Posted on 03/27/2025 4:30:35 AM PDT by MtnClimber
As mentioned in Part I of this series, I don’t have a firm view on whether there was or was not a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. However, if there was such a conspiracy, then clearly that is something that would be significant, and that all Americans would have a big interest in knowing about.
The reason a conspiracy would be so significant is that its very existence would imply that its members foresaw important consequences from the assassination. If the assassination was just the work of a lone gunman, presumably Oswald, then there need be nothing more to it than the mania of one crazy guy. The lone assassin would not need to have any motive beyond the satisfaction of taking out his target, or perhaps the perceived public glory and notoriety of being recognized as the successful killer. If there is a conspiracy, that completely changes.
In the Kennedy assassination, a problem for conspiracy theorists is coming up with a theory that is plausible. What potential group of conspirators in this circumstance would have had both something that makes sense as the motive for the crime, plus the ability to put together this plot and carry it out? There are not that many possibilities. For today, I will set out the main theories that have been put forth, and apply some preliminary criteria to rate them.
But first, as a basis for triaging the potential theories, consider the issue of motive for a conspiracy, particularly a conspiracy involving at least several state actors:
- By contrast to a lone gunman, such a group almost certainly would want the opposite of glory and notoriety, which would entail near certainty of getting caught and punished for the killing. Therefore, such a group inherently will have to be committed from the outset to long-term cover-up of their involvement.
- Such a group would also inherently have a well-thought-out concept of what they were trying to accomplish; and the planned accomplishment must be something that makes the huge risks of the conspiracy worthwhile. As a clear corollary, in assassinating Kennedy, it would be evident to rational conspirators that Johnson will become the President. Therefore any viable conspiracy theory must hypothesize that the conspirators have some strong reasons to prefer Johnson over Kennedy as President. They would foresee major changes of policy from the change of Presidents, at least in some area they care about, and the policy changes would have to be such as to justify the assassination in their minds.
With those preliminaries, here are the principal conspiracy theories that I am aware of:
Soviet Union/Cuba. There is plenty of evidence — including Oswald’s defection to the Soviet Union from 1959 to 1962 — to support the proposition that Oswald was a Communist sympathizer and supporter of the Soviet Union and of Cuba. Both were the sworn enemies of the United States. This theory hypothesizes that one or both of those entities recruited and supported Oswald to take out Kennedy.
Johnson. The most obvious person who stood to gain immediately from Kennedy’s assassination was Johnson. And there has never been a more desperately ambitious and completely unprincipled man than Johnson to occupy high office in this country. As Vice President, Johnson had access to various security and/or law enforcement personnel of the federal government to assist in the plot. Among the many books hypothesizing Johnson as the leader of the assassination conspiracy is “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ” by Roger Stone (2013).
CIA theory (1) — New Orleans businessmen. This is the theory put forth by New Orleans DA Jim Garrison in his 1967 prosecution of businessman Clay Shaw for participating in the alleged plot to kill Kennedy. The theory is that a group of anti-Castro businessmen, with CIA support, recruited and paid Oswald to kill Kennedy. Garrison claimed to have eye-witnesses to the businessmen recruiting and paying Oswald. The motive would be that Kennedy was providing insufficient support to the CIA efforts to take out Castro. The two main New Orleans businessmen accused by Garrison were Shaw and David Ferrie. Ferrie died before he could be arrested. In Garrison’s prosecution, Shaw was acquitted by a jury that deliberated for less than an hour. For a piece that lays out Garrison’s theory sympathetically and in more detail, try this one from the New York Review of Books in 1967 (concluding that Garrison’s case “deserves a fair hearing”).
CIA theory (2) — “The Mob.” This theory differs from the previous one in that the hypothesized participants, besides Oswald and the CIA, were some notorious Italian-American Gambling Entrepreneurs (IGEs) sometimes referred to as “The Mob.” When this theory was first mentioned to me, I thought it was ridiculous — why would the CIA and the IGEs possibly be working with each other? But the theory is less preposterous than it might at first seem. The IGEs had had hugely profitable gambling interests in Cuba, from which they had been ousted when Castro took power in 1960. Now they had large numbers of ex-employees on the ground in Cuba, who could be recruited to work with the CIA on its plans to eliminate Castro. But Kennedy had failed to provide crucial support to the CIA at the Bay of Pigs, bringing about that disaster, and then had backed off on confronting Russia after the Cuban missile crisis. In this hypothesis, members of the CIA also saw Kennedy as failing to provide appropriate support to their efforts in Vietnam.
Thus while it might at first blush seem the least plausible of the theories, it is the last of these — the CIA/Mob theory — that has gotten the most traction over time. Why? Because the others have flaws that probably disqualify them out of the box. For example, the Soviet Union/Cuba theory suffers from the problem that those entities showed little interest in Oswald when he defected. During his time there, the Soviet Union sent Oswald off to an out-of-the-way provincial location (Minsk, now in Belarus) and mostly ignored him. (Could they have smelled a rat — suspecting, or even knowing, that he was a CIA plant?). The Johnson theory has the problem of lack of any direct evidence, plus that none of the major “anomalies” (that I will discuss in following posts) points to him over other theories. The Garrison theory was discredited by the jury verdict, and by allegations of witness tampering.
Of the four contending conspiracy theories, the CIA/Mob theory is the one that offers the best potential explanation for all of the major factual anomalies that make people doubt the “lone gunman” hypothesis. That does not mean that it is correct.
In the next post, I will consider the previously identified “anomalies” in the context of the four potential conspiracy theories.
For your consideration.
He left out Jacqueline JFKs wife who may have been tired of her husband banging Marilyn Monroe, and anything else in a skirt except Dylan Mulvaney
If there are two or more shooters, and only one shooter is exposed and made out to be the bad guy, then there is a conspiracy.
Oswald could not have fired a second accurate shot in 2.3 seconds with a bolt action rifle. Cycling the bolt action to get a new round into the chamber and then reacquiring the target with a scope on a moving target in 2.3 seconds is impossible. This was proven by FBI testing.
He was a marginal shooter scoring only at the marksman level in the corp. The cops could not find any gunshot residue on him. So it’s questionable if Oswald himself actually fired the weapon. He said he was a patsy. If the cleanup man, Jack Ruby, had not have silenced him, there would have been many more leads to investigate leading to the truth.
He liked blondes, maybe if Jackie had died her hair he would have been faithful.
Lies need to be hidden, while the truth needs no reason to be hidden.
The files would have been thrown wide open & available, not withheld for a period of 50 years, and even remained secret beyond that 50 year limit, if the conclusion is the truth. Furthermore, there would be zero reason for redactions 60 years after the fact. What needs to not be revealed?
Conjecturing it a conspiracy rather than a lone wolf/lone gunman because there was so much other activity by people and government(s) is very compelling at first. However, I have heard the coverup type activities ascribed particularly to government as rather predictable, even if it wasn’t a conspiracy, because that’s what a lot of people in power do when they don’t want to be blamed for an incident or problem. If they have the ability to cover their mistakes and hide any associations with people surrounding it, they will. Particularly in a case like the assassination of a popular president. Nobody is going to want that pointing back to them, even in any small way.
However, it’s the gestalt of the whole thing that is so mysterious. The stone-walling, covering up, and burying activity seemed so pervasive both vertically and laterally that it seems almost impossible for it to have been this effective for this long. It can’t be explained by everyone just wanting to disassociate themselves from it.
Personally, I think the whole coverup and veil of secrecy around the JFK assassination has been part of an orchestrated strategy to turn a corrupt mediocrity of a president into a martyr and an iconic historical figure.
Oswald was a low level INTEL asset, recruited from the time of his service with the Marines. He learned Russian and worked out of Azuki AFB in Japan who worked with U2s.
Oswald was no dummy and no Commie. Like many before him from the Korean war onwards he was recruited by the CIA to infiltrate the USSR and pose as a Marxist, Communist in order to be considered legit.
He renounced his US citizenship, made many “scenes” when acting with US/FBI officials.
He moved to Russia. The USSR monitored him for years knowing he was a spy. Once he married and KGB honeypot (Marina) he suddenly had had enough of the USSR.
He was paid to return to the USA. Once in the USA he had “Handlers” that guided and followed him eventually to Dallas.
He never visited Mexico City - it was a double photographed by the CIA.
He and Marina were handled by De Mohrenschildt and Ruth Paine, (both worked for the CIA). Marina was kept busy with a Lesbian relationship with Ruth (who filmed her escapades).
Ruth got Oswald a job in the TSBD.
Oslwald di not shoot officer Tippet or JFK.
He acted out his role as a Commie very well and once apprehended was pretty darn cool, calm and collect until he realized he was being set up.
Then, as time passed he said he was “...just the Patsy”...why?
Once he said that, Ruby was ordered to eliminate him.
Once Ruby opened up about the plot, he too was eliminated.
Conspiracy, yes.
I know that I am in the minority on FR, but I believe that Oswald pulled the trigger and that he acted alone.
Have you read Roger Stone’s book THE MAN WHO KILLED KENNEDY?
Did you know that Gerald Ford and Arlen Specter were instrumental in browbeating, threatening, and then redacting testimony of anyone who contradicted the “one shooter” scenario?
Did you know the Warren Commission Report doesn’t even have an index?
Srednik is of the opinion this guy is one of them.
Yes all actual evidence clearly points to Oswald alone. In fact it’s perhaps the easiest case to solve in history. Literally several witnesses, it’s laughable to believe anything else.
His wife rejected his last appeal the night before and that was it.
He took the gun to work.
In fact, had marina agreed to a reconciliation on that Thursday night, the shooting may have never happened.
But ignorance always wins. The wild conspiracies are entertaining. And that’s all they are...
When the perp ends up dead, in police custody, within hours of being arrested…there’s probably more going on than we see.
I believe the CIA / mob is most probable. Jack “Ruby” Rubenstein took out the Patsy to dutifully cover the operation
Cycling the bolt action to get a new round into the chamber and then reacquiring the target with a scope on a moving target in 2.3 seconds is impossible. This was proven by FBI testing.
One thing most don’t consider is Oswald could have shot left handed and used his right hand to work the bolt. It is a fairly common technique for left handed shooters.
“I know that I am in the minority on FR, but I believe that Oswald pulled the trigger and that he acted alone.”
And there ain’t no such thing as UFOs either.
There is always a conspiracy afoot to kill the various leaders in the world. Including the US. I believe, therefore, there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, but I would not be able to go past this and say who. My thoughts? Oswald acted alone. The Russians would not trust Oswald as the KGB would already know who he was and they would not trust him in anything like an assassination conspiracy. Beyond that I have no idea.
Oswald just happened to be in the place of opportunity and for someone whose life was down the toilet, he saw an opportunity and took it.
Oswald could have cycled the bolt action in that time. They even had a 65 year old weapons expert that was able to do this. That is why he had the sniper’s perch.
And a marginal shooter is called a marksman in the Marines. It was hitting a target at 200 yards over open sights. This was a 68 yard shot.
Oswald shot Tippit. He was seen doing this by a number of people who followed him from the shooting site, to the Texas Theater.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.