Question about the assassination of John F. Kennedy

A question for you, dear reader. In fact, a poll:

Was the Warren Report essentially correct and accurate, or not?
Followup question: If not, what do you think happened differently than they said.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn

15 thoughts on “Question about the assassination of John F. Kennedy

  1. My copy of the report left the building years ago, as have most of my memories of it. But it always seemed odd to me that Oswald, a former U.S.Marine, could defect to Russia during the height of the cold war, then come home as if nothing ever happened and start a new life. Also odd, in retrospect, that G.H. Bush and Nixon were supposedly both in Dallas the day of the assasination. Odd but indicative of nothing. And the bullet forensics were abyssmal. A botch from start to finish.

    For the tinfoil hatters out there, it is interesting to think that the irrational right wing vitriolic crazies were beginning to go into overdrive over their loss to the leftish JFK, something that would ultimately metastasize into the modern hateful conservative movement. But were those conservative forces at the time powerful enough to kill Kennedy and cover it up? Probably. They could have if they wanted to, and they probably would have been able to cover up the foul deed, but whether or not they actually did it will probably never be known. The Warren Report could easiy have missed a secret cabal, and absent some compelling evidence from a dying conspirator or some treasure trove of hidden files, it is doubtful we will ever find any compelling evidence to prove the Warren Report wrong, so pretty much, it is going to be the given history.

    My gut feeling is that it reported on things that were accurately known, but that it never conclusively proved anything because there were so many things that it could not report on , such as classified information, and things that were not knowable given the technology of the day.

    1. ” … leftish … ”
      Splutter. I dont reckon the wealthy nuke fucker was leftish. Not in the same way Babs was in the brilliant The way we were flik, anyhow.
      Im open to evidence to the contrary.
      Li D
      Australia.

  2. Does a partially botched enquiry into anything translate into conspiracy? Nar.
    Happens every day of the week in courtrooms and science labs and journalists desks around the world.
    Its sort of built into the nature of enquiry.
    Are there any real genuine conspiracies?
    Yep. Absofuckinglutley. Im looking at you, you asbestos producing arseholes.
    And im about 90% sure there was a conpiracy of silence in the Whitlam gov ( and many other governments ) about a certain Ferdinand Marcos incident in the early 70s.
    But this Kennedy crap is boring.
    Its a slippery slope from Kennedy crap to thinking NASA lies about climate data.
    Its all bullcrap.
    Li D
    Australia

  3. 1963. The Russians sure must have despised Kennedy for standing up to them in Cuba. The Republicans sure must have despised Kennedy for the hinky shit that went on in Chicago, stuff that may have helped him beat tricky dicky. Oswald was at the Russian embassy in Mexico shortly before the assassination. The CIA was rankled by the Bay of Pigs. Maybe they were too pissed off about the Bay of Pigs fiasco to concentrate on cooperating with the FBI to make sure that a possible Russian assassin in Dallas was contained. Who knows? Who will ever know?

    Fast forward to 2016. The Russians, in particular, V. Putin, really despised Hillary Clinton for pulling hinky shit she pulled to try and screw up his “election” and her efforts to thwart some of his expansionist moves. And her stance on fossil fuels, which really really must have irritated fossil fuel billionaire Vlad . Similarly, the Republicans really despised Hillary because…..I guess that they were afraid that she was going to horn in on their “populist” strategy and keep them from getting the white house? Ha. They have hated and targeted her for years. I guess she scared them for being too leftish, too popular? Oh , and because of her stance on fossil fuels which must have really really irritated the Fossil Fuel conservatives. Anyway, the next thing you know, Hillary has lost the election because of ….. a lot of things but basically a botched electoral college strategy. Russian/ Republican cooperation ? Putin’s revenge? Or just cosmic coincidence and irony. We can only speculate.

    1. Vlad was happy with Hillary’s stance on fossil fuels. It would have kept American fossil fuels in the ground and raised the price for what Russia is selling. Now instead, Europe has an alternate source for energy and doesn’t have to defer to Russia for fear of freezing.

      Another reason he was upset with Hillary goes back to the Kosovo War. Russia thought it had been given a veto over military actions when Bill expanded NATO into the Warsaw Pact, then were ignored when they opposed Kosovo. At one point, the Russian army occupied the airport, and Bill’s buddy from Arkansas Wesley Clark ordered his soldiers to retake the airport. The British counterpart refused the order, or we would have been at war with Russia.

  4. MikeN: “Vlad was happy with Hillary’s stance on fossil fuels. It would have kept American fossil fuels in the ground …”

    Isn’t that a good place to have them for the future – especially if we persist in keeping our oil-&-gas-fueled energy policy? The more we “produce” (that is use or sell to other countries) now, the less we will have later — and the more what we do have will cost to get out of the ground. Or are you fine with our not too distant descendants having no reserves of our own?

    We are not the Middle East and even their reserve will run out not that far in the future with an energy-hungry population of seven billion plus and climbing.

  5. V.Putin the day before April Fool’s Day, 2017 “Russia’s Vladimir Putin said Thursday climate change was not caused by humans, as the White House announced that President Donald Trump would decide by May on continued US participation in the landmark Paris Agreement curbing global carbon emissions.”

    V. Putin at Paris Climate conference, 2015 ““Climate change has become one of the gravest challenges humanity is facing,” he said. He went on, “Caused by global warming, hurricanes, droughts, floods and other anomalies are the source of economic damage.”

    Two faced son of a bitch. Just like Trump. Also, in lock step with Trump. Trump is Putin’s puppet.

  6. There have been enough inquiries since the Warren Report that support the conclusions made there, so there is really isn’t any doubt (reasonable doubt — there are always conspiracy mongers) about what happened.

    It’s worth noting for one comment about the chicanery in Chicago: the results there, shady or not, weren’t enough to swing the election. There was far worse crap around Texas.

    1. Which inquiries are you referring to ? There was the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the ’70s . That found Kennedy was most probably assassinated as part of a conspiracy, so I’d say that doesn’t support Warren.

    2. Yes, the HSCA did conclude the assassination was probably the result of a conspiracy, because (in their opinion) even though the Commission and other agency investigators did a good job investigating Oswald they did not do an “adequate” job of looking for conspiracies.

      The HSCA also concluded that if there was a conspiracy it did not involve any of: organized crime, anti-Castro group, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Cuba, or the Soviet Union.

      In 1988 the Justice Department wrote a memo to the House Judiciary Committee. The memo discussed a review of the HSCA report and reported

      – active investigations were being closed
      – investigations from the FBI’s Technical Services Division and the National Academy of Science had both concluded, independently, that ‘reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman’

      The memo also stated that Justice Department Officials concluded that “there is no persuasive evidence to support the theory of a conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy.”

  7. Every man serving on the Warren Commission (yup , no women) could be described as a Washington insider. The Committee was made up of four politicians (one was in Dallas on the day and went on to become President himself) a CIA man, a top banker and the Chief Justice himself. I ask would you get any other key piece of history from a Committee made up of beltway insiders ? I know I wouldn’t.

  8. There’s a wide gap between what the Warren Commission was supposed to do, look for evidence of a conspiracy , and what it in fact did – put Oswald on trial. And with Oswald dead he wasn’t really in a position to defend himself. The Commission dug up whatever could be found to put Oswald in a bad light and present his character as murderous. Thus Oswald wasn’t just the murderer of Kennedy but of Officer Tippitt too. There is a clear example of how the Commission overplayed its hand. The assassination attempt of General Edwin Walker which happened many months before the assassination of JFK. Walker survived the attempt and it wouldn’t even be a footnote in history if it wasn’t put down to Oswald. But if evidence had existed that Oswald had indeed committed that crime, he would have been arrested for that and thus unable to assassinate JFK in November . The Warren Commission isn’t circumspect on the matter , it attributes Oswald with a murder attempt which at the time merited no arrests.
    The 1960s political scene in America was a violent one but the chronology presented just doesn’t add up.

    1. You are correct. The fact that Owald’s wife testified (after he killed President Kennedy) that Oswald tried to kill Tippitt is completely unimportant.

  9. Hi everyone My brother suggested I might like this website. He was entirely right. This post actually made my day. You can not imagine just how much time I had spent for this info! thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.