Saturday, November 23, 2013

A JFK Assassination Theory I'll Bet You Haven't Heard Before

On this 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination, there are TV documentaries galore -- most of them pooh-poohing the various "conspiracy theories", except that they're finally willing to admit (50 years later) that there were at least three shots fired, not one.  The Official Story, though, is still that all the shots came from behind and were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the School Book Depository.  And, of course, that Oswald acted alone.

You  wouldn't believe some of the excuses the Official Story supporters have come up with to try to explain away what witnesses -- and the famous Zapruder film -- showed: that the second (at least) shot hit Kennedy in the head, and his head snapped BACKWARD.  Anyone who knows anything about shooting, or basic Physics for that matter, knows that an impact from behind knocks the impacted object forward.  Therefore, JFK was shot from in front as well as behind;  therefore, there was a second shooter.  This implies a conspiracy.

 But it ain't necessarily so.  Rasty, who (like me!) has a lot of connections in weird places, came up with this one:

The first shot came from high and behind all right;  it hit Kennedy high in the back and exited low in the throat, then went through Connally (who was half-turned toward JFK) going through his shoulder, then his wrist, and finally burying itself in his thigh.  The Secret Service man who was sitting directly in front of Connally realized what had happened, and grabbed for his rifle -- which was concealed under a rug between the two front seats, loaded, with the muzzle pointing backward.  In his haste and excitement, as he lifted the gun and started to pull the rug away, he accidentally hit the trigger -- and that was the shot that hit Kennedy from the front, and killed him.

This would explain the cover-up;  the last thing the federal govt. would ever want to admit in public is that the president of the US was killed by the incompetence of the Secret Service.

Ah, but was it just incompetence?  Here's my addendum to Rasty's theory.  Admittedly, there's only one piece of evidence for it: JFK's route through Dallas wasn't originally supposed to go through Dealey Plaza, but the route was changed -- by the Secret Service -- at the last minute, so how did Oswald (or whoever the first shooter was) know when to be in place?  So yes, there was a conspiracy -- and at least part of the Secret Service was in on it.  So that killing shot from the front wasn't an accident after all.

As to who could have -- and wanted to -- put such a conspiracy together, more than a few people have come up with that one, based purely on motive and opportunity:

LBJ did it!

Well, why not?  He had the ambition, ruthlessness, bigotry (he was originally part of the Texas right-wing crowd), connections (he had lots of rich and powerful friends, including Hunt, in the Texas right-wing crowd) and sheer arrogance to pull it off.  There was a rumor (quickly quashed) soon after the assassination, that someone on the plane that took JFK's body back to Washington saw Johnson standing over the body and chuckling -- but that by itself doesn't mean he set up, or helped set up, the actually killing.  A clever playwright wrote an underground play (widely seen, and the script widely circulated) called MacBird, which was a rewrite of MacBeth with LBJ as the title character, but again, the writer had nothing to go on but motive and opportunity.

Still, there had to be some reason -- other than presiding over the highly unpopular Dirty Little War which Kennedy hadn't wanted to pursue -- that LBJ decided to quit the presidency after only one term.  Guilty conscience, possibly?  Or fear that enough digging into both of the Kennedy assassinations might finally come up with the shocking truth?

After 50 years, and most of the involved personnel having died off, it's unlikely that we'll ever get the whole story.  Still, even today, less than a quarter of the American populace believe the official version of the JFK assassination.  Indeed, despite -- or possibly because of -- the overgrowth of government in the US since then, that incident marked the turning point in America's trust of its governments, from the federals on down.  We've become a lot more cynical since then, with no end in sight.

--Leslie <;)))><   )O(



Anonymous said...

AFAIK they always did allow as how there were several shots fired. Confusion arose because Dealey Plaza is surrounded by tall buildings, which made for echoes. Read Posner's book on the assassination sometime; he makes a compelling case that Oswald did it, and was acting alone. Castro had motive, but he wasn't insane and wouldn't have trusted a loose cannon like Oswald for one minute...imagine Oswald captured, in court, saying how the Cubans got him to do it! The ensuing invasion of Cuba would have made D-Day look rather tentative, and after we got done with our Roaring Rampage of Revenge, every Cuban would automatically fall to his knees and beg for mercy at the sight of the US flag.

Anonymous said...

Hah! new theory! Thank-ye!
(.."When shall we three meet again; in riot, strife, or stopping train?")

meantime, I stumbled upon a blog you might enjoy--Not always agree with, no--but well written, with often 'interesting' comments...

I would love to listen in, if we were all in the same room

Leslie Fish said...

Hi, Eldri. Nice site! When I've got more time, I'll go there and have fun arguing with him.

Hi, Raven. No, the first govt. pronouncement on the assassination was the infamous Magic Bullet theory, which hinged on *all* the damage being done by a single shot -- even though the Zapruder film showed that at least two bullets hit Kennedy. That story was *so* lame that it couldn't help but inspire cries of "coverup!"

And no, There was absolutely no reason for Castro to be behind it. It's more likely that Oswald was a "stringer" for the CIA, who got roped in through his handler.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I like to tell people that I did it...I was two-and-a-half exactly on that day, and you know what the Terrible Twos are like. However, my mom would shut me right down when I did this around her.

"No, Eric, in the first place I was right there with you. In the second place, he looked too d*mn good afterwards. I know you. It'd be:

'Little Eric took an axe
And gave the Prexy forty whacks.
He thought that was so much fun
He gave LBJ forty-one.'"

The problem with high-level conspirators doing it is that they could have found a way to do it that was a lot less iffy than what Oswald used. Slip something extra into one of his medicine bottles (JFK had a Doctor Feelgood on staff, and such people have been got to in the past), find a way to publicize his sharing of Sam Giancana's mistress forcing his resignation, and Bob's your uncle! No need for all that messy splat.

Leslie Fish said...

Hi, Raven. Hmm, the problem with those other ways of getting rid of JFK was that indeed Bob *would* have been somebody's uncle. Bobby Kennedy, that is -- who had a lot less restraint than Jack did. As it was, *somebody* had to get rid of Bobby, too. Also, JFK's staff kept a much closer watch on his Dr. Feelgood than Michael Jackson's did, so that method wouldn't have been too easy. As for Sam Gaincana's mistress, was that Marilyn? Hell, every red-blooded male in the country would have forgiven him for that!

Anonymous said...

As far as "absolutely no reason for Castro to be behind it" goes---I don't know how it is in AZ, but around here, knowing that someone's tried to murder you several times is considered good reason for measures more extreme than removing that person from your Christmas-card-and-present list. I think that if someone you knew had tried to kill me several times had turned up shot, you'd be giving me a long, suspicious look. And the cops would have me down the station house so fast my feet wouldn't touch.

Castrato had also wanted to nuke the US, which was one reason Khrushchev backed down on those missiles. Unlike Castrato, the Soviets did not want more war---they'd had enough by 1945 to sate anybody.

Part of the point I was trying to make above was that the way it went down was very, very iffy, and the kind of high-level insider conspirators people love to point fingers at wouldn't risk everything on such a long shot.

And Giancana's mistress wasn't Marilyn. To be fair to JFK, when he found out that she was seeing Giancana, he dropped the woman in question like a red-hot rivet.

windmills said...

RavenclawEric, If I'm not mistaken, those assassination attempts on Castro were bungled by the deep thinkers at Langley, no? And they used methods far more chancy and elaborate than an ambush shot with a rifle, hence their failure. Aren't you kind of defeating your own argument, there? The very attacks which you're pointing to for motive amply demonstrate that even high level conspirators don't always remember the KISS principle.