Hi 38° | Lo 24°

Letter: So much yet to study about JFK assassination

There has been a lot written and broadcast lately about the assassination of John F. Kennedy 50 years ago. Many of these essays, letters and editorial cartoons have emphasized the foolishness of anyone considering alternative possibilities to the “who” and “why” of this act – the loony conspiracy theorists wearing beanies with windmills. In the legal world, people who commit crimes are found guilty by a jury and are therefore unquestionably guilty.

Except, as we’ve seen repeatedly, when DNA evidence proves otherwise years later. There is no new DNA evidence in the JFK murder, but there are hundreds of government documents, eyewitness accounts, personal diaries and stories that have become available that point to other possibilities.

We’ll probably never know for certain exactly what happened or why, but it is indeed foolish to discount this mountain of evidence without looking at it and publicly discussing the findings and the ramifications.

Jim Douglas, in his book JFK and the Unspeakable, documents much of this previously unknown evidence and includes thousands of specific footnotes – more than 100 pages – listing sources that tell a much different version than the one widely disseminated after the tragic act. These notes, including fascinating writings from the personal diary of former Massachusetts senator, UN and Vietnam ambassador, and 1964 presidential hopeful Henry Cabot Lodge, also describe Kennedy’s term in office, his personal transformation, his challenges and his hopes for the future of this country.

This vision is especially important now. Between the endless War on Terror, the unveiling of the NSA, the race for more and more fossil fuel sources no matter the cost, the budget crisis both made up and real, and the overarching challenges of global climate change, we are looking at a world with overwhelming problems.

John F. Kennedy had a vision of a different world, one we need to find again. Discounting as looney the people who are publicizing and studying newly available evidence of his assassination, what it means and what we can learn from it, is indeed foolish.



Legacy Comments7

I have been convinced that it must be Bush's fault

Sail, there are actually some who have said the Bush family was involved in the "conspiracy", along with LBJ and other well known Texans.

Moreover, there are actually some who have said that psyshiatrists were involved, paying addicts at methodone clinics to assist Oswald. There are tons of theories, no one will ever know for sure. If we just had more photographers lazing around in those days who were taking more pictures. Oh well, it is water under the bridge and we will never know in our lifetime, exactly what happened.

The explanation is, it didn't happen. Jackie never said that, it is a made up factoid by some long forgotten CT. Jackie in fact, did not recall going out on to the trunk at all. Not one person who actually witnessed the fatal head wound when it occurred in the plaza said that the back of the presidents head blew out. Not one. They all said right front. This is further verified by the film. The motorcycle cop riding behind JFK who was supposedly hit hard by flying debris actually is on the record stating that he never actually saw this wound because it occurred on the front of the head, and that he drove through the debris cloud; this "hit by head debris" too is another fabrication on the part of the CT book authors. They present not a single Dealy Plaza witness to the exit wound because none of these witnesses saw this fictional back of the head wound happen. Instead they rely on the hospital staff, people who were busy attempting to save JFK, none who were forensic pathologists. NEVER EVER accept as fact what some book author claims a witness said without actually seeing for yourself what is in the record. A footnote in a book is not enough back up. It is astonishing how much twisting of the truth goes on, by these book authors, sometimes outright lies are presented as facts. When these errors were first brought to light, and the Z-film stabilized, instead of accepting the truth the CT crowd started to claim the film was forged, faked, painted over, along with other ridiculous claims, none of which stand long under the scrutiny of real experts. The twilight zone. The film is fake, the wounds on JFKs body altered, way out there in space kind of stuff. It is all nonsense.

Rje49??? Come on man!! Where does the Zapruder film clearly shows his skull and brain going forward.

What new evidence are you referring to? There is not 1 bit of evidence that points to more than 1 shooter that day, all of the physical evidence points to a single shooter and in fact, Oswald's rifle. Eyewitness statements are the least reliable accounts with any sort of crime investigation, as your own reference to DNA righting wrong convictions of the past. Are you sure you're not stepping in to a double standard puddle? These wrong convictions are very often the result of incorrect eyewitness statements used in those cases. I used to be among those who believed that the so called magic bullet is impossible, that 1 bullet could not have inflicted those wounds. Today with image stabilization technology used on the Z-film, with careful scrutiny, it sure looks like both men are hit at the same time, just like the WC said all along. The film makes a better case for the single bullet than it does for more than 1 shooter. I've done a complete 180 with my opinion, and I am now among those who will argue with you all day long that there was only Oswald. However, I do realize a conspiracy might still be possible, using just Oswald. I still have unanswered questions too, but I no longer believe there was ever some sort of vast conspiracy. It involves way too many people, to make it possible, including people who weren't even born yet.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why pieces of JFK's scull and brain went flying back onto the trunk of the car behind him (that's what Jackie was said to have been reaching for) from an entrance wound. This would normally be seen from an exit wound, meaning a strike from the front occurred.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.