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.
If you were in the ‘Snipers Nest’ and you watched the flow of Traffic coming at You Before it made the Left hand turn towards the Grassy Knoll a Lone Nut would have taken the shot Before the Limo turned.
.
I’ve been to the ‘Sixth Floor Museum’ and
It would have been shooting Fish in a Barrel-—one could take Out EverOne !
Take out the driver——Blood Bath.
No Joke.
.
You’ve spent time in the ‘Snippers Nest’?
Ford and the man who came up with the Magic Bullett theory Senator Arlen Spector both became historical figures. How convenient the windshield was replaced so quickly. The three hobos (one was Woody Harrelson’s father a known assassin, another was a CIA man) who were arrested and just disappeared.
You can stand right next to the sniper’s nest in the museum. Have you been there?
If you can not require you target in a properly set up rifle with a scope on.
You need more practice.
Just because you can not do it doesn’t mean others can not do it.
Spent a Day there,Yes.
Triple Overpass, Grassy Knoll and snippers nest. It was very informative and seemed smaller when you are standing on the spot of JFK’S murder-—that was the late 1980’s, nothing has changed.
I never said I could not acquire a target with a scope.
What I said is that it takes longer to acquire a target with a scope than it does with open sights.
We are talking 2.3 seconds to cycle a bolt, acquire the moving target, compensate for a scope that’s not zeroed in, and pull the trigger. At 88 yards a scope is not really needed. An 88 yard shot can be easily done with open sights and the target alignment with the sights is much faster.
And again, we are not talking about a guy that gets in lots of range time (Oswald), who was a minimal shooter to begin with, using a scope that was not properly zeroed.
I just got these results from a Bing search: Question: Was Oswald’s scope properly zeroed? Bings Answer: According to the FBI, Oswalds rifle scope was so misaligned that they had to place metal shims under the scope in order to be able to zero-in the rifle. And no shims were ever found among Oswalds possessions.
He supposedly got some range time in before the assassination. He then should have known the scope was off and how much to compensate for for so many yards.
Oswald was a minimal shooter, meaning he only scored the entry level of marksman in the Corp. He likely seldom went to the range to get used to handling weapons. He likely qualified in the Corp with the M1 Garand, which was a much better weapon than the Carano. Boot camp training of the era used man sized targets for qualifying. The assassination required hitting a target the size of a volley ball.
An experienced shooter, once he realized the scope could not be zeroed, would have thrown the damn scope away and used open sights, shimmed the scope or simply got a better rifle.
Oswald was a fellow with un-self-disciplined “smarts.” Not allowing himself time, to add experience that “hardens wood" - he quit in frustration, from jobs, as he did not progress as fast as he wished.
He imagined what each path would be, but then soured on what the path proved to be.
Oswald saw pros and cons of communism, and in other political forms; for him, the grass was always greener on some other side.
He lied a lot. He also read a lot. He liked - sometimes - to toy with people whom he figured did not know as much as he believed that he knew.
After the sojourn to Russia, back in the U.S.A. with his wife, Marina, and baby daughter, June, he was always worried about not being able to support them. In the fall of 1963, along came another baby. Prior to that, he had a long history through parts of 1962 and 1963 of beating his wife, Marina.
His impatience finally overwhelmed him, and he decided in 1963, to force his way to a higher station - that of government or public perception of him.
In March of 1963, Oswald had purchased the pistol and the rifle and kept them stored.
Oswald used the rifle, in an attempt to accelerate his importance (gain fame) and assassinate General Edwin Walker in Texas. Oswald barely missed his target in April 1963.
Oswald had tried in the fall of 1963, to gain favor with both the Cuban government and the Russian government, by visiting the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City. He was rejected - the Cubans in particular, did not trust him and refused the necessary visa that was required for travel to Cuba. Oswald returned to the U.S.A.
He visited a Texas government employment agency and read the newspapers to find work.
On Monday [October 14, 1963], [a friend] Mrs. Paine mentioned the Oswalds' financial and employment problems to neighbors whom she was visiting. Mrs. Linnie Mac Randle, who was also present, remarked that she thought that her younger brother, Buell Wesley Frazier, who worked at the Texas School Book Depository, had said that there was a job opening there.
When Marina heard of this, she asked Mrs. Paine to call the Depository to see if there was an opening. Mrs. Paine called Roy S. Truly, superintendent of the Depository, who indicated that he would talk to Oswald if he would apply in person.
When Oswald telephoned the Paine house on Monday evening, Mrs. Paine told him about this possibility.
On the next day [Tuesday, October 15, 1963], Oswald was interviewed by [Roy S.] Truly and hired in a temporary capacity. He began work on Wednesday, October 16. His duties were to fill book orders; his hours were 8 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., for which he received $1.25 an hour.
Source for much of that info:
Appendix 13: Biography of Lee Harvey Oswald
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-13.html
Page 191 - [EXCERPT:]
Oswald's Marine Training
In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship. During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger.
He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course. After familiarization with live ammunition in the .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.
Following that training, Oswald was tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a "sharpshooter" in a scale of marksman--sharpshooter--expert.
In May of 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a "marksman."
The Marine Corps records maintained on Oswald further show that he had fired and was familiar with the Browning Automatic rifle, .45 caliber pistol, and 12-gage riot gun.
Page 194 [EXCERPT - regarding the rifle scope defect]:
Three FBI firearms experts tested the [Mannlicher-Carcano] rifle in order to determine the speed with which it could be fired. The purpose of this experiment was not to test the rifle under conditions which prevailed at the time of the assassination but to determine the maximum speed at which it could be fired.
The three FBI experts each fired three shots from the weapon at 15 yards in 6, 7, and 9 seconds, and one of these agents, Robert A. Frazier, fired two series of three shots at 25 yards in 4.6 and 4.8 seconds.808 At 15 yards each man's shots landed within the size of a dime.809
The shots fired by Frazier at the range of 25 yards landed within an area of 2 inches and 5 inches respectively.810 Frazier later fired four groups of three shots at a distance of 100 yards in 5.9, 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds.
Each series of three shots landed within areas ranging in diameter from 3 to 5 inches.811
Although all of the shots were a few inches high and to the right of the target., this was because of a defect in the scope which was recognized by the FBI agents and which they could have compensated for if they were aiming to hit a bull's-eye.812
They were instead firing to determine how rapidly the weapon could be fired and the area within which three shots could be placed.
Frazier testified that while he could not tell when the defect occurred, but that a person familiar with the weapon could compensate for it.813
Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the assassin aiming at a target which was moving away.
Frazier said, "The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would not be necessary to take any lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you."
Frazier added that the scope would cause a slight miss to the right. It should be noted, however, that the President's car was curving slightly to the right when the third shot was fired.
What I said is that a practice person with a properly set up scope.
Is as fast or faster the iron sights.
Just because you can not do does not mean cannot.
Kill shot from grassy knoll, hole in windshield from storm drain in front of car.
One shooter grassy knoll, one storm drain, one from building next to School Book Depository, which was the Dallas Police headquarters and then School Book Depsoitory.
4 shots
And Oswald was not a “practice person”. And his scope was not properly set up.
He is the subject here.
“Slighty to the RIGHT!?!”
.
NO it was fading LEFT !
.
What a mess, Totally.
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.