Did Hoover kill JFK?

[Jakub]

Presumably we can dispense with the magic bullet idea, that Oswald killed Kennedy.

Hoover's career is pretty exceptional. He served for life. No President, Democrat or Republican, dared tangle with him. It's believed that he had files on every major political player that were kept out of FBI records. He was, at the least, wary of the Mafia and at best, cozy with it. His "successes" against them had been few and far between. He was decidedly anti-semitic and could almost be labeled a Nazi sympathizer. His "successes" against the Nazis in the US were either fakes, or done without his knowledge.

He would have been one of the few people in the country with access to loyal, trained men - and men he could also blackmail. He could have set Oswald up as a patsy with relative ease, and his mob ties could explain the Ruby assassination. He'd have the power to cover up the conspiracy and to keep the next President, the considerably less idealistic LBJ, in line.

At the least, he was involved. If this was a CIA, communist, or mob operation, the FBI sure as heck displayed a remarkable degree of laziness and incompetence.

Thoughts?

[yes I'm bored]

[Jason McCullough]

Easily had the capability, but I can't imagine what the motive would be. Once his FBI started looking bad he totally kicked ass helping the civil rights movement, so I don't see how that would do it.

If this was a CIA, communist, or mob operation, the FBI sure as heck displayed a remarkable degree of laziness and incompetence.

A Washington Monthly article a while back that I can't find made a pretty good case the FBI has always been that way about stuff they don't have PR incentives to fix.

[Jakub]

Maybe JFK didn't like to play ball with Hoover?

I dunno, just throwing an idea out there. This forum's been too dominated by the same old topics lately :)

[Drastic]

It was the tiger.

[Damien Falgoust]

Chiiiiirist, this lame topic won't die.

One more time: Oswald shot Kennedy. He acted alone. There was no need for a "magic bullet." There was no massive coverup. Just a lone gunman in a book depository building.

See: Professor John McAdam's exhaustive JFK assasination site (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm).

See also: Judge Gerald Posner's Case Closed (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400034620/qid=1113364883/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-5665964-8219943?v=glance&s=books)

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, I agree with Damien, but wanted him to take the bullet first from you conspiracy freaks. :)

[russellmz00]

did anyone see that king of the hill episode where dale is reading the warren report to his son as a fairy tale, then when the kid asks a question, dale goes through an aemotional rollercoaster as he realizes he had the compass directions mixed up and the warren report did make sense?

[Ergo]

I agree with Damien as well. I laugh any time someone brings this crap up.

[Mike O'Malley]

I'm reminded of the Chapelle skit ripping off Deep Impact in which the President/Morgan Freeman disclosed that Oswald shot Kennedy using, in fact, a magic bullet.

[JeffL]

Posner's book is weak, as weak as many of the conspiracy books. He starts with an assumption then selectively pulls in data to support it, including some REAL stretches. I have tried to resolve Oswald acting alone, and poor old strip club owner/mob connected Ruby killing Oswald in public just because he was hurting so bad over Kennedy's death, but it just doesn't pass the smell test. I've read a bazillion books and papers on this, and while a lot of the conspiricy stuff is hokey, there's no doubt in my mind that there was some type of conspiracy involved.

[Bitterman]

It must be a conspiracy, because I just can't believe the facts and the research by a bunch of credible people who all seem to come to more or less the same conclusion. Why, it's just like the other day when someone told me that the kid from Wonder Years wasn't Marilyn Manson. They've gotta be lying! I obviously have complete confidence that anyone involved in the Kennedy conspiracy is obviously too powerful and wealthy and connected to bother to come clean 30-40 years later in exachange for what would surely be millions of dollars and incredible fame, because now that this threat to our democratic way of life is gone we have no worries about Happy Birthday Mister President and the mafia, Castro, the CIA, the FBI, the United Auto Workers 310, the Hare Krishna, and the D.A.R. all are upright honest conspirators with no interest or concience because the aliens, see, the aliens have all their FAMILIES in frozen storage and will conduct probes if anyone talks. Also the other bullets were made of MEAT!!!

[Damien Falgoust]

Posner's book is weak, as weak as many of the conspiracy books. He starts with an assumption then selectively pulls in data to support it, including some REAL stretches.
Care to cite a specific example?

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Considering how terrible large organizations are at keeping secrets, I have almost no doubt that Oswald acted without input from the CIA, Mafia, Cubans, FBI, Masons, or New York Yankees.

Troy

[SolomonGrundy]

fucking yankees. knew it. Couldn't deal with a Sox fan as president....

[JeffL]

It must be a conspiracy, because I just can't believe the facts and the research by a bunch of credible people who all seem to come to more or less the same conclusion.

Like the House Committe on Assassinations, who concluded after looking at all of the evidence and listening to all of the experts that "President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."?

[JeffL]

Posner's book is weak, as weak as many of the conspiracy books. He starts with an assumption then selectively pulls in data to support it, including some REAL stretches.
Care to cite a specific example?

I'll have to go dig it back out - I have it in a huge pile of books in boxes in the garage we haven't unpacked since the recent move (and I haven't read it in years.) I didn't dislike it because I'm a conspiracy fan, I disliked it because it was lousy research and reaches and tenuous conclusions. I dislike most of the conspiracy books for the same reason.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

It must be a conspiracy, because I just can't believe the facts and the research by a bunch of credible people who all seem to come to more or less the same conclusion.

Like the House Committe on Assassinations, who concluded after looking at all of the evidence and listening to all of the experts that "President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."?

IIRC, this conclusion placed heavy emphasis on a recording on a police radio that was thought to be somewhere (or sometime) it actually wasn't. So a "fourth shot" was heard. This was later proven a misunderstanding by the National Academy of Science.

Troy

[Damien Falgoust]

Like the House Committe on Assassinations, who concluded after looking at all of the evidence and listening to all of the experts that "President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."?
The same HSCA that found the following (http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hsc.htm)?:
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly, the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved in the assassination. Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination.

Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination. There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate, for example had been involved.

Furthermore, the HSCA's findings of conspiracy rested entirely on what they concluded was an echo of a fourth gunshot based on one police radio recording. That finding has since been debunked by audio experts at the National Academy of Science, who demonstrated that the echo was the result of cross-talk and could not have come from a shooter.

But don't take my word for it -- listen to the tapes yourself (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm).

[MattKeil]

Has there been a conclusive study on whether or not Oswald could have gotten the shots off that quickly and accurately? I know the conspiracy nuts always hang on to that one for dear life.

[Jason McCullough]

*One* of the Lee Harvey Oswalds acted alone.

[Toddy]

Has there been a conclusive study on whether or not Oswald could have gotten the shots off that quickly and accurately? I know the conspiracy nuts always hang on to that one for dear life.

That's always the thing that got me, too. Didn't he use some ancient bolt-action rifle? Wasn't he shooting from a pretty fantastic distance? I really couldn't care less about the Kennedy assassination, but the circumstances certainly seem odd, and it's never seemed like anyone has proved that those shots could be made with the rifle that Oswlad used.

[MattKeil]

Has there been a conclusive study on whether or not Oswald could have gotten the shots off that quickly and accurately? I know the conspiracy nuts always hang on to that one for dear life.

That's always the thing that got me, too. Didn't he use some ancient bolt-action rifle? Wasn't he shooting from a pretty fantastic distance? I really couldn't care less about the Kennedy assassination, but the circumstances certainly seem odd, and it's never seemed like anyone has proved that those shots could be made with the rifle that Oswlad used.

That's always been the big sticking point. For the shots to be as rapid as they were, the bolt-action rifle Oswald used would have been really difficult to use with any accuracy. He essentially would have had to have fired, ejected the shell and gotten the new one in place as fast as humanly possible, with no time left to realign for the second shot. Same deal for the third.

I'm no gun expert (or even a gun amateur), so I have no idea how true that claim is, but it does seem like some pretty amazing shooting from a bolt-action rifle. Then again, I'm sure there are some people in the world who are just that damn good, and it's entirely possible that Oswald, what with planning to kill the most powerful man in the world and all, could have been training for that moment for years beforehand.

[JeffL]

I'm willing to believe that Oswald got lucky, even though it would have been tough to shot that well, that quickly, with that gun. After all, even hitting him once with that kind of pressure would have taken at least some kind of luck for a non-pro like Oswald, and no one disputes that he hit him at least once or twice (OK, some people claim Oswald wasn't even a shooter, but I think almost all credible research shows that he was.) I've been up in the book depository and looked out the window and it doesn't look like an impossible shot although I can imagine that anyone would have been shaking in that situation. By the way - one of the most suprising things about Dealy Plaza when you visit there is just how small the Plaza is. It really is a tiny area in which all of this happened.

One of the things that most stinks for me is the "hit" on Oswald. I really did start out believing that Oswald did it himself. I was in college in the mid 70's after the Zapruder film came out and all of the conspiracy guys wrote their books and made their college tours and, while the physics of the head shot were fascinating (hey, I'm a science geek) I never got excited by the umbrella man and such suspicious activities. Yeah, it was odd that a guy stood there and opened an umbrella right before the shots, etc. but it could easily be a coincidence or have some explanation. But a strip club owner with mob ties (as all low rent strip club owners in that area in that time had) taking a gun and taking Oswald out, knowing he'd be arrested for murder with no chance of escape, just because he felt so bad for Jackie or because of his grief over JFK? No, I've never bought into any explanation that made sense on that one. Maybe Ruby was mentally ill, but it really just doesn't make any sense.

I don't know who did it, or why. I think that there are probably traces of truth in a lot of areas that don't neccessarily result in the stretches a lot of people make. But when I look at all of the evidence (been reading this stuff since 1974 or so, on both sides) I just don't think Oswald was alone.

[Damien Falgoust]

Has there been a conclusive study on whether or not Oswald could have gotten the shots off that quickly and accurately? I know the conspiracy nuts always hang on to that one for dear life.
There have been numerous re-creations of the shots, including one done by ABC a couple of years ago. It isn't a terribly difficult shot for someone with Marine rifle training, even with the old Mannlicher-Carcano rifle Oswald used.

Hell, it's in bad taste but supposedly very accurate in terms of ballistic modeling -- try the shots yourself, if you don't mind parting with five bucks: JFK Reloaded (www.jfkreloaded.com).

[Damien Falgoust]

Double post.

[Damien Falgoust]

But a strip club owner with mob ties (as all low rent strip club owners in that area in that time had) taking a gun and taking Oswald out, knowing he'd be arrested for murder with no chance of escape, just because he felt so bad for Jackie or because of his grief over JFK? No, I've never bought into any explanation that made sense on that one. Maybe Ruby was mentally ill, but it really just doesn't make any sense.
Sense or no, Ruby's reaction to Kennedy's assasination was well-established by witnesses who knew him. And Ruby was not a mobster; his ties to the mob were slight at best. And as noted, the Committee on Assasinations found no mob connection to the assassination.

I don't know who did it, or why. I think that there are probably traces of truth in a lot of areas that don't neccessarily result in the stretches a lot of people make. But when I look at all of the evidence (been reading this stuff since 1974 or so, on both sides) I just don't think Oswald was alone.
Again, based on what? You keep saying you've been looking at the evidence, but you never cite to any actual evidence for the proposition that there was a conspiracy. Your gut reaction doesn't mean jack -- show me facts, not feelings.

[shift6]

I believe there was no wide ranging conspiracy, but that a person or two from the Mafia and a person or two from the Cuba situation and a person or two from the US Government and so on did conspire together on their own (outside the pervue of their respective organizations) to facilitate the assassination. Oswald was the only shooter, had Marine rifleman training, used a solid bolt action rifle (probably in a rest position), firing at a very slowly moving target, and had complete surprise. I have no idea if Ruby was involved with the conspiracy. I base these beliefs on various books and documentaries I've read and seen, plus doing the tourism thing there in Dallas (as was said earlier in this thread, it really is a small area), plus my own attempt at plausible pragmatism.

[JeffL]

Again, based on what? You keep saying you've been looking at the evidence, but you never cite to any actual evidence for the proposition that there was a conspiracy. Your gut reaction doesn't mean jack -- show me facts, not feelings.

Sorry, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I've read all the books and had enough long drawn out discussions and debates on the Kennedy assassination over the last 30 years to last me for a while (my trip to Dealy Plaza was a long car drive with a buddy of mine who was convinced Oswald acted alone, with him and I arguing for hours for years, so we drove to Dallas to look at the details.) I was just stating that one of the problems I always had was Ruby's role, even after reading the voluminous testimonies. I've never bought that he really killed Oswald just to keep Jackie from having to come to Dallas to testify.

[russellmz00]

I've never bought that he really killed Oswald just to keep Jackie from having to come to Dallas to testify.

do you believe someone would shoot a prez for jodie foster?

[Bitterman]

Yes. Jodie Foster is the forerunner of an alien invasion whose sinister purpose is to undermine our government and take silent control, replacing specific individuals in key positions. The thousands of missing people every year are in actuality hosts for the nefarious genetic experiments carried on by these aliens. The aliens, working in conjunction with L. Ron Hubbard's cybernatic brain, the ACLU, and the American Society of Naval Enthusiasts, used the replaced Jodie Foster to send out subtle command signals in her movies in order to start in motion the plot that almost led to Reagan's demise. You see, Reagan's experience in acting made him too difficult to replace, since he was so familiar to most Americans. Thus he had to be removed. (Side note: Compare presidents when they start a term and when they finish! The alien replacement bodies age faster because of intergalactic physical constants, thus the replicant-presidents look much older!)

Now, I can't prove any of this, and no evidence has ever been found, but I have this Gut Feeling that I'm right. I'm sure the evidence is readily available if we could only get into the top secret government files.

[Bub, Andrew]

I thought Hinckley just misunderstood Taxi Driver. See, you shoot the candidate (Senator not President btw, but lets not get picky) to impress Cybil Shepherd. You kill the white pimp to impress Jodie Foster. Man, I hate killers who don't really get cinema.

[shift6]

I'm still pissed off that Mark David Chapman didn't hit Yoko.

[Toddy]

Sorry, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I've read all the books and had enough long drawn out discussions and debates on the Kennedy assassination over the last 30 years to last me for a while (my trip to Dealy Plaza was a long car drive with a buddy of mine who was convinced Oswald acted alone, with him and I arguing for hours for years, so we drove to Dallas to look at the details.) I was just stating that one of the problems I always had was Ruby's role, even after reading the voluminous testimonies. I've never bought that he really killed Oswald just to keep Jackie from having to come to Dallas to testify.

I wonder how many thousands of people have done that exact same thing over the past 40 years? That's one creepy tourist attraction. If I lived anywhere nearby, I'd have visited the scene of the assassination years ago.

[Brian Koontz]

I'm sure the evidence is readily available if we could only get into the top secret government files.

Conspiracy buffs have an incredible amount of faith in the long-term secrecy of the US government. If the Cold War was about any one thing it was about *spying*, and if I was a Soviet agent working within the US government I would have LOVED to uncover anything which showed the US government was withholding key information from its public, whether it have to do with Aliens, JFK, or anything else.

They failed to uncover anything big. This apparently is shrugged off by the determined watchdog "people of conspiracy faith".

[JeffL]

Sorry, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I've read all the books and had enough long drawn out discussions and debates on the Kennedy assassination over the last 30 years to last me for a while (my trip to Dealy Plaza was a long car drive with a buddy of mine who was convinced Oswald acted alone, with him and I arguing for hours for years, so we drove to Dallas to look at the details.) I was just stating that one of the problems I always had was Ruby's role, even after reading the voluminous testimonies. I've never bought that he really killed Oswald just to keep Jackie from having to come to Dallas to testify.

I wonder how many thousands of people have done that exact same thing over the past 40 years? That's one creepy tourist attraction. If I lived anywhere nearby, I'd have visited the scene of the assassination years ago.

It's a very odd feeling. It looks exactly like it does in the Zapruder film. I'd been reading about the assassination and watching documentaries, etc. for about 20 years at the time that I went, and it was a very unreal experience. Like I said, it is much smaller than I expected. Walking up from the road where Kennedy was shot to the grassy knoll, and the little gazebo like structure where so many pictures of "shadows" had been taken, sitting on the grassy spot where people watched the shooting, standing in the school book depository on the floor where Oswald stood and looking at the window and the area where he was, wondering what must have felt like for Oswald to have walked across that floor, knowing what he was about to do. It really brought all of the books (I've probably read 20 or more of them over the years) and documentaries and everything else down to earth; you realize this isn't just an intellectual debate, but something that really happened.

[JeffL]

What's funny is how many people here post on every little potential of a conspiracy and scheme in today's world ("hey, I'm not saying that the U.S. government really intentionally withheld information on that Italian journalist in order to have the Marines kill her, or that the military brass told the soldiers at the watch station that some terrorists could be coming that day, but it sure looks suspicious!") and yet on the same board so many people are convinced that there was nothing beyond two independant crazy people involved in Kennedy's assasination. That's not meant as a criticism of anyone at all, it just seems a little surprising.

[shift6]

Good point jeff, but there's also a difference between conspiracies which (may have) just happened and haven't been uncovered yet, and ones which have eluded all public knowledge for 40-50 years. :)

[Damien Falgoust]

What's funny is how many people here post on every little potential of a conspiracy and scheme in today's world ("hey, I'm not saying that the U.S. government really intentionally withheld information on that Italian journalist in order to have the Marines kill her, or that the military brass told the soldiers at the watch station that some terrorists could be coming that day, but it sure looks suspicious!") and yet on the same board so many people are convinced that there was nothing beyond two independant crazy people involved in Kennedy's assasination. That's not meant as a criticism of anyone at all, it just seems a little surprising.
It would only be surprising if the same people were doing both things. I, for one, certainly haven't.

Give me evidence, not conjecture, and then I'll buy into a conspiracy theory.

[Funkman]

I think Damien is in on the whole thing.


:wink:

[JeffL]

I think Damien is in on the whole thing.


:wink:

Yeah, I agree. I think he protests too much. ;)

Seriously, I'd get into the whole back and forth on the assassination and drag out all the arguments on both sides because it is a lot of fun, but I just don't have the passion on this that I used to have and don't really care what people believe anymore - I know what my interpretations are after all these years and that's good enough for me.

[Peter Olafson]

I don't see much evidence to support the Hoover theory. Motive and means don't mean much is the absence of actual evidence.

On the other hand, ample evidence exists suggesting that Oswald did not act alone--possibly not at all--and that he may well have been, as he claimed, a "patsy." I refer those interested in a thoughtful, well-reasoned and well-supported account to Anthony Summers' "Conspiracy" (McGraw-Hill; 1980) and to a follow-up article in Vanity Fair (December '94).

Peter

[Damien Falgoust]

I don't see much evidence to support the Hoover theory. Motive and means don't mean much is the absence of actual evidence.

On the other hand, ample evidence exists suggesting that Oswald did not act alone--possibly not at all--and that he may well have been, as he claimed, a "patsy." I refer those interested in a thoughtful, well-reasoned and well-supported account to Anthony Summers' "Conspiracy" (McGraw-Hill; 1980) and to a follow-up article in Vanity Fair (December '94).

Prof. McAdams describes Summers as a well-intentioned but gullible researcher. Here's a sample debunking of Summers' work (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/plate.htm).

At any rate, "ample evidence" of any such thing does not exist, at least not unless "evidence" includes wild conjecture based on random association.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm still boggling that Oliver Stone based a whole movie on that ridiculous "group of gay men jealous of kennedy's hotness" theory.