think of all the Indian treaties that were promised and then broken, or the fact that we used slaves to build much of this country, as well as imported Chinese and other minority labor. The JFK assassination fits into a larger corrupt realm, but I think the US is gradually getting more tolerant and more equal over time. If you compare today’s USA to that of 1789, we are much better off today and more inclusive. I think that goes for much of the world as well, despite recent setbacks like ISIS and collapsing corrupt regimes like Syria’s, for two examples.

      To me, knowing who killed JFK with any surviving unredacted paper trail, open for all the tax paying citizens to see would be a breath of fresh air, and would be empowering to Americans. It’s better to know the truth than to have it continually hidden by the National Security State. By knowing what really happened we can better fix our institutions to avoid making the same errors in the future. JFK was concerned about the possibility of a coup by unelected military and intelligence professionals, as should all of us. We all fund these secret agencies through our tax dollars, and if we are truly the freest nation on Earth, we need to live up to our high goals.

      1. JSA,
        Thank you for your cogent input to this question; true, there is a sordid history that runs parallel, indeed unseen, that is closer to the truth of how real power operates in the face of real and perceived threats. This power, now, neither is American or Foreign, but GLOBAL.
        I agree with you, JSA, that the roots of this corrupt power (to remove governments) extends back in time, before America.

  8. I think it is important to know the truth, but would it make any difference in the way our politics is conducted? No, not at all.

    We are at the stage where factions have developed an alternate view of reality. Even if there was strong proof that pointed in a direction (definitive proof at this point would be impossible), that truth would be attacked if it didn’t for the ideology of a certain group. Congress as run now would never act if the implications were not in meeting with its preconceived notions or if there were not a political advantage to be gained.

    Truth should be pursued for its own sake, but beyond that I’d be shocked if anything came of it.

  9. I think it would help heal the country’s collective psyche if we knew for certain if we were sent into an irrational and dangerous future by fate or design.

  10. At the time of the assassination the discovery of the perpetrators would have had massive consequences. Discovering the perpetrators now would not create much momentum to learn from it. We are in a cynical age where the public accept wrongdoing.

    The most shocking revelation would be that the CIA had played a part in killing Kennedy. I suspect the CIA reaction would be “In our early days there were several rogue elements and our working methods did not prevent their actions. We are truly sorry for the actions of these rogue elements, and can reassure the American public that our current robust processes prevent anything like this happening again”.

  11. The official history of the past 50 years would require massive revision, and the question why was he killed? would become prominent. As well, the entire US establishment would have to account for the cover-up. The institutional credibility of the country would be challenged.

  12. We are finding out the Truth.

    It is very disturbing to find out that it likely was an inside job carried out by Kennedy’s political enemies.

    It was a heinous Crime that robbed a Nation of its young President.

    But where is the Outrage?

    There is lots pf material out there if people seek the Truth.

    It probably will be never be laid out in 26 volumes like the WCR but maybe it will.

    I think it is so significant what we know in 2016.

    I dont think any of us back in 63 could have ever possibly imagined how very dark the story is.

    It makes us question our Government

    It might makes things so much better if we understood the Kennedy Mystery

  13. I agree it would make a difference as to how we understand history. But why, I ask myself all the time, would it be such an historical upheaval that it would be kept secret for 50+ years. So let’s say the CIA, mafia, Cuban exiles, Texas oil and various federal or local agents conspired to do it, and it was covered up. Then what? There would be public dismay, anger, hearings, and maybe some type of reorganization and safeguards put into law. History books would be rewritten. Is this what they fear? I doubt there will be any elimination of any federal agencies at this point. I doubt civil war would erupt over news like that. Not now at least. It worries me that there might be more to the story than the usual suspects. What if the secret material is far more damaging in some way than is predicted? Who or what is involved so that they need protection 50 years later? What is so delicate 50 years later that it must be protected for the sake of national security? Credibility of government agencies? Really?

    1. How about the credibility and reputation of some involved who are still alive? What if the Truth revealed GHWB was a recruiter for Operation 40? Would that shake the foundations of faith and further erode public trust in “our” Government?

  14. At the not inconsiderable risk of incurring Mr. Whitten’s wrath, 🙂 , I would be satisfied if they just cleared Oswald’s name. No innocent person deserves to be misrepresented in history as an assassin.

  15. Yes it would make a difference. We would know more true history of our country. It would help us understand how things are done and Why. The motive. If we know who JFK’s killers were, we might better understand what they were trying to accomplish and how this effected our politics and lives in the coming decades. We might also be able to better challenge the way things are done today if we are armed with a more complete truth.

    1. I agree. This can’t just be about transparency and information sharing!! The brutal killing of one of Americas greatest presidents. That is absurd. People across the globe want to know why and who because make no bones about, the effects of that awful horrid day as still felt today. Evil presided over good from thereforth and whilst the secrets remain secret and questions go unanswered the ‘system’, that removed a president remains very much in place. The trigger men may be long dead but the system in place which instigated it is very much STILL in full flow.

  16. I agree that the issue is no longer justice, but transparency and open records.

    To answer Pablo’s question it is not a matter of identifying the assassins so much as determining how they did it, that’s what they want to keep secret – the MO Modus Operandi, a subject I will be soon dealing with at my JFKCountercoup blog.

  17. I uncovered: a CIA officer who got a medal for stonewalling Congress about what he knew of the events of 1963.

    Morley needs to either back this up,or drop the claim. It sounds irresponsible.

    1. McAdams: Joannides (sic?) was brought out of retirement to act as the liaison between the HSCA and CIA. Shortly after the committee folded up their tents, he got a medal. Those are facts. I’m sure you’re right, though, and there’s no connection.

      1. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

        It’s a logical fallacy. Look it up.

        Then there is the claim “what he knew of the events of 1963.”

        Jeff hasn’t proven that he knew anything of importance. Jeff’s logic is basically circular. Since he didn’t tell the the HSCA about the DRE, he must be sinister. How do you know he’s sinister? He didn’t tell the HSCA anything about the DRE.

        Jeff has not shown that anything sinister happened with the DRE. They were anti-Castro Cubans, supported by the CIA. They were loose canons, hard for the CIA to control.

        That’s about it.

        1. Post hoc, ergo papa doc, wasn’t he a despot in the Caribbean some time ago? A devalued Duvalier?
          Seems he spawned a baby doc too…

          Didn’t the US have unseemly ties to these tin horn dictators?

          Haven’t you made some pretty unseemly assumptions as to what Jeff has shown. Haven’t you read the Hardway documents? Don’t fall behind now “professor.”
          Do get hip, do not slip, nor miss the ship.

          Play “Aruba” on your tuba!

          1. Willy Whitten
            July 15, 2016 at 3:18 pm

            “Post hoc, ergo papa doc, wasn’t he a despot in the Caribbean some time ago? A devalued Duvalier?”

            “Seems he spawned a baby doc too…”

            “Didn’t the US have unseemly ties to these tin horn dictators?”

            Yes Willy, the Kennedy boys had unseemly ties to those tin horn dictators.

            JFK got tired of his corruption and cut Papa Doc off the money pipeline. This made Papa Doc angry to the extreme since the U.S. was supplying about half of his annual revenues. Doc was so angry that he placed a voodoo “ouanga” on JFK and shortly came the tragedy in Dallas. “The Giant Book of Bad Boys: “Papa Doc: Voodoo Gangster”. Page 29.

        2. McAdams fails to note that the DRE picked a fight with Oswald – who McAdams says is the accused assassin of the Pres – in New Orleans and were arrested with him – when DRE were under the CIA control of Joannides.

          What’s sinister that happened is that JFK was killed, Oswald was accused, Castro was blamed and nobody was held accountable because people like McAdams claim the accused assassin is dead and justice is served, thus protecting those actually responsible.

          For more on. Hoe JFK was killed see my latest blog post at JFKCountercoup.blogspot.com – Of Plots and Plans – How JFK Was Killef – The MO


          1. McAdams fails to note that the DRE picked a fight with Oswald . . . in New Orleans and were arrested with him – when DRE were under the CIA control of Joannides.

            In the first place, Joannides “control” of the Miami DRE was apparently pretty tenuous. Morley reports that the Miami DRE, in the wake of the assassination, asked their CIA contact (not Joannides) whether they should go public blaming Castro. They were told to wait. They went ahead anyway.

            But there is no evidence at all that Joannides had any control over the New Orleans DRE.

            Everything you listed has been long known, and none of it suggests a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

        3. For McAdams: Sometimes it’s hard to tell if you’re serious. The proof you REQUIRE is part of what Mr. Morley is trying to ACQUIRE.

          1. The proof you REQUIRE is part of what Mr. Morley is trying to ACQUIRE.

            The problem is that Morley is pretending that he already has proof that the DRE and Joannides had some sinister role.

            He’s not real clear on what that was.

            I’ve never heard him outright claim that the DRE and Joannides conspired to kill Kennedy.

            So what does he suspect?

        4. “Since he didn’t tell the HSCA about the DRE, he must be sinister. How do you know he’s sinister? He didn’t tell the HSCA anything about the DRE.”

          The HSCA was investigating the relationship between the CIA and the DRE. Joannides ran the group for the agency by the personal appointment of Helms less than a year before the assassination. Yet Joannides and the highest officers in the CIA deliberately misrepresented his role to the committee.

          That was obstruction of justice, pure and simple. And the agency still refuses to explain itself or release Joannides’ files, leaving themselves open to continuing speculation around conspiracy.

          As someone once said to me, maybe the CIA likes being suspected of killing JFK.

          1. The HSCA was investigating the relationship between the CIA and the DRE.

            And what evidence do we have that the “relationship” had anything to do with Oswald other than things we have long known?

          2. You have a tin ear on this, professor.

            The HSCA asked for details on the relationship, the CIA lied and obstructed instead of being forthright, so we don’t know if it had anything to do with the assassination. But the CIA’s own actions suggest strongly that something was very important for them to cover up to go to these lengths to NOT provide an answer.

            If you or I obstructed justice, we’d have gone to jail. Your continued lack of understanding of the situation is perplexing to say the least.

          3. BTW, the CIA could clear up the entire matter today instead of fighting Morley tooth and nail. Why don’t they?

          4. The HSCA asked for details on the relationship, the CIA lied and obstructed instead of being forthright, so we don’t know if it had anything to do with the assassination.

            Just what did the HSCA “ask about” that they didn’t get answers about?

            Just how did the CIA “lie and obstruct?”

          5. Yet Joannides and the highest officers in the CIA deliberately misrepresented his role to the committee.

            You mean Joannides told the HSCA “no, I never had any relationship with the DRE.”

            What did they “misrepresent?”

          6. The HSCA asked for details on the relationship, the CIA lied and obstructed instead of being forthright,

            OK, Bogman, let me help you out with a source:

            This is Hardway’s claim that the CIA actually withheld information.


            (An e-mail correspondent brought this to my attention.)

            You would have much better evidence if you had something from the era of the HSCA, rather that an account possibly corrupted by Morley’s theorizing about Joannides and the DRE.

            Further, Morley has made a big deal of the fact that Joannides filed no reports about the DRE for several months before the assassination.

            Which would make sense if the CIA had really broken ties with the group. Or at least “officially” had (which would not have prevented the DRE from contacting some CIA person).

          7. McAdams writes: “Just what did the HSCA ‘ask about’ that they didn’t get answers about?”

            From Dan Hardway’s sworn declaration:

            The CIA repeatedly told the HSCA that they had no contact with DRE in 1963. The leaders of the DRE, however, told members of the HSCA staff that they had an CIA case officer in 1963 who went by the name of ‘Howard.’

            Also, as Morley wrote in this post:
            Unbeknownst to Congress, Joannides “served undercover” when acting as the agency’s representative to the HSCA, according to a sworn affidavit (p. 10) from Information Coordinator Delores Nelson, filed in Washington federal court in 2010.

            From Robert Blakey, chief counsel of the HSCA:
            The files and the Agency agents connected to the DRE should have been made available to the commission and the committee. That the information in the files and the agents who could have supplemented it were not made available to the commission and the committee amounts to willful obstruction of justice.

            McAdams’ other questions:
            “”Just how did the CIA ‘lie and obstruct?'”
            Answered above.

            “You mean Joannides told the HSCA ‘no, I never had any relationship with the DRE.”

            Yes. In fact, Blakey asked Joannides himself if he knew who ‘Howard”,” the name of the CIA case officer the DRE members had mentioned they worked with, and Joannides said ‘no.’

            “What did they ‘misrepresent?'”

            EVERYTHING about their relationship with the DRE during the time that Oswald interfaced with the group in the summer of ’63 and shortly following the assassination.

            Now my question to you is, professor, why do you still profess ignorance on this topic? Is it willful subterfuge or is it because you are just a lone nut ‘buff’ as you term everyone else here who doesn’t agree with you?

          8. Now my question to you is, professor, why do you still profess ignorance on this topic?

            I’m the one who posted the link to the document you are citing.

            What I would like you to do is provide a plausible hypothesis as to what the CIA was supposedly covering up.

            That the DRE conspired to kill Kennedy? Very unlikely.

            Something touching on sources and methods? See paragraph 19 of the Hardway declaration.

            So give me a plausible hypothesis.

          9. What I would like you to do is provide a plausible hypothesis as to what the CIA was supposedly covering up.

            I’d like to first point out your incredibly blasé attitude toward an obstruction of justice allegation against the CIA by the Chief Counsel of the Congressional investigation into the assassination. And your blasé attitude toward the CIA cover-up of its Castro plots and DRE sponsorship to the WC, as well as the allegation of cover-up by Judge Tunheim during the archive release.

            That the DRE conspired to kill Kennedy? Very unlikely.

            We don’t know for sure either way, do we? Because the CIA isn’t explaining why it tried to bury the Joannides connection to the DRE forever.

            Something touching on sources and methods? See paragraph 19 of the Hardway declaration.

            Yeah, that’s always the fall back. They couldn’t trust a Supreme Court Justice with that information? And they endangered the good name and continuing support of the agency by breaking its pact with the HSCA and obstructing a Congressional investigation over ‘sources and methods’? Don’t think so.

            So give me a plausible hypothesis.

            First, you really should be demanding that the CIA immediately release all its files on Joannides and all other related files, as well as explain its subterfuge over the past 5 decades. I’m sure you have made some friends there over the years, professor. Why don’t you quit listening to their blarney and call them out?

            Second, what has transpired in the past few years is that conditions were ripe for a possible political assassination of JFK, such as:

            1) Operation Northwoods, offered to the POTUS, showed the lengths the defense establishment was willing to go to fight the Cuba problem, including false flag operations that would’ve killed innocent Americans

            2) The top spy agency would be perverse enough to make Bill Harvey, scorned by the Kennedys and best friends with a mobster, the head of its political assassination program

            3) The CIA’s Harvey and others used anti-Castro Cuban groups to undermine JFK’s Cuba policy on several occasions

            4) JFK feared a military coup during the Cuban Missile Crisis and later pushed for his Hollywood friends to make a movie about just such an occurrence

            to be continued…

          10. So what can we reasonably speculate since the CIA won’t tell us? It has to be one of the alternatives below:

            1) Oswald came across the CIA’s radar screen and they were following him much more closely than previously thought, and were considering using him for propaganda purposes. Then he shoots the president and they have to hide their interest.

            2) Oswald was being used – wittingly or unwittingly – in an operation to embarrass the FPCC. Then he shoots the president and they have to hide their entanglements.

            3) Same as #2 except Oswald is hijacked by the Cubans and/or mob in a conspiracy to kill the president, knowing that the govt could never pursue justice against them.

            4) CIA operatives at low or high levels were managing Oswald toward Dallas with a plot to frame him.

            Got any better ideas, professor?

          11. Tellingly, you never responded to my “hypotheses” that you requested above.

            So I’ll just, that the problem with alternatives 1,2 and 3 is that you are forced to believe that dyslexic loner do-nothing fooled the most formidable spy agency in the world, or that Cuban mercenaries or the mob did.

            Find it hard to believe the CIA was made the “patsy.”

            The most reasonable alternative is #4 – the CIA was involved.

      1. Well Dave it’s been a hobby of yours for a long time, defending the the Warren Omission. So much so you have your own, I’m guessing little visited website. Thank me later for the plug, but I won’t link it, on purpose.
        Would anyone have ever heard of you if JFK had not been Assassinated on 11/2/63?

    1. Ramon F Herrera

      Bob: “We’ll all be looking for a new hobby.”

      Speak for yourself, Bob!!!

      Consider the solutions based on science, which to me, at this juncture, are the only problems worth of solving.

      We start with a minimum input: an AP (anterior-posterior) and a lateral X ray images. Due to the lower resolution of circa 1963 emulsion and the lack of the top-down image (CAT scanners had not been invented yet), we start with a healthy does of imprecision.


      IOW: “We choose these, not because they are easy, but because the are hahd [sic]”

      Next, some very fancy algorithms are applied, in order to project the 2 images into a 3D model. Months and perhaps years may pass, algorithms are tested, discarded, improved.

      Computers become faster, run 24×7 at near fantastic speeds and yet we have to wait for weeks, in order to obtain increasingly precise results. Afterwards, we must add the missing bone.

      But we are not nearly done yet! All we have now is the closest possible duplicate of JFK’s intact head (I am not even going into the possibility that those X rays are genuine: that is ANOTHER fun problem), in software and numbers.

      That is a close as we can get to time travel.

      The question now becomes: based on that particular hole, what bullet trajectory, rifle model and caliber was able to produce it.

      In the (hopefully) not too distant future, the iWatches of children will solve all those beautiful equations.

      The very same science and technology commanded by president Kennedy will solve his treacherous death.


      NB: In case you didn’t notice, this problem and its solution work, even if the plotters had destroyed the Z-film. Obviously, having that film, makes the problem orders of magnitude more solvable.

      1. Ramon F Herrera

        Addendum 1: An interesting note is that I am typing this a few blocks from Rice university, where the space speech took place.

        Addendum 2: Despite my differences with Greg Burnham, it is my duty to give him credit for his foresight. The film used by the “8 mm Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Model 414 PD” camera was recently discontinued by Kodak. Greg acquired several rolls of them from the last available batches and took some shots in Dealey Plaza, on the same day and hour, or so I am told.

        Let’s hope he keeps them at the regulated temperature and humidity, as we need those pixels to match perfectly. 🙂

Leave a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top