By Patrick Brogan
Regardless of your political outlook, or who you think was responsible, the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States of America, was an attack on democracy and the fair values American society holds dear. For this reason alone, it is highly significant, but the way in which it was investigated also has an impact on American society.
This has come into focus more with the further release of documents from the JFK Assassination Archives. Most of these have been available since the 90s, but some have been held back. Why? The events were over 50 years ago. Is President Trump going along with FBI and CIA requests to withhold some of the files from the public to save their blushes? That has been brought up by many critics and both organisations have said it was down to security concerns and the information still being “sensitive”.
As with any major event, there will be inconsistencies because they happen in the real world and are connected to everything else. They do not happen in a bubble. The Kennedy Assassination is riddled with them. For example, the two official investigations into the assassination reached contradictory conclusions. The Warren Commission found that the “shots that killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald” and they “were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository”, meaning Oswald acted alone.
This is in contrast to the House Select Committee on Assassinations which found “on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.” The reason they said “probably” is because they could not identify other shooters.
While there had always been skeptics regarding the official version of events surrounding the President’s murder, this reached a new level after Oliver Stone’s JFK was released in 1991. Many historians were critical of the film and what it portrayed, but it did bring many flaws relating to the official narrative to public attention. The most famous line is “back and to the left”. This refers to DA Garrison’s analysis of Abraham Zapruder’s footage of Kennedy’s fatal head shot. This is the footage here;
This is important to Garrison’s case because it suggests that Kennedy was shot by someone in front of the President and to his right. The Book Depository is behind the limo at this stage. Regardless of whether that is the case or not, listen to Dan Rather’s description of the tape, and bear in mind the public didn’t see this footage until 12 years later;
The fatal head shot is completely different from the depiction in the footage above. “His head was seen to move violently forward.” No, it wasn’t. This description supports the theory that Oswald was the lone gunman. Why did Rather lie here? Was it an honest mistake? Possibly, but it appears to be a difficult mistake to make as he is a news anchor watching a piece of footage only a few seconds long. The head moving violently backwards, as it appears to explode, is the most striking, and disturbing, element of the video. How could anyone forget this, let alone an individual whose profession is based on news footage?
Eye witnesses can be unreliable in such events and this is understandable given the amount of fear and panic that such a scene can cause. However, the witnesses of the Kennedy assassination and their accounts are at odds with the official line. The Warren Commission initially said all three gun shots had entered the car. When James Tague came forward this theory fell apart because Tague was struck by debris caused by a bullet hitting the curb just in front of him.
Another witness was Bobby Hargis. He was struck by blood and brain matter and was standing behind the car and to the left when the fatal head shot occurred. This further underlines the theory that the head shot came from somewhere other than where Oswald was.
L Fletcher Prouty
Mr X in Stone’s film gives Jim Garrison an insight into the world of black-ops and how those techniques were used before, during and after the Kennedy assassination. This character was actually based on a real person; L Fletcher Prouty. What he says about the security that day in this clip is interesting (Also, I would urge readers to look into this man more);
Lee Harvey Who?
The lone nut. Was he, though? There is certainly a lot about this man that does not make sense. His military record for one. Was he an American spy all along? Why would a known associate of mobsters suddenly develop deep nationalistic tendencies and then murder him? There is a lot about this man we just don’t really know;
Even his arrest raises serious questions. He was initially arrested for sneaking into a cinema without paying by a platoon of police officers. This, on the same day the President was murdered and a police officer, JD Tippet, was shot dead. Why was there such an interest in a man who committed only a minor crime? It was later claimed that police were reacting to the description and it matched that of the man who killed Tippit, but there were a number of witnesses to that crime and none of their depictions of the killer matched and some even mentioned a second man. Was he just a patsy, as he described himself? Some of the evidence regarding a conspiracy is circumstantial, but so too is the evidence pointing to Oswald. A palm print found on the rifle a week after the the event? No fingerprints were found on the bullets which had to be loaded by hand. Just as important; What was his motive?
The recently released files muddy waters rather than give answers. Oswald was initially arrested for the murder of JD Tippit. In the files released, an FBI agent actually took notes on Tippit being the killer of JFK and Oswald murdered him to cover up any loose ends. More can be found here. Most of the files seem to suggest that the FBI and CIA were managing the situation and fall-out rather than investigating it. Maybe this should not be surprising. J Edgar Hoover hated the Kennedys and JFK threatened to destroy the CIA and sacked its head Allen Dulles. Dulles later went on to be a member of the Warren Commission. Hardly an objective observer, was he? Some expected there to be explosive files on the assassination, something that would point to the involvement of either the CIA or FBI or both. Realistically, they are hardly going to leave that information lying around the office, are they?
We may never know the truth. One thing is certain, though. The official line is very contradictory and full of flaws. Why this is, we may never know that either. The inventor of PR, Edward Bernays believed people are incapable of dealing with the truth and believed they should be kept in the dark. Maybe the CIA and FBI feel the same, perhaps the truth is too dangerous for the general population to comprehend. Maybe they are involved in some way. Possibly, the only people that could answer these questions are dead now and took the truth with them.
Democracy was destroyed that day in Dallas. Was it due to a dark conspiracy or due to one lone gunman? It seems unlikely one man, with no real motive, went through with this. However, unlikely does not mean impossible. The implications of the official line being wrong are huge. What if it wasn’t just Oswald? If true, why hasn’t this been investigated? It raises serious questions, not least, what if the most powerful in society are taking over to the detriment of the rest of us? Just because we ourselves might not harm others to get what we want in life, it doesn’t mean others won’t do the same. Especially when there is a chance they could get away wth it. There may not be an organisation that rules the world and can predict the future, but if you don’t think that rich and powerful people meet together to gain more control, you are seriously naive. Naivety may still live, but innocence died that day in Dallas.
Join the debate. Feel free to comment. You can also subscribe to the site and follow us on social media to stay in touch (on occasion, we are funny):