The Last Confessions of E Howard Hunt

Rolling Stone Magazine ^ | April 2nd 2007 | Erik Hedegaard

[threeleftsmakearight]

Overwhelming conspiracy evidence?
All these years and no one has leaked anything.
The lone nut assassin was a good shooter, actually, as evidenced by his receiving marksmanship awards while in the military.
If you believe this "conspiracy", I have another good one I'm sure you'll fall for: 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration to cover up evidence of corporate scandals and to get us into a war for profit.
Another one you'll like: The British Sailors being taken hostage is a hoax so we can have a catalyst to attack Iran.

[3niner]

Looks like St. John has figured out how to make some money from his father's death.

[SuziQ]

I'm sorry to be so callous, but almost 40 years on, and most of the players already dead, what does any of this matter, except to a man who believes he's OWED something for what he considers his part in helping his dad?

[kjo]

Yes. The evidence for conspiracy is overwhelming. I have read all the books...even Posner's piece of crap...Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell, both in the motorcade said shortly before their deaths that two shots came from the front...they were positive. Bobby Kennedy, ten days before his death told Frank Manciewicz that when he got into the White House he was going to reopen the investigation.

Johnson knew it was going down, so did Hoover...read for yourself, ULTIMATE SACRIFICE by Waldron...it's all there...but it doesn't count because the MSM won't cover it.

[meg88]

The article says only one of the key players is still alive, why not ask him about this story?

[kjo]

Just because CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN/NPR/PBS won't cover it doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. It's been in a hundred books. Take some time and read.

[Desperately Seeking Freedom]

OK, you have corrected me. I can't remember the dude that was winking. It's not this particular photo, but I will find it and post it. Not that it proves anything, just interesting.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

It's a free country, you can believe what you like, and your belief doesn't have to be based on facts.

However, the facts of this event demonstrate that all of the shots that struck the limo and its occupants were fired from about the location of the book depository window.

That doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy involved. Since Oswald was killed, we obviously don't have his account.

The shooting of Oswald by a nightclub owner with mob ties is extremely suspicious. But Ruby died without giving any specifics.

So there may well have been a conspiracy to use Oswald as the instrument to kill Kennedy.

But the "grassy knoll" gunman is just a fantasy used to sell books and movies.

[Sans-Culotte]

..unfortunately, the computer animation does not match the wounds. JFK was hit in the back...and supposedly the magic bullet comes out his neck...on a bullet that was coming from above.

didn't happen...

His jacket was bunched up-that's why the wound appears lower on the back of his jacket in relation to the exit wound. Everybody knows this, but conspiracy buffs refuse to mention thes things. Just like the "doctored" photo of Oswald holding the rifle. There might be something to that if there had been only one photo, but there were several poses with the rifle, and they were taken by his wife. Again, conspiracy buffs ignore this. And we are supposed to believe that all the gruesome autopsy photos have also been "faked" because they reveal that the fatal head entry wound was in the back of the head and exitied from the upper front right. Sheesh.

I used to be a JFK conspiracy buff, too. I now believe one lone commie punk named Oswald did the killing.

[ggekko60506]

"Even if it's true, why would LBJ want that ?"

The book "The Texas Connection" by Craig Zirbel powerfully corroborates E. Howard Hunt's de facto deathbed confession and also exaplins LBJ's multiple motivations for wanting to usurp the Office of the Presidency.

In 1963 LBJ faced a number of dilemmas that were on the verge of ending his political career and sending him to prison. Among his problems were the following:

*The Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes
scandals were being investigated by the
Justice Department with increasing
urgency. These scandals were also being
picked by the National Press.

Booby Baker was Johnson's chief of staff
and he had orchestrated a particularly sordid
influence peddling scheme, apparently under
Johnson's direction, in exchange for legislative
favors.

Billy Sol Estes was a "good old boy" and Johnson
confidante who had been paid millions of dollars
by the Agriculture Department to manage farmland
under the Department's Crop Support program. The
only problem with this arrangement was that 99%
of the "farmland" was under a huge lake somewhere
in Texas.

The revelation of Johnson's involvement in either
of these emerging scandals would have undoubtedly
led to a conviction and long prison sentence ala
Spiro Agnew.


*The Kennedys hated Johnson and considered
him an embarrassment and a political liability;
JFK planned to dump Johnson from the 1964
Presidential ticket.

*Johnson nurtured a messianic conviction that
he was entitled to be President that it has been
stolen from him by the Kennedy Familiy's money and
the political influence of Joseph Kennedy.

JFK's death by assassination solved all of these problems for Johnson in a unique way.

After Johnson became President he immediately ordered the Justice Department to terminate the Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes investigations. Johnson avoided the humiliation of being dumped from the ticket and a hated political rival was gone.

Right-hand man assassinations are, by far, the most common types of political assassinations observed in World History. Tons of ink have been spilled on all sorts crazy assassination theories (the CIA, the Cubans, the Mafia) while ignoring the most obvious prime suspect.

"Cui Bono" should always be the primary focus of any murder investigation. Lyndon Johnson was the man who uniquely benefited from the death of JFK and a competent investigation of the assassination should have put him on the top of the list of suspects.

[Sans-Culotte]

one nut assassin (who couldn't shoot)

Another conspiracy "fact" that is not true. In the marines, he qualified as a sharpshooter. On a later test, he qualified as marksman. So the worst you can say is that he hovered between sharpshooter and marksman. In any case, he was a decent shooter.

When I think back to my conspiracy buff day, I realize that the reason I believed all thos theories is that I was drawing conclusions based on untrue "facts".

[threeleftsmakearight]

If you think the MSM, as a whole, doesn't also believe in the conspiracy theory, then you are living in dreamland.
It's the MSM, along with teachers, "historians" and Hollywood-types who have fomented this "conspiracy" nonsense all these years.
Some things are simply what they are.

[Tallguy]

the leftist media, teachers and cultural elites don't want to believe that some lone kook did there guy in.

Reminds me of the old saw: Generals are killed by snipers; privates are killed by random fire. It's very difficult to accept the possibility that JFK was killed by a lone gunman who frankly made a lucky shot.

[true_blue_texican]

...2013 when the offical documents come out...

Are there any virgin documents left?

[Ditto]

Why would LBJ suddenly refuse to run for re-election? It fits that someone had the goods on him and blackmailed him.

No, I fits that LBJ was a life long manic depressive with a strong streak of paranoia. When Uncle Walter deserted him, the Kennedy clan started sniping at him from all sides, and his own aids started turning their back on him, he went into a funk that he never recoverd from. LBJ didn't want to be President anymore --- in fact, he didn't even want to live any more.

[threeleftsmakearight]

I'm just surprised that there are people in here who have fallen for the Camelot Fairy Tale.

[Ditto]

Ditto.

[fish hawk]

I'll wait for the movie, don't read books on the web.

[B-Chan]

You don't believe a word of it? This sort of response goes to the heart of my argument against scientism. (Scientism is the belief that the only truths that exist are those that are scientifically demonstrated.) I'm not going to criticise you for not believing this article, of course; what I'm criticizing here is the process by which most people determine the truth.

What is truth? That was Pilate's question to Jesus. Today, we claim to be able to discern the truth without asking God; we rely on something called "the scientific method". To modern people, truth is that which can be supported by evidence. This method works fairly well as far as inanimate objects are concerned; that statement that "water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen" is held to be true in a certain sense because anyone can combine hydrogen and oxygen and view the result. But what about other truths? Social, psychological, historical truths? Can these be determined to be genuine using the scientific method?

I don't see how. let's take the JFK assassination, for example. The statement "JFK was shot in Dallas on 22 November 1963" is a historical fact; JFK was alive on 21 November and dead on 23 November, during which time he was in Dallas, and examiners did find wounds consistent with gunshot wounds. On that we all agree. But who shot him? And why? We cannot determine the answers to these questions using the scientific method. There is no impartial court of cosmic data examiners in the sky who have analyzed the scientific facts of the case and come to a conclusion. Instead, what we have is a government-approved "finding" created by a panel of political insiders — the Warren Report. Now, the Warren Report might be the Gospel truth about the JFK assassination — but it also might not be. Yet for most people, the Warren Report is the truth, and that's that. We accept a certain version of events as true on the basis of authority alone.

That's fine as far as it goes. But it is important to realize that the Warren Commission's job was not to investigate the murder of the President of the United States. Its job was to prevent the shock and chaos created by the assassination from causing disruption of the social and political order of the United States. Bearing this in mind, it becomes easy to see why the Commission ultimately issued the finding that the JFK assassination was the result of a "lone nut". Let's say you're a member of the Commission, and you are presented with a clear, color 8mm sound film of LBJ hiring Lucien Sarti to kill JFK. Do you publish it for all the world to see?

Hell, no. Why not? Because you are an authority figure. If the American people hear from you that the President was killed as part of a coup d'etat instigated by his own Vice President, they'll go nuts. They will stop trusting in the government. They will lose all their psycholical bearings. The financial system will undergo a critical loss in investor confidence and crash. The military will no longer be certain who (if anyone) is their Commander-in-Chief. Foreign powers might choose such a moment to stike. No, as a patriot what you do in that case is to bury the evidence and say whatever you have to say to keep the country together.

But even that scenario doesn't strike at the heart of the queation. What IS Truth? Is it what we see on TV? Is it what the government tells us? Is it what the history books say? How can we know? Back to the JFK affair: a good question to ask oneself is "What evidence would it take to convince me 100% that JFK was shot from the front?" Color photos of a second gunman? Photos can be faked. A sound recording? Ditto. The testimony of witnesses? Dozens have testified to hearing shots from the Knoll. They could be mistaken, delusional, or lying. So much for evidence.

We need to admit it: in some cases, no amount of evidence, no matter how incrminating it might be, would be enough to get Oswald off the hook. In fact, for most people, even a signed, notarized affadavit stating "I had Kennedy killed" written on White House stationery and signed by LBJ would not be enough. Do you see my point?There IS no 100% certain way to know the truth regarding the JFK assassination — OR ANY OTHER HISTORICAL EVENT.

Therefore, the scientific method is useless in determining historical truth. As thinking people, we are forced to examine ALL the evidence — ALL — and then apply our reason and intuition to come up with a statement of belief that seems to fit. We cannot KNOW exactly what happened to JFK on that fateful November day; the best we can do is pick from a menu of interpretations and choose one to believe in.

And, in a larger sense, this is true for life.The scientific method proves nothing; evidence taken on authority can be faked, and even directly-observed evidence may not be true (since our senses can food us). So how do we know what we know? The only things we can know are those things that do not rely upon evidence or observation. We can know that we ourselves exist, because we do not "see" or "hear" ourselves; we ARE ourselves. And we can know that God exists through reason and (for a blessed few) through personal Communion. Everything else — the sun, gravity, that chair over there — we accept on the basis of faith.

[Ditto]

..unfortunately, the computer animation does not match the wounds. JFK was hit in the back...and supposedly the magic bullet comes out his neck...on a bullet that was coming from above. didn't happen...

You're wrong. I don't want to post them here --- they are gruesome, but if you care to look, you can look at the autopsy photos and see the bullet entry and exit wounds.

There is no excuse for swallowing these damn myths anymore, or making the hustlers who push them wealthy. The documentation is public domain.