My favorite detail about that day is the forecast was for rain. It did slightly drizzle in the morning, it was windy, and the top was on the Presidential limo. But the rain stayed away. It was an unusually warm sunny day for late November. At 11:38am, JFK told the secret service to remove the top so people could see him better.
The conspiracy, obviously, includes the ability to change the weather and use mind control to convince JFK to tell his secret service to take off the roof and stay in the car behind him 🤣
As a youth I was angered at the extensive TV coverage filling all four TV channels the three days with nothing but Kennedy assassination coverage. At school, the principal mustered all to the auditorium/lunchroom where, breaking out in sobs, he informed us of the killing in Texas.
As the decades slithered through time I have read numerous books delving into the assassination. TV was another sources of possibilities. Discussion with others around me were typically futile since none of them read anything, fiction or non-fiction, unless it was pertinent to a hobby or a beloved sport team.
Max Nussenbaum has crafted an awesome assemblage of words conveying a complex topic in a manner both serious and lighthearted at times. His conclusion is logical, yet he does not proclaim to be the penultimate expert about JFK's demise and leaves it to the reader to make their own conclusion. His summation as to the reality of that situation steadily falling into the recent-ancient-history slot was an apt conclusion with logic and rational-thinking backing his claim.
Will We, the People, ever know the entirety of events surrounding the JFK demise? Does anybody except the one aloft holding the rifle know the actuality of the affair? I do not know.
What I can proclaim is that this essay was an enjoyable read and I rate it a full 9,69 on my 10 maximum scale. Never having given a 10 before and with my addled mind withered with age struggling to recall past ratings it is possible that the essay you just read about JFK has received the best rating I have ever bestowed upon a written work appearing upon the Web.
I haven't the time to read all the comments, but this comes closest to my own review of this article. What I haven't found in the article or comments is the ballistics test results that were conducted decades after 1963, which (I thought) validated the single-bullet theory hitting Kennedy first, then traveling to the front seat to wound Connelly. If not ballistics, then the test of time is compelling that Oswald acted alone because no one has come forward in 60-plus years to confess to being the second gunman or knowing something about him/her. Lastly, I visited the (original) Texas Schoolbook Depository building in 1970. The grassy knoll was so small an area, no one could have fired from it without someone in the crowd noticing someone. The distance between the open window in the building where Oswald perched & the limonene is shockingly short. It was much easier to shoot Kennedy's head off than one might think.
I was a 13-year-old schoolboy in Hungary. We thought of Kennedy - America - with sympathy, we only heard about his speech in Berlin decades later. We could follow the tragic events from the beginning - on the one TV channel at the time - of course imbued with the ideology forced on us. It still affects us today: indelible history, albeit with countless unclear questions.
About the 214 number you cite at the start of this article - if you read Reclaiming History, and add up all the potential assassins and conspirators proposed between 1963 and when the book was published in 2007, it is a far higher number - something like 892. An absurd number, and an illustration of how pursuit of conspiracy theories takes us further and further away from the truth in cases such as this.
Bugliosi's book - while very lengthy - comes back to one essential point over and over again: if you believe one of the theories above, to prove it, you need some sort of first-hand evidence: a wiretapped phone call, an eavesdropped conversation, something like that. And for all the above, after 60+ years of discussion, the first-hand primary evidence is zero. What we have is theories, such as Oswald was affiliated with the mob, and was in New Orleans, and some mob member from New Orleans was in Dallas, so thus Oswald was employed by the mob to kill JFK. But - the mob has been under continuous surveillance since RFK's time as AG, and while they have been recorded planning all sorts of other murders on wiretaps, they were never caught on wiretaps back in the day planning JFK's murder. Without this primary, first-hand evidence, these theories all remain theories.
Another important point he makes is: for believers of conspiracy theories, it is never enough, and even if you can prove or disprove something it is always something else, and something else. For example the Zapruder film was long seen as proof of a 2nd gunman - but now the same film is seen as being a CIA forgery to hide their involvement. It never ends with these conspiracy theories and it never will, even if they take us further and further away from the truth.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist at all but both Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald worked for Carlos Marcello. The bar in Dallas where Ruby worked was a Marcello operation, and Oswald did odd jobs for him in New Orleans. Draw your own conclusions...
A great read, thank you. As ever though, the people that should read articles that bring clarity to such controversies are often those least likely to engage with them.
If you look at history you will see that the kill rate under communism blows away that of any other social system because communism offers no means for checks and balances on its powerful people. Plus it fails to function because it doesn’t work with human nature. This is why China needs to use a capitalist engine to keep its communist system fed. You could move to NYC or North Korea to feel the warmth of collectivism right now if you are serious.
This kind of statement also suggests a level of naivete that undermines the credibility of the analysis: "So no, the CIA isn’t guilty—at least, not of this particular crime." It is very odd that the author thinks that from a quick, inexpert desktop review he would be able to rule out involvement of a powerful institution that had the capability to conceal its role.
On the other hand, I get the sense - partly from the derisory tone - that the intent behind the piece was decided before much knowledge was acquired. It is also interesting that this article on a highly contentious topic was promoted by the Substack Weekender newsletter despite coming from a very small account: other authors should be so lucky.
Overall, one can only conclude the intention of this piece was to disparage plausible conspiracy theories: that realisation will only compound the conspiratorial views he appears to be concerned with dispelling.
It took only one " agent " to commit the deed. Every other interested agent was involved in the cover-up. Blanket complicity makes a fine conspiracy. And a much more plausible accounting for history.
Great overview of the various theories of what really happened, but as a student of history, especially from a skeptical view point of watching mainstream media constantly painting a picture and leaving crucial information out, it has continually stumped me why there is no logical correlation or mention even in this post, about Operation Northwood, and the interactions of JFK and the Pentagon in the years 1962 and into 1963. This is validated history and released National Security archives at this point, that you are welcome to review yourself. Like Here:
I make no assumptions of how this really played into the assassination stories, but if you realize and understand how our government has and does work at this level and how far they are willing to go for false flag, psy-ops, and undercover actions, that have been repeated over and over again in history and current affairs, then any lack of a full scale justice and transparency on this case is clearly un-informed. "Those who do not understand their history are doomed to repeat it". "Remember, Nothing Is What It Seems."
What a great weekend read. Illuminating as well as witty. Thanks for your deep dive on our behalf.
Thank you so much!
My favorite detail about that day is the forecast was for rain. It did slightly drizzle in the morning, it was windy, and the top was on the Presidential limo. But the rain stayed away. It was an unusually warm sunny day for late November. At 11:38am, JFK told the secret service to remove the top so people could see him better.
This is SUCH a good detail
At least, that's according to Arcfield Weather. This link includes a photo of JFK from earlier in the day with an umbrella nearby. https://arcfieldweather.com/blog/2023/11/22/715-am-the-role-of-the-weather-in-the-assassination-of-president-kennedy-on-november-22nd-1963
I love that. I assume that the shooters must have at least considered the possibility of rain?
The conspiracy, obviously, includes the ability to change the weather and use mind control to convince JFK to tell his secret service to take off the roof and stay in the car behind him 🤣
As a youth I was angered at the extensive TV coverage filling all four TV channels the three days with nothing but Kennedy assassination coverage. At school, the principal mustered all to the auditorium/lunchroom where, breaking out in sobs, he informed us of the killing in Texas.
As the decades slithered through time I have read numerous books delving into the assassination. TV was another sources of possibilities. Discussion with others around me were typically futile since none of them read anything, fiction or non-fiction, unless it was pertinent to a hobby or a beloved sport team.
Max Nussenbaum has crafted an awesome assemblage of words conveying a complex topic in a manner both serious and lighthearted at times. His conclusion is logical, yet he does not proclaim to be the penultimate expert about JFK's demise and leaves it to the reader to make their own conclusion. His summation as to the reality of that situation steadily falling into the recent-ancient-history slot was an apt conclusion with logic and rational-thinking backing his claim.
Will We, the People, ever know the entirety of events surrounding the JFK demise? Does anybody except the one aloft holding the rifle know the actuality of the affair? I do not know.
What I can proclaim is that this essay was an enjoyable read and I rate it a full 9,69 on my 10 maximum scale. Never having given a 10 before and with my addled mind withered with age struggling to recall past ratings it is possible that the essay you just read about JFK has received the best rating I have ever bestowed upon a written work appearing upon the Web.
Thank you so much!
I haven't the time to read all the comments, but this comes closest to my own review of this article. What I haven't found in the article or comments is the ballistics test results that were conducted decades after 1963, which (I thought) validated the single-bullet theory hitting Kennedy first, then traveling to the front seat to wound Connelly. If not ballistics, then the test of time is compelling that Oswald acted alone because no one has come forward in 60-plus years to confess to being the second gunman or knowing something about him/her. Lastly, I visited the (original) Texas Schoolbook Depository building in 1970. The grassy knoll was so small an area, no one could have fired from it without someone in the crowd noticing someone. The distance between the open window in the building where Oswald perched & the limonene is shockingly short. It was much easier to shoot Kennedy's head off than one might think.
I was a 13-year-old schoolboy in Hungary. We thought of Kennedy - America - with sympathy, we only heard about his speech in Berlin decades later. We could follow the tragic events from the beginning - on the one TV channel at the time - of course imbued with the ideology forced on us. It still affects us today: indelible history, albeit with countless unclear questions.
About the 214 number you cite at the start of this article - if you read Reclaiming History, and add up all the potential assassins and conspirators proposed between 1963 and when the book was published in 2007, it is a far higher number - something like 892. An absurd number, and an illustration of how pursuit of conspiracy theories takes us further and further away from the truth in cases such as this.
Interesting read. Thanks
Bugliosi's book - while very lengthy - comes back to one essential point over and over again: if you believe one of the theories above, to prove it, you need some sort of first-hand evidence: a wiretapped phone call, an eavesdropped conversation, something like that. And for all the above, after 60+ years of discussion, the first-hand primary evidence is zero. What we have is theories, such as Oswald was affiliated with the mob, and was in New Orleans, and some mob member from New Orleans was in Dallas, so thus Oswald was employed by the mob to kill JFK. But - the mob has been under continuous surveillance since RFK's time as AG, and while they have been recorded planning all sorts of other murders on wiretaps, they were never caught on wiretaps back in the day planning JFK's murder. Without this primary, first-hand evidence, these theories all remain theories.
Another important point he makes is: for believers of conspiracy theories, it is never enough, and even if you can prove or disprove something it is always something else, and something else. For example the Zapruder film was long seen as proof of a 2nd gunman - but now the same film is seen as being a CIA forgery to hide their involvement. It never ends with these conspiracy theories and it never will, even if they take us further and further away from the truth.
Thank you for putting this together. I really enjoyed reading about all of the theories. I learned things I didn't know.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist at all but both Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald worked for Carlos Marcello. The bar in Dallas where Ruby worked was a Marcello operation, and Oswald did odd jobs for him in New Orleans. Draw your own conclusions...
A great read, thank you. As ever though, the people that should read articles that bring clarity to such controversies are often those least likely to engage with them.
A great read, entertaining and informative (albeit that I disagree with your verdict).
Outstanding. Thank you for this informative and hilarious read. ✌🏼❤️
‘When did the left become so lame’, you ask? When standing up to power stopped. When trading idealism for safety and entertainment started.
Really, both political sides wimped out, leaving a corruptocracy, that uses paid protesters and kids.
If you look at history you will see that the kill rate under communism blows away that of any other social system because communism offers no means for checks and balances on its powerful people. Plus it fails to function because it doesn’t work with human nature. This is why China needs to use a capitalist engine to keep its communist system fed. You could move to NYC or North Korea to feel the warmth of collectivism right now if you are serious.
The author of this post might have benefitted from more substantive understanding of conspiracy theories. Here are some crib notes:
https://open.substack.com/pub/politicaleconomist/p/a-brief-note-on-conspiracy-theories
This kind of statement also suggests a level of naivete that undermines the credibility of the analysis: "So no, the CIA isn’t guilty—at least, not of this particular crime." It is very odd that the author thinks that from a quick, inexpert desktop review he would be able to rule out involvement of a powerful institution that had the capability to conceal its role.
On the other hand, I get the sense - partly from the derisory tone - that the intent behind the piece was decided before much knowledge was acquired. It is also interesting that this article on a highly contentious topic was promoted by the Substack Weekender newsletter despite coming from a very small account: other authors should be so lucky.
Overall, one can only conclude the intention of this piece was to disparage plausible conspiracy theories: that realisation will only compound the conspiratorial views he appears to be concerned with dispelling.
It took only one " agent " to commit the deed. Every other interested agent was involved in the cover-up. Blanket complicity makes a fine conspiracy. And a much more plausible accounting for history.
Great overview of the various theories of what really happened, but as a student of history, especially from a skeptical view point of watching mainstream media constantly painting a picture and leaving crucial information out, it has continually stumped me why there is no logical correlation or mention even in this post, about Operation Northwood, and the interactions of JFK and the Pentagon in the years 1962 and into 1963. This is validated history and released National Security archives at this point, that you are welcome to review yourself. Like Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods and followup referenced links.
I make no assumptions of how this really played into the assassination stories, but if you realize and understand how our government has and does work at this level and how far they are willing to go for false flag, psy-ops, and undercover actions, that have been repeated over and over again in history and current affairs, then any lack of a full scale justice and transparency on this case is clearly un-informed. "Those who do not understand their history are doomed to repeat it". "Remember, Nothing Is What It Seems."