Which is the more plausible JFK conspiracy theory? Readers respond

Two weeks ago, I posted a conspiracy theory survey asking readers to choose between the competing interpretations of two JFK Facts authors:. Robert Morrow, who posits a CIA-military plot from within the U.S. government, and Phil Shenon, who suggests Lee Oswald had pro-Castro Cuban accessories.

Which conspiracy theory won?

Among the 214 readers who responded as of May 22,, Morrow prevailed handily. getting support from 160 (75 percent). Shenon was favored by 11 people (5 percent).

Fourteen percent said “neither” and 6 percent said “other.”


65 thoughts on “Which is the more plausible JFK conspiracy theory? Readers respond”

  1. I think there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest a Mafia plot which made use of their connections with Cuban anti-Castrists and fringe CIA elements/right wing political types. There would be a rationale to this – the Mafia couldn’t afford to make it look like a Mafia hit, so they had to muddy the waters and ensure that any investigation would be drawn down the lone nut path.

  2. Merle Kinsman

    A fact which I constantly come back too is security surrounding two issues. The Presidents secrity team is reasigned and the security surrounding the supposed individual who killed the president. There are no coincidences.

  3. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/oswald-in-the-doorway-why-is-the-preponderance-of-the-evidence-dismissed/

    Why is it so important for naysayers to insist that LHO was not in front? Is it to maintain a sliver of doubt that maybe Oswald did actually run from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor as the Warren Commission wants us all to believe?

    The answer is simple. It would finally close the book on the framing of Oswald. The Parlor game would be over. JFK researchers would have to change the focus of their analysis. There would no longer be any doubt. It would be 100% proof of the BIG LIE.

    One might say that it’s a moot point since the evidence is clear that Oswald was on the first floor at the time of the shooting – but may have gone up to the second floor lunchroom. So why the big fuss? Well, only a fool takes anything in the Warren Report seriously. It sure makes you wonder.

    1. I have to disagree with Richard Charnin on the issue of “doorman” as being Oswald. I think it is obvious that the person in the photo is Lovelady.

      Charnin mentions that the point is “moot,” because Oswald already has a firm alibi. Yes he does, and it is no profit to add to the case of Oswald as innocent of the murder of JFK using dubious “photographic evidence”. There is a certain click that seems to have a very small technical grasp on ‘film photography’. Film is unique from digital, and some seem to have forgotten. Charnin throws in alteration of the Altgen’s 6 photo, as well as the Zapruder film.

      Anyone who takes these arguments seriously need to educate themselves as to the techniques of photo retouching in FILM and special effects in cinema.

  4. Please see Marina discussion on another thread where I mention I attended a JFK Symposium in Ontario, Canada in 1992 where Marina Oswald took some questions from the audience. Sorry, wrong thread.

  5. I would only add Marina Oswald was very brave in 92 to say what she did if that’s the was she thought.

    It was so very, very powerful to hear the wife of the alleged assassin, and a witness who was so close to what happened in Dealey Plaza speak about their experiences.

  6. There is no place for trolls and insults on this site. It is not just one person.

    None of us know if the Kennedy Mystery will be solved in our lifetime.

    Because of the serious nature of the subject, and the lack of time the discussion must be professional at all times.

    There could be members of the Kennedy Family who follow this site as it is an excellent site for those interested in the truth about what happened in Dallas on 22/11/63.

  7. I think I might actually be speechless here.

    But (happily) not for long.

    So you have finally admitted that you are Paul May after months of – let’s not beat about the bush here – lying about it. What would you say to us if the tables were turned?

    You would say we had no credibility left whatsoever and you would be right!

  8. If LBJ just gave the go-ahead, others — in the CIA, in particular — were quite capable of managing the psywar aspects of the operation.

    1. My last 3 posts on this topic have been censored. It appears that it has degenerated to the level of DeepPoliticsForum, where non-CT positions are so feared that they are banned.As this post will probably be.


      1. Paul, please have the decency to retract your last falsehood. You have never been censored. Your comments did not not appear because they did not meet the site’s comments’ policy.

          1. “Comments must pertain to the subject of the original post” How can you possibly say that anything after the second paragraph of Robert Morrow’s post of 5:58PM May 25, 2015 possibly conforms to that requirement?
            “Commenters who use language deemed uncivil by the comments editor…” What do you call Bill Kelly’s post of May 26@ 10:18 where he states ” LBJ was a ruthless sociopathic killer who employed Hitleresque tactics”? That is frankly a disgusting statement.
            “Our only litmus test is factuality” How can that be true if you allow Mr. Morrow to post as fact the claim about LBJ securing 83 tons of gold and his family laundering the resultant profits in the 1980s?And how is that even remotely related to the topic discussed?
            It is your site and you can allow who you want to post on it But quite frankly if you are willing to allow the most questionable and unsupported claims to be posted and refuse to allow rebuttal I see no difference between this site and the DeepPolitics and similar sites that follow a similar policy. I have no desire to participate in a discussion where the rules are selectively enforced to the benefit of one side. Accordingly, this will be my last post.

      2. Ramon F Herrera

        Paul? Ah! Photon has a name!

        Speaking of censorship, esteemed Photon (kinda like that one):

        (1) After all these years I am still waiting for a reason for having been banned from the premiere LN forum, one that I helped co-found.

        (2) When prof. McAdams entered hot water at Marquette, NOBODY, ABSOLUTELY NOBODY dared to mention one word about it (keep in mind that I cannot post, but I can still read the newsgroup). They chose self-censorship. I dared some poster (our buddy Bill Clarke) to mention the scandal in the NG and he obliged. It was only then thanks TO Yours Truly, that the topic was finally mentioned. But it gets better: Ms. Jean Davison posted something like:

        “Thank God here in America we have freedom of speech”

        she neglected to add:

        “Thanks to Ramon Herrera we started talking about this embarrassing taboo”.

        It gets EVEN better, Paul! Ms. Davison has been dutifully following prof. McAdams’ orders not to talk to me, even in other forums.

        Let’s not forget that the LNs are on the side of hiding.

        1. Mr. Herrera,

          In your comments about an unrelated discussion on alt.assassination.jfk, you said, “… it gets better: Ms. Jean Davison posted something like:

          ‘Thank God here in America we have freedom of speech’….”

          I said nothing of the kind. (I don’t think your account of the discussion there was accurate, either.)

          You also claimed, “It gets EVEN better, Paul! Ms. Davison has been dutifully following prof. McAdams’ orders not to talk to me, even in other forums.”

          Is that a joke? Or do you just enjoy making up insulting nonsense about people you disagree with?

          “Let’s not forget that the LNs are on the side of hiding.”

          Also untrue. I’m not in favor of hiding anything and don’t know of any LN who is.

          Your post was nothing other than an attack on me and John McAdams. I don’t care what you say, but it does make me wonder why that’s okay but whatever Photon said in 3 posts in this same thread wasn’t acceptable. Just another one of life’s little mysteries, I suppose.

          1. Jeans there’s no mystery. Photon’s comments weren’t published along with some other people’s comments because they were part of a boring debate about a non-JFK subject (the USS Liberty) that involved lots of ad hominem insults. The man has been published on the site hundreds of times. Like McAdams he seems to think he can bully me with charges of “censorship.” Like McAdams, he is wrong.

          2. I have nothing but the utmost respect for Mr. Morley and his site-but there is a double standard, as represented by Robert Morrow’s post of 5:58 PM, May 25, 2015. He brought up the Liberty incident ,not me.

          3. There is no double standard Photon. That’s a bunch of self-pitying crap. . I wasn’t editng the comments when Morrow’s comment was posted. Peter Voskamp was. His father died and I took over moderating the comments. Your comment was clearly off topic and did not meet the site’s comment policy so it wasn’t posted. Several other people whose commented on the subject weren’t posted either. They never complained about being censored or subject to a double standard. Because they weren’t. I have taken down Morrow’s comment as well.

            I hope you will cease the BS about being “censored” and “double standards. I hope Jean will cease divining “mysteries” where there are none. There is site comment policy which will be enforced no matter how self-pitying whining you seek to impose. For someone who is so talkative, I recommend that you learn some manners.

          4. Steve Stirlen


            I have read your book and everything you have written, such as “What Jane Roman said.” However, I don’t believe I have ever heard you say where you stand on what you think might have happened in Dallas. If I may be so bold, care to share what you think happened in Dealey Plaza?

            Thank you for this site,


    2. “If LBJ just gave the go-ahead, others…”~lysias

      In my studies of the architecture of modern political power, it is revealed that from at least as early as the Woodrow Wilson regime, the office of the President is titular. It is the fact that Kennedy rejected this notion that caused the powers who are really in control of US political power to get rid of him.

      Johnson certainly agreed to take such a titular post as incoming President, but he hardly had the power to give “the go-ahead”.

      1. If the president doesn’t actually have any power, why would the “powers who are really in control” have needed to get rid of Kennedy at all?

  9. Yes – LBJ was a ruthless sociopathic killer who employed Hitleresque tactics – but he was not a trained psych warrior – the type of person fluent in the language and techniques of black propaganda, disinformation and deception – like those employed at Dealey Plaza – though some of his military aides were, though I’m sure they didn’t bother to try to explain it to him.

    You can play the blame game just like the Mafia and Castro and Isralie baiters do – while other more independent and open minded researchers and investigators figure out what really happened – and we can’t really know the total truth until all the evidence is in.


  10. What a silly waste of time, as neither theory can hold a bucket of water but for different reasons. While Shenon can now be positively identified not as the independent journalist we thought he was, but a certified CIA asset and proponent of the discredited, original cover-story for the Dealey Plaza operation, the idea that LBJ was the “mastermind” of the murder belies the fact that he was not capable of the psychological warfare aspect of the crime, an integral aspect of the plan, that Shenon and all CIA assets promote. Ironically, it is the psychwar aspect of the plan that exposes the real masterminds of what happened at Dealey Plaza, and will eventually prove their undoing.

    1. I agree with you Mr Kelly, I voted for the Morrow side, more as a vote against Shenon. I think a lot of commentators here did. One thing I am certain of is that Oswald as the lone gunman has collapsed in its entirety. I think that has been obvious for decades! I don’t think Oswald was a shooter at all, I think that is proven beyond reasonable doubt. I also don’t think there is any conclusive evidence that Oswald was ever in Mexico City.

    2. Thank you Sir for a concise, accurate analysis. I don’t think it’s a complete waste of time to discuss the subject if some us (maybe even you or more probably me) possibly learn anything from it. I think you nail it on LBJ’s “not capable of psychological warfare”. A President who would literally piss on the shoes of a Secret Service Agent responsible for protecting him, just because he could. Nutty as a fruitcake.
      I believe one of the SSA’s said if he wasn’t President he’d be in a mental institution, roughly.

  11. Mark Watterson

    After reading James Tague’s second book (a book I really enjoyed, in addition to the other 20 books I’ve read about the JFK assassination), I want to comment on Tague’s Tippit conclusion.
    Tague’s conclusion is worthy of reconsideration and I want to throw out the following for discussion: Tippit’s killing was very much part of the conspiracy. Arranging for a second heinous crime that fingers the same patsy bolsters the case that the patsy also committed the first crime (think anthrax after 9/11). More food for thought: A police car stops in front of Oswald’s boarding house in Oak Cliff 30 minutes after the JFK shooting. The second murder needs to go “live”, but Oswald’s whereabouts is uncertain. (Tippit can’t be shot while Oswald is in the boarding house because he has an alibi). The police car honks its horn to see if Oswald stirs. No response. The police car assumes Oswald is out on the streets and drives off while radioing the Tippit shooter team to do their thing (probably a few minutes too early). Oswald is now ripe for the framing. As the shooter rests his arms on the passenger door (with window down) of Tippit’s police car, Tippit recognizes him and in a friendly motion gets out of the car. The shooter pulls out his pistol and executes Tippit with four shots. The shooter is the only person whom I am aware of who is unafraid to carry out a gangster-style execution in front of millions of people (counting the TV audience). Jack Ruby then freshens up at his home in the neighborhood and heads straight to the police department to wait for Lee Harvey Oswald to make his appearance.
    What do we know that would disqualify this idea? Thanks. -Mark

  12. I guess I’m a NEITHER at this point.

    It just would be far less terrible to believe a massive Intelligence Failure failed to stop LHO and/or rogue CIA. Investigations into those failures or rogue CIA were stopped in their tracks.

    I also believe the shots that hit throat & head of Kennedy came from the front based on what is shown in Zapruder Film. One shot hit him high in the back.

    It is so ghastly to think a Coup d’Etat was engineered by a military plot from within the U S Government. I am aware that increasingly there is a lot of evidence in that direction.

    1. You have no imagination or have read little of the facts. Just a couple here: Robert Morningstar, a former Navy Photographer, has examined the Zapruder film using infrared photography which shows at least eleven bullets shot. A moving bullet leaves a vacuum into which water vapor rushes, and it is visible with infrared photography. Eleven bullets?! How about we have a congressional hearing exposing Mr. Morningstar’s findings? And how about that limo? Nothing like taking a HUGE piece of evidence away (under LBJ’s orders, like the NEXT DAY!), and replacing all the bullet-damaged parts – especially with a bullet hole in the front wind-shield showing a bullet hole entering from the front. Standard murder investigation procedure?. Time for a re-think…

      1. “Robert Morningstar, a former Navy Photographer, has examined the Zapruder film using infrared photography”~Zandalf

        I am dubious as to this claim.
        The Zapruder film was not shot in infrared. Can you explain the process of turning a normal color film into an infrared photo?

        In real infrared photography the original scene must be shot with an infrared filter.

        I know that one can make a photo appear to be ‘LIKE” an infrared picture by playing with it in Photoshop – but that is NOT making a genuine infrared picture out of a pre-photographed image.

      2. The handling of the presidential limousine—-first sealing it off—okay, I can see that because of it being a crime scene—-but then repairing it in secret with no proper investigation of the car??? That looks REALLY suspicious. I’m sure Photon wouldn’t think so, but those of us who don’t trust CIA or Lyndon Johnson completely might want to rethink that move a bit. If Lyndon could spend huge sums on landing strips et el, he could afford to hold that car and either use another one or have a new one built. I’m sure the taxpaying public would understand the need to keep the car as is for the purpose of a thorough investigation.

      3. The limousine was searched and inspected by the FBI in the White House garage the night it arrived there. The windshield was later removed and became Warren Commission exhibit 350. (It’s still in the National Archives so far as I know.) The limo stayed at the garage until December 20.

        1. The windshield is still in the archives? Verify this please.

          The FBI did a terrible job. The photos from the WH basement garage are grainy, and hard to see. As a crime scene, the car in its entirely should have been saved, not just the windshield. The FBI/Secret Service should have known better. That’s sloppiness bordering on evidence tampering, especially as the Warren Commission was so cautious to save other minutia related to Oswald and ticket stubs, etc. To first wash the car at Parkland and then have it stripped down and rebuilt is destruction of evidence/crime scene.

          1. Thank you for the windshield link.

            Have you seen this, Jean?

            Care to comment?

            I had heard that the windshield was replaced while the car was stowed in the WH garage (by Arlington Glass Co.). The problem was that the original windshield from Dallas had a bullet hole or chip in it, so it was unacceptable to keep, and was destroyed.

          2. JSA,

            What is the video supposed to show? I can’t make sense of it. Have you verified that the photos are authentic?

            “The problem was that the original windshield from Dallas had a bullet hole or chip in it, so it was unacceptable to keep, and was destroyed.”

            The records tell a different story. The windshield was seen by several members of the Secret Service the first day. Here’s one report:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10482&relPageId=2&search=“white_house garage” “windshield”

            Frazier and other FBI agents spent several hours inspecting the limo late that evening. Frazier’s notes say the windshield was “struck by projectile on inside surface”:


            There’s a copy of a November 23 FBI lab report that used Frazier’s data in the Dallas police files. It mentions “Q15 Scraping from inside surface of windshield.”


            So that was in the record very early.
            Frazier testified about examining the car in the WC vol. V:


            So how many people had to lie and remain quiet about a hole in the windshield? Has anyone ever counted them up?

      4. One cannot draw ‘infrared’ information from a color film or image. The original film must be shot through an infrared filter, or a special infrared camera.

        It is just like it is impossible to measure dB from a recording. Decibels must be determined from the live impulse.

        “Like is not” a record or an image of something is not that something – it is a record or image.

  13. Conspiracy Denial in the U.S. Media
    By Lance deHaven-Smith
    Many American journalists appear to be locked into a peculiar way of thinking that makes them
    blind to signs of political criminality in high office. This mindset is characterized by an apparent
    inability to differentiate groundless accusations of elite political intrigue from legitimate
    concerns about the integrity of U.S. political leaders and institutions. For some reason, when it
    comes to popular suspicions of schemes involving the nation’s political elites, many journalists
    in the United State make no distinctions. They categorize all such suspicions as “conspiracy
    theories,” which they assume are not only untrue, but wacky and paranoid.
    This is one of a number of cognitive distortions associated with the term “conspiracy theory” that
    I analyze in my new book, Conspiracy Theory in America. The book will be published on April
    15 of this year by the University of Texas Press in a book series edited by Mark Crispin Miller.
    Conspiracy Theory in America explains that the conspiracy-theory label was popularized as a
    pejorative putdown by the CIA in a global propaganda program to attack critics of the Warren
    Commission’s conclusion that President Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman with no
    government foreknowledge or assistance. The CIA campaign called on foreign media
    corporations and journalists to criticize “conspiracy theorists” and raise questions about their
    motives and judgments. Any and all criticisms of the lone-gunman account of the assassination
    were lumped together as “conspiracy theories,” declared groundless and pernicious, and
    attributed to ulterior motives and the influence of communist propagandists.
    Today, the conspiracy-theory label is widely used as a verbal defense mechanism by U.S.
    political elites to suppress mass suspicions that inevitably arise whenever shocking political
    crimes benefit top leaders or play into their agendas, especially when those same officials are in
    control of agencies responsible for preventing the events in question or for investigating them
    after they have occurred. It is only natural to be suspicious when a president and vice president
    bent on war in the Middle East are warned of impending terrorist attacks and yet fail to alert the
    American public or increase the readiness of the nation’s armed forces. Why would Americans
    not expect answers when they are told that Arabs with poor piloting skills managed to hijack four
    planes, fly them across the eastern United States, somehow evade America’s multilayered system
    of air defense, and then crash two of the planes into the Twin Towers in New York City and one
    into the Pentagon in Washington, DC? By the same token, it is only natural to question the
    motives of the president and vice president when they drag their feet on investigating this
    seemingly inexplicable defense failure and then, when the investigation is finally conducted, they
    insist on testifying together, in secret, and not under oath…

  14. I was glad to see the results come out as they did. If any Cubans were involved in the assassination, they were greatly outnumbered by those in our own government, and the CIA,IMO. And the covrtup> Again, our own government, as John Ed Hoover(FBI)was in charge.

  15. It is quite interesting that 75% support a theory with absolutely no evidence promulgated by an individual with zero credibility. It suggests to me that the CT viewpoint is driven not by facts but by ideological orientation, either left wing inability to accept the fact that a lefty killed JFK-or right wing libertarian obcession with government control and the dastardly Federal government.
    Facts are not determined by polls, particularly biased ones. CTers seem very long on theories, but short on facts-as the Photon’s paradox exercise shows.

    1. Hi Photon,

      I have read many of your posts and, in principle, I agree with many of your points. Inquiries into the JFK murder must be fact driven. The distinction between facts and opinions must observed. The Idealogical lens with which we interpret the facts must be declared.

      However, the more I delve into the short life and times of 24-year old Lee Harvey Oswald, the more I conclude that he was a pawn used by external agents. Here’s why:

      The murder of JFK occurred in the context of a Cold War. The American vanguard of the Cold War was the CIA. The CIA circa 1963 honestly believed that the USSR and its Communist proxies such as Cuba posed a mortal threat to the West, which mortal threat justified the use of some very harsh measures, such as lying, deception and disinformation.

      When I see that Mr. Blakey of the HSCA was lied to by the CIA; when I see that Oswald carried a false alias ” Alek Hidell,”; when I see that Oswald’s job applications contained lies about his defection to Russia or his less than Honorable Discharge; when I see Ruby lying about his motives for killing Oswald; what I see is a pattern of lies, indeed, a concerted effort by many people to stifle the facts from emerging in plain sight.

      I do not believe that Oswald is innocent. I believe that he either shot JFK and/or was assisted by “others” to have JFK shot.

      It’s the “others” I am having trouble discerning. Was he a Marxist that felt JFK was antagonizing beloved Fidel and was coaxed by Cuban Intelligence in Mexico City to do the dirty deed? Possibly. Was he a low-ranking, disposable American intelligence pawn, for whom a Marxist “legend” was artificially created to probe the enemy? Possibly.

      Superimposed on this Cold War game of cat-and-mouse, did Oswald serve as a pawn for a mob hit on JFK, as both Mr. Blakey and author Lamar Waldron assert, motivated by revenge against Robert Kennedy for prosecuting the Mob? Possibly.

      It is difficult to sort out the competing currents and cross-currents. But something doesn’t smell right with the ” lone nut” theory. Ruby’s murder of Oswald looks like a classic mob tactic of silencing a witness. It conveniently tied up many loose threads. It conveniently prevented the facts from emerging.

      The “facts” have been distorted by too many lies, too much deception. Ergo, we must resort to inferential, creative thinking on the issue. We must form hypotheses. Now, that the Cold War is over, I think we should be given wider latitude to ascertain what the facts truly are, and how to properly interpret them. If we do so, we may be able to piece together the multiple forces that lead to the murder in Dallas in 1963.

      1. Oswald has an alibi for the entire period of the shootings in Dealey Plaza.

        Oswald’s movements at the time of the assassination were as follows:

        Shortly after mid–day, Oswald went from the first floor to the second–floor lunch room. Oswald was there at about 12:15, when he was seen by Carolyn Arnold.

        Shortly afterwards, he went downstairs to the domino room, and saw James Jarman and Harold Norman at around 12:25.

        At about 12:31 he went back up to the second–floor lunch room to obtain a soft drink. At the entrance to the lunch room, Oswald encountered a police officer, Marrion Baker, and the building supervisor, Roy Truly.

        Oswald cannot have been in the so-called ‘snipers nest’ when the shots were fired. It was a staged set-up. Likely no one fired any shots from that 6th floor window in the TBDB. The shots from behind were more likely from the DalTex Bldg.
        The throat and head shots were from the far end of Dealey, near the RR underpass opposite of the so called “Grassy Knoll” side of Dealey.
        Shots may have been fired from other locations but missed a target.

        It is my opinion that Oswald was ONI on assignment to infiltrate Bannister and the Cuban exile community as part of shutting down the attacks on Cuba. I think he was part of shutting down the training camps. He likely caught wind of the plot to kill Kennedy while on this assignment, but was being betrayed by intermediate handlers like d’M, Paines, etc.
        Oswald led 3 lives.

          1. “and “at about” 12:33, he fled the scene, leaving his rifle behind on the sixth floor.” ~Paul Baker

            There is no proof that the rifle was Oswald’s. And unless you can prove that someone was teleporting Oswald from floor to floor of the building from second to second, he could not have fired any shots from the 6th floor window “snipers nest”.

            Of course if you want to deal in magical thinking, you just might have a case there. Take it up with Mephistopheles!

      2. Thanks for a great post .There is a lot of theories about the Murder on JFK .Personally, I think it was a kind of conspiracy behind it where Osvald should be framed and blamed . And then killed before he could talk about it .Osvald, was MAY one shooter, but I’m absolutely sure that there was another one who fired the third shot from behind up on the knoll. I think both Hoover and the Vice President Johnson was involved. They hated all the Kennedys .Specially JFK and Bobby Kennedy . I think also the mob had a finger on it . After that Bobby declared war on organised crimes as the mob bizznizz, he become their enemy .The person who benefited the most by JFK’s dead was LBJ . Both Osvald and his killer Jack Ruby, was involved in the mafia in a way or another .

    2. A. There ARE facts that prove that shots could not have come entirely from behind the motorcade. Those are the acoustical records.

      B. Isn’t is also quite interesting that there are some people who paper over the fact that the intelligence community has been given extraordinary power and that it often operates independent of Congress and the President? The facts that the Chuch Committee unraveled, the fact that Harry Truman was dissatisfied with CIA’s overreach into “cloak and dagger” activities—–to deny these facts also shows a level of obtuseness rivaling the likes of John McAdams’ global warming denial.

      1. What facts? The acoustic “evidence” died as soon as ” hold everything secure” was heard by a rock drummer off of a poor quality copy, when the “experts” with all of their sophisticated equipment and triangulation techniques NEVER HEARD IT. It is like making the diagnosis of ingrown toenail in someone with a BKA.
        Where is there ANY evidence that the CIA had any relationship with Oswald beyond surveillance ? Where is the evidence that the CIA had ANYTHING to do with the planning or execution of the assassination? Where is the physical and forensic evidence that proves that any shot did not come from above and behind?
        There isn’t any. Period.

        1. You keep bringing up your failed explanation of the acoustics evidence, which has been thoroughly discredited. That “hold everything secure” canard brought up to discredit the dicta belt evidence has been DEBUNKED.
          Again, you haven’t refuted Don Thomas’ book. You keep calling him names but you can’t argue with his facts.

          Also, as Jefferson Morley succinctly brought up in HuffPo’s blog, it’s a myth that scientists all support the lone gunman “THEORY”:
          To quote Jeff:
          Myth #5. Scientists unequivocally support the lone gunman theory.

          The latest peer-reviewed articles indicate otherwise. One piece of scientific analysis, “bullet lead analysis,” that was long used to buttress the so-called “single bullet” theory has been decisively debunked, as a recent front page series in the Washington Post shows. A study of the JFK ballistics evidence, published in the Journal of Forensic Science in 2006, concluded that its findings “considerably weaken support for the single-bullet theory.” A pair of articles on the medical evidence, published in Neurosurgery in 2004, offered a split decision. One supported the official story; the other provided strong evidence based on sworn testimony from multiple eyewitnesses that the photographic record of JFK’s autopsy has been tampered with. The-called acoustic evidence a Dallas Police Department radio recording that some scientists say contains evidence of a shot from the grassy knoll has been called into question but not refuted by other scientists. The issue remains unresolved. My own review of the crime scene evidence, published this month on Playboy.com, concludes that the scientific case for Oswald’s sole guilt has been weakened in recent years.”

          I think this case is still unresolved, and we need the files that CIA wants to keep hiding from the public. I know YOU want to close this case up, but free thinking, open-minded people who aren’t pro-CIA biased, will continue to re-examine this case. It’s wide open.

        2. Arnaldo M. Fernandez

          The CIA has ever produced neither a tape nor a photo of Oswald in Mexico City, although it had tapped the phones of the Cuban and the Soviet diplomatic compounds, both also under heavy photographic surveillance. Both the CIA Station in MC and Langley blatantly lied in the well-known “cables of October.” These are conspiracy facts.
          And just a single physical evidence: the bullet holes in both the jacket and the shirt of JFK, indicates that this shot coming from above and behind couldn’t exit at JFK throat and also hit Connally, turning the SBT impossible.

        3. No evidence that shots came from in front? How about at least 93 witnesses?

          Dealey Plaza Witnesses: John McAdams Strange List

          This post discusses discrepancies in witness observations between McAdams (37 Knoll) and an “Adjusted” (93 Knoll) survey. The data is based on Warren Commission testimony and witnesses who were not called to testify.

          In McAdams survey 21 had no opinion, 14 were not asked, 14 said the shots came from the TSBD. These were classified as Grassy Knoll witnesses in the “Adjusted” survey.

          Dallas Deputy Sheriffs (19)
          Fifteen (15) said shots were from the Grassy Knoll and 4 were not asked.
          But according to McAdams, 5 had no opinion and 12 were not asked.

          Dallas Police (14)
          The adjusted list has 4 TSBD, 6 Grassy Knoll, 1 both. 2 no opinion, 1 not asked.
          But McAdams has 6 TSBD and just 2 Grassy Knoll.

          Secret Service (17)
          The adjusted list has 6 TSBD, 4 GK, 1 both TSBD and GK, 5 no opinion, 1 not asked.
          McAdams has 10 TSBD, 1 GK, 1 both, 2 no opinion, 3 not asked.
          Not a single agent specifically said shots came from the TSBD.

          Note: SS agent Roy Kellerman implied at least one Grassy Knoll shooter without saying so. He said “President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots”.

          SS agent Clint Hill has maintained for 50 years that he saw a massive gaping wound at the right rear of JFK’s head.

          more… https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/jfk-dealey-plaza-witnesses-john-mcadams-strange-list/

    3. Let’s have the Photon Paradox show us that there is absolutely no evidence. Saying that is one thing-it must be shown. You’re just like the FBI and WC-skimming over the evidence that existed.

    4. Richard Brown

      Anyone who claims that LHO killed JFK is not dealing in fact, only opinion. As Chief Curry stated, they could never place Oswald in that window with that rifle at the time of the shooting. Even if the fatal shot had come from the TSBD, to say that LHO was the shooter is an opinion not a fact. A person fired some shots from that window, but no one can say, with factual certainty, that it was Oswald.

      As for Photon’s narcissistic, oft-repeated reference to “Photon’s Paradox,” facts have demonstrated its fallacy. The original “paradox” — that Oswald must be guilty because he “fled” the TSBD when no one else in the building knew that a crime had been committed— is factually untrue because: 1) Oswald did not “flee” the building; and, 2) Mrs. Reid knew that a crime (shooting at the President) had been committed, as she told Oswald that JFK had been shot at. The “paradox” thus demolished by facts, Photon then modified the “paradox” to the notion that LHO must have been the killer as only he, and no one else at the TSBD, knew that JFK had actually been wounded. This, too, is incorrect, as Victoria Adams, watching from the 4th floor of the TSBD told Lovelady and Shelley after the assassination that she believed that JFK had been shot, although the specific details of precisely what happened were then unknown to her, leading her to also state that she was going to go ask a policeman exactly what had happened. However, she had seen enough to conclude that JFK was shot. Another witness, Gloria Calvery, saw JFK was wounded and told Shelley and Lovelady immediately after the shooting that she knew that JFK was wounded as she had seen blood on his head. She then went back into the TSBD only minutes after the shooting, when it is probable that Oswald had not yet exited the building. These aren’t theories, just facts. Saying Oswald killed JFK, now that’s a theory.

  16. Chuck Schwartz

    In my opinion , Shenon lacks credibility and has an agenda that does not include trying to find out who really killed JFK. His agenda is to continue the cover up .

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