Posts Tagged ‘John Kennedy’

the Most Assassinated President in History

May 29, 2017


There have been four Presidents in American history that have been removed from office – as well as this physical plane – through assassination.

James A. Garfield and William McKinley are rarely remembered today even though they were shot to death while in office. The other two, Lincoln and Kennedy, have been revered long after their demise. The former has had his reputation steadily increased over the decades while the other finds himself further and further tarnished.

Why has it been necessary for John F. Kennedy to be assassinated more than once?

The physical assassination was witnessed by many and the horrific act shocked the world. Nations across the globe issued stamps honoring the man in whom more than one nation’s people saw a bright and shining light for the future.

It is perhaps because of that international reverence that the second assassination took place; the character assassination of Kennedy began with rumors of infidelity, a few tawdry books based on speculation and rumor, and a now general consensus that the man was less than stellar as a human being. James DiEugenio has shown how the illusion of moral shortcomings came to be in his 1997 study, “The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy“.

Apparently, though most people bought that pack of lies, they still continued to revere the memory of the man who let us glimpse a modern Camelot. So, there has now come a third, a political assassination of Kennedy and his ideas. At the fiftieth anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Bill, many stated that it was all Lyndon Johnson’s idea, and not Kennedy’s. Instead, that conveniently moved the War in Viet Name from LBJ’s list of accomplishments to JFK’s.

I was there and I remember quite clearly all the work President Kennedy and his brother, Robert, did for Civil Rights and when LBJ took office he stated – quite clearly – that he would ensure the passage of the Civil Rights act because it was something very dear to JFK.

Why are they trying to re-write history again?

Because, it seems, too many people still think a little too highly of JFK.

And many of those people would still like to discover the plot behind his death and removal.

Kennedy might not have lived to the ripe old age of one-hundred, but he most assuredly did not deserve to die as young as he did.

These continuing attempts at posthumous assassination only underscores the fact that someone is still running scared about what might be discovered.

If only everyone could learn to loathe Kennedy and all he stood for, some people would certainly sleep more easily at night.

Nope. Ain’t gonna happen.


the Continuing Obsession with Booth

November 5, 2012

Many CT (Conspiracy Theorist) people have cut their teeth on the Kennedy Assassination, myself included. There are so many parts of the case as presented in the government’s findings that simply do not add up.

But I am not going to delve in depth here in the Zapruder films, the grassy knoll, the lone gunman, or anything else about the Kennedy Assassination. It is the earliest murder of an American president that intrigues me – no, not Zachary Taylor… the exhumation proved it was not poison.

Also, as there have been countless parallels drawn between the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations that I have always thought – as have many others – that the one was made on the model of the other. Therefore, by studying one, you could gain insight on the other. Conceivably.

So, they each had a patsy hung with the crime but never lived to be tried… A rush to judgment that “silenced” any opposing views… Blaming the killing on a foreign power… for Kennedy it was Russia, for Lincoln it was the C.S.A. Planted evidence of a conspiracy… Facts in the case that simply do not stand up to their interpretation…

For most people, Oswald’s participation in the crime was puzzling. Why did he harbor such a grudge against Kennedy? The Russian connection has always been favorably viewed because he had recently returned to the states with a Russian wife. That he was a tool for the KGB was – and still is – widely assumed. The most recent offering being Joseph Trento’s book The Secret History of the CIA, a joyful excursus into fantasy.

It might be easy to believe their take on the crime if they could first prove that Oswald was acting alone. Which, of course, cannot happen because the majority of the evidence points elsewhere.

So, I took the JFK killing as a starting point when I went to analyze the Lincoln Assassination. I figured the many parallels would help clear up some of the mystery.

But, just as with Oswald, discovering the motive for Booth to do the killing has not been forthcoming. Oh, certainly there have been theories proposed – too many, in fact – but all of them have fallen apart under scrutiny.

The reasons usually proposed are:
1 – He was a failed actor.
Not by any stretch of the imagination could anymore figure Booth was a failed actor. He was probably the most widely known and recognized actor of his age anywhere in the country. Why else would so many of the theater-goers at Ford’s that evening so readily mentioned the actor as the one who jumped to the stage. Ix-nay on theory one.

2 – It was revenge for the Dahlgren Affair.
I first heard of this rationale in Dark Union and I don’t buy it at all. (In case you are unfamiliar with this incident, Lincoln approved a mission by General Dahlgren to raid Richmond and free the Yankee prisoners there. Secret orders by Lincoln were discovered in the false leg of Dahlgren when he was killed and the orders were to murder the Rebel leaders and throw the Confederacy into total confusion.)

3 – He was bitter because the South lost the War.
This is the one response I see most often. As Lee had surrendered at Appomattox a few days before, modern folks assume the war was over. Whoa! Not even close. What Lee surrendered at Appomattox was nothing more than the forces under his direct command, which was about one third of the total CSA Army. Johnston had a much larger force ranging around in the Carolinas and it was the cable from Carolina that Lincoln was wildly expecting when he went to Ford’s Theater that evening. (Johnston actually surrendered in late April 1865 but the war was “officially” over, until the last CSA unit surrendered in 1866.) And since the Confederate government had not been captured during the Fall of Richmond, no one there, least of all Lincoln or Booth, actually thought the war was over. In fact, if Booth had captured Lincoln as planned, the South may still have won!

4 – He was following orders from the Confederate Secret Service.
This is the most popular of the “current” theories. So current is it, in fact, that it was first espoused by Edwin Stanton the very day Lincoln died. But he had no evidence then, nor has the digging by historians for almost a century and a half found any better evidence than Stanton had. Some tie this reason to #2 above that Davis was so incensed by the Dahlgren affair that he wanted to do the same to Lincoln. But Davis’ verbal response to the Dahlgren Affair at the time was that gentlemen did not condone such action. He was likening Lincoln to a brute for trying such a thing, so do you think he was going to lower himself to that same uncultured level? Not bloody likely!

So, the motive for Booth to alter his plot to kidnap Lincoln into a murder conspiracy to take out the heads of the government – and General Grant, too, by some estimations – has never been discovered. And the reasons given above for Booth actually killing Lincoln fall far short of rational.

So, using normal logic, if something like this was so highly unlikely to occur, perhaps we should look at more likely scenarios.

And that’s what I have done.

But, if you start with the idea that Booth did not kill Lincoln but was only there as a ruse of a cable from the War department to lure him from the theater, who does that leave us with?

A – Mrs. Lincoln
I have read the theory about her killing her husband for the Jesuits but that doesn’t hold up. Why? The motive they assign to her is really weak. And because Rathbone was sitting on the settee behind the First Couple during the play and he would have seen such action. And he did not mention anything.

B – Clara Harris
As she was sitting furthest from the President that evening, it should have been noticed by the two other people in the box. Sure, Henry would have covered for his fiancée but Mrs. Lincoln would surely have noticed the young lady getting up and walking to the back of the box. Unless, of course, Mrs. Lincoln was working for the Jesuits.

C – Major Henry Rathbone
Suddenly, we are presented with a person for whom we can actually work with!. First, he had opportunity. He was sitting directly behind the President and had an exit door right beside his position – he could easily have seen Booth’s approach. Second, he was the only eyewitness to the shooting. Essentially, it is a case of his word against Booth’s for even with a theater packed with people, the only two people in a position to see the killing: Booth and Rathbone.

I will present some curious facts and observations on this in three successive entries: My Theory on John Wilkes Booth:
PART ONE – the psychic research (yes, you read that right)
PART TWO – the Booth “diary” evidences – coupled with the after death sightings
PART THREE – the strange case of Major Rathbone

Eisenschiml tried to hang Stanton with the crime but it never stuck. And I have seen some people trying to find the connection between Stanton and Boston Corbett, Booth’s killer and how Stanton could have gotten word to the fellow to shoot Booth rather than allow him to be taken alive. No one has found any such connection.

Ah, but there is such a connection between Rathbone and Corbett? You bet!

It is probably a rather tenuous string of events on which to hang a theory, but – I was amazed to discover – that the facts seem to support this craziness even more than they do the usual interpretation of the historic event.

Well, at least to my mind, anyway.

Another Take on the JFK Assassination

October 16, 2012

I recently read 11/22/63 by Stephen King – one of my favorite authors – and really enjoyed the book.

Mister King says that he is convinced that Oswald acted alone, from all the research he has done on the subject. I cannot agree because I have probably done even more research on the subject.

He says that Conspiracy Theorists like to see structure and reason behind all things and just can’t believe Oswald was a random act, which he claims it was: the random act of a maladjusted person seeking fame in one mad act.

Hmm, I think I heard the same thing describing the assassin in an earlier event… John Wilkes Booth was the fellow’s name, I believe.

And that’s why I am not a big fan of the “random act” theory by the Government investigators. So much of the JFK assassination mirrored the event some ninety-eight years before. It is this fact that makes the identification of Oswald seem spurious.

And why would anyone think the physical evidence proves there was only one shooter? It is so far away from reality that you have to invent the “magic bullet” to explain the facts.

Plus the Zapruder film distinctly shows Kennedy’s head blown toward the back. An “expert” says it was the shot from the rear that caused Kennedy’s head to jerk forward only to recoil when his chin hit his chest…

Well, yeah, but what about the marvelous pink spray blowing out behind the President’s head? Did the particles of blood and brain also recoil against something or were they simply continuing the momentum from the bullet fired from the front of the President’s vehicle?

Yes, it is easy to research the assassination and come away with the same result as the congressional investigation, or you can actually do a little more analytic survey and see the patterns behind peoples actions.

Especially when the pattern is such a close duplication of an earlier event.