Those not around 50 years ago, but amidst the media blather today, may not be aware that no one witnessed JFK being killed on TV - either live or in newscasts- during his motorcade through downtown Dallas. All we received were news bulletins and updates. The stills from the Zapruder film wouldn't be seen until a week after the event, published in a Nov. 29 special issue of LIFE, which described them as: "a remarkable and exclusive series of pictures which show, for the first time and in tragic detail, the fate which befell our President".
Meanwhile, the full film wouldn't be available until years later after being subpoenaed in the Garrison case.
In contrast to this, millions of us on this date 50 years ago, saw Lee Oswald shot down before our very eyes. The first ever live- as it happened- assassination, and the second victim of those dark days 50 years ago. Yes, I said victim. Not assassin, not "alleged assassin". I seem to recall, perhaps from one long removed course I took at Loyola in ethics (chapter on American law) that "a man is innocent until proven guilty". Sadly, Lee Oswald was cut down before having his day in court, so there was no way to prove him guilty. Hence, in the strict eyes of American justice (if it means anything and isn't merely theoretical or another useless trope for the brain dead) then he must remain innocent under that law.
I do not regard the Warren Commission as any kind of official or legitimate court no matter how many names sat on its whitewash "blue ribbon" panel. And I've already exposed this fraud in several FAQs, including: 4(a) and 4(b), 5 and 6. Indeed, (as Steve Kornacki noted yesterday morning) Warren Commission creator LBJ was on the verge of being subjected to a massive LIFE magazine expose (and Senate investigation) for the Bobby Baker scandal - including influence peddling to net millions of dollars- with the money trail to be published. Hence HE stood to gain the most, at just the right instant of time, with JFK killed. Instantly he became the great "successor" as opposed to damaged criminal, and dropped from JFK's '64 ticket. Yes, yes, I know, it's a damned bloody thought. But recall the ancient question of Julius Caesar: "Et tu, Brute?" His "Commission" itself nothing short of a stroke of evil genius - giving the patina of "government" benediction while being in control of all evidence forthcoming. ("To commit the perfect crime, one need only be in charge of the investigation that follows")
Watching Oswald shot down like a dog on the screen in front of me that Sunday morning, my first reaction was absolute shock. How in the hell could this bloody happen, and in a police station? How could it happen in the United States of America where every manjack was due his day in court? My mind then propelled to the obvious question: WHO would have wanted him dead?
The story at the time is that beneficent ol' Jack Ruby, owner of the Dallas' Carousel Nightclub, did it out of the goodness of his heart, to "spare Jackie from having to return to Dallas to endure a trial". (Which most critical observers even then had the intelligence not to buy.) Some time later he recanted that WC "testimony" and professed that - if he could be taken to Washington to testify - he'd spill the beans on the real story. No one took him seriously and he died a short time later of cancer.
Again, it would be years - decades- before the documents came out to complete a picture of Jack Ruby and his connections, especially to organized crime. Mark North, using actual, released FBI files, documents many of Ruby’s Mob connections in his book, Act of Treason- including his reported “gangster connections in Dallas”, especially to Joseph Civello, the Mafia boss in Dallas. The same files disclose that Ruby, on October 26, 1963, “placed a 12 minute person to person call to Irwin S. Weiner at Weiner’s Chicago home”.
It is further noted that Weiner was a:
“prominent Chicago Mafia associate” and “instrumental in coordinating the flow of cash between the Teamsters and Las Vegas casinos." (North, op. cit., pp. 333-34).
We also learned of Ruby's past as a former Mob operative (for Santos Trafficante) in the 50s, gun-running into Cuba. In other words, the guy wasn't some little "angel" just out to do good deeds. (Let us also be aware, that the CIA's ZR/Rifle program had deliberately recruited Mafia to be part of assignments to nail Castro, given the mob had been entrenched in Cuba until Castro removed Batista - a friend to the mob).
North conjectures that the phone call concerned Ruby 's outstanding debt to Uncle Sam - owing more than $40,000 in back excise taxes to the federal government, plus $20,000 in other back taxes. A phone call could then have assured Ruby his tax problems would “disappear” if he performed one more job: offing Oswald. Given the mob link to ZR/Rifle, such a scenario would be totally logical. Few people today, unless they've mined the document trail, are remotely aware of the extent to which the CIA and Mob worked hand in glove, especially on the ZR/Rifle Castro assassination operation. Given Oswald's 'Staff D' connection (from his 201 CI/SIG file) to ZR/Rifle it wouldn't have been a biggie to have this one "jokers wild" element severed - one that had become too dangerous After all, it had been expected that this 'joker' would be killed in the Texas Theater confrontation, not make it out alive to walk down the halls of the Dallas PD loudly proclaiming "I am just a PATSY!"
Ohhhh my god! ZR/Rifle, the mob, Ruby, Oswald doubles, CIA renegades, Richard Helms DDP, LBJ..... WAHHHHHH! And yet even professed "liberal" sources fail to do their homework and instead pay heed to a dissembler (and likely CIA 'Mockingbird' asset) such as Gerald Posner - rather than get off their butts to do independent research. A recent case in point is Marilyn Elias in her piece 'Conspiracy Act' , in The Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report (Winter, 2013), in which she actually babbles (p. 15):
"They (conspiracy theorists) never mention the clear testimony that Oswald's assassin gave to the Warren Commission denying any plot and saying that he killed Oswald on impulse to save Jacqueline Kennedy the pain of returning to Dallas for a trial"
Well, we do mention it - as I have here in this post - while noting that only a moron would believe that. Evidently then, Ms. Elias is a moron or a dupe. Apart from which, is she so stupid to believe that if Ruby really was involved he'd admit it to a bogus Commission created, owned and operated by LBJ and Hoover, which had the power to swat him down like a Texas horsefly - the same way LBJ threatened to disclose Earl Warren's Hoover files if he didn't come onboard as a figurehead? (See FAQ - Part 4a).
Like Philip Shenon, Elias isn't content to stop there, but bloviates onward making herself look even more like a horse's ass, when she writes (ibid.):
"In a similar way they portray as suspicious the deaths of Dorothy Kilgallen and other journalists skeptical of the story - but say nothing of the many doubting reporters who lived on unmolested."
Well, obviously they "lived on unmolested" because they were journalists within the "Operation Mockingbird" orbit: brought on in assorted media venues as reported by Kathryn Olmstead, in her book, Challenging the Secret Government: The Post-Watergate Investigations of the CIA and FBI, Univ. of North Carolina Press, p.21 noting:
According to the Church committee's final report, approximately fifty U.S. Journalists had covert relationships with the CIA, about half of which involved money. Watergate investigative reporter Carl Bernstein charged that the total number of U.S. journalists who worked for the CIA was actually much higher
To see a Youtube video on 'Mockingbird', with open admissions, go to:
So, perhaps Elias is too ignorant to even be doing such a piece (although yes, her prime target is Richard Belzer - using the guilt by association rap, i.e. with Alex Jones) or she's too incompetent to dig up the Mockingbird journalist links - or she is one of them herself. As for her complaints about the connections in the witness deaths we can perhaps excuse her because of a likely deficient math education, i.e. which didn't allow any exposure to Poisson statistics, such as employed by Richard Charnin in his mathematical proof:
Now, I have no problem if people have less math ed than those who've done the physics or engineering route, but then they need to refrain from spouting bollocks such that "the witness deaths aren't connected." This only reveals their level of ignorance, as it does for Ms. Elias - no matter how many years (26) she's had as a USAToday reporter, before peddling her anti-conspiracy baloney for the SPLC.
But to me, the mere fact Elias probably got all her JFK assassination info based on an interview with Gerald Posner (quoted in her piece), immediately disqualifies her from commenting at all on the Kennedy assassination, no matter how hard up she is to nail Richard Belzer for being a nasty, anti-government sort because he boldly holds to the conspiracy thesis as in his new book, 'Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation Into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination' .
The SPLC piece by Elias also illustrates another aspect of the Left's conspiracy phobia: running from anything that smacks of "anti-government" sentiment, despite the fact we have reams of documents, files to support the need for a critical wariness of anything government claims (as Edward Snowden's files have disclosed). So, indeed, one faction of our own government - the national security state - was responsible for killing Kennedy. In this case the Left, and its weak sister conspiracy phobics like Marilyn Elias, become part of the problem of the "unspeakable" noted by author James Douglass ('JFK and the Unspeakable') . They harp on certain conspiracy theories and aspects or connections between proponents (as between Richard Belzer and Alex Jones) of which they are frightened, but remain totally stone silent as the NSA expands its web of mass surveillance, violating the 4th amendment - the foundation of all civil rights- for all Americans. In this case, they expose themselves to be cafeteria-style, civil rights hypocrites. So please don't hump threats of the KKK, Volksfront and Aryan Nation, etc. if you're prepared to give a pass to the national security fascists!
Yes, it may be too much for some minds to cope with. But unless we get to the bottom of it, especially why both Kennedy and Oswald were killed, we will be hostage to the zeitgeist of the architects who carried it out: the national security and war state. (See also Peter Dale Scott's updated book, The War Conspiracy.)
As for those idiots on the UK Guardian site- online forums I saw bloviating about "no real account of how such a conspiracy could take place has ever been given" - I suggest they either get hold of the fictional account 'Executive Action' - or see the film. It probably comes closer to the actual scenario than any other. Certainly, than any other films I've seen.
While Oliver Stone's 'JFK' can be regarded as a "counter myth" to the Warren Commission's myth of 'Oswald dunnit', Executive Action is more closely a portrayal of how the deed was really carried out - and why both JFK and Oswald were victims.
RIP, Lee Harvey Oswald. One day, when this country finally finds the heart, will and balls to pursue the truth - as opposed to manipulating the public mind via the expedient path of lying and cover up - your name will be cleared, and your family's honor restored.
See also: http://www.projectcensored.org/project-censored-presents-key-issues-assassination-president-john-f-kennedy-special-broadcast-pacifica-radio/