There is a declassified document that is a letter from J. Edgar and the name George Bush of the CIA is named in it. Bush denies it was him. Yet in the early 70's he is made director of the CIA.

It is a well known fact that Nixon on his infamous White House tapes mentions the "Bay of Pigs" many times in conversations. A number of insiders have told that it is code for the Kennedy assassination.

It is also believed that all 3 attended the famous meeting the night before the assassination at the home of Clint Murchison, the one where LBJ storms out declaring that "after tonight those goddamned Kennedys will never embarrass me again".

Of course the truth is, LBJ was the embarrassment and was going to be dropped from the 64 ticket and he knew it.

Many law enforcement officials said that had he not succeeded to the Presidency he most likely would have been indicted in Texas for numerous felony crimes.

Why are the following people in Dallas and won't explain there reasons for there presence on 11-22-63:

George H. W. Bush, Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover,

amongst others.

The most interesting, George H. W. Bush, was on a CIA Covert Mission. He won't explain what kind, and he soon was ushered on to China to get away from the area. Question: Who of these people most gained and are still gaining from the murder of Kennedy? Step up Bush family! You got a secret you been hiding? Don't you?

"If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the government, it will come from the C.I.A.

The agency represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone".

John F. Kennedy

i would recommend a book published in 2005 for those interested in the case,

ULTIMATE SACRIFICE by Waldron and Hartmann. Though its a tough read (almost 800 pages with a gazillion names) it is where we are at this point

43 years after the assasination. After

numerous reports, too many to mention, well over a million CIA records have

yet to be released and won't be until 2017. What is interesting is that this case refuses to die because if you believe the conspiracy theories then there are no protections for groups wanting to change the system whatever the constitution and the bill of rights might say. If you believe JFK, RFK and

Martin Luther King were all assasinated by right-wing lone gunmen you are the one who shouldn't miss your medication.

The link below is a MUST READ if you want to know what really happened. Make a special note of what the author says down at the bottom about in case anything happens to him.

http://www.mondovista.com/lbj/

All of this was filmed as a part of the BBC Series The Men Who Killed Kennedy. When the History Channel was going to air it, the Johnson family and other influentials in Texas managed to get it taken off the prgramming schedule. It has not been shown yet, but you can see it on youtube.

I personally know of a number of JFK researchers who have been threatened, had their mailboxes burned down, and either threatened or intimidated in other ways, and this is in recent years.

Now, if Oswald acted alone, why would this stuff still be happening? It would have ended with Oswald's death---end of story. But it didn't. The list of deaths grew and grew. The threats and intimidation of those who get close to the truth continue to this day. This is not melodrama---this is real life.

There is also one more VERY strong motive for murder----self defense. Many many fingers have begun to point at LBJ as the main source of the "hit". The Mafia and CIA/Military served as the best source of the "hitmen". The Warren Commission was the cover-up. There was no doubt LBJ was going to be indicted for crimes in Texas including his part in the murder of a county official investigating illegal cotton paybacks along with Billy Sol Estes. He was going to be dropped from the Democratic ticket in the 64 election. Being the VP would not have helped (remember Spiro Agnew). But being the President----the best cover of all. My main reasons for believing this are:

1. The words of Jack Ruby on film: "If Adlai Stevenson had been President Kennedy's Vice President, he would still be alive." "If you want to know what happened, look at the guy who has the top job now."

2. Written and recorded words of E.Howard Hunt naming LBJ as the main source of the assassination plot.

3. Book written by Barr McClellan (yes, father of Scott) "Blood, Money, and Power"--how LBJ killed JFK. McClellan worked for Ed Clark, LBJ's attorney in Texas who was trying to keep him out of prison. Ed Clark is also mentioned by E. Howard Hunt as a key figure in the assassination.

I also believe Hunt played a role in the assassination and his son believes he was one of the three "tramps" in the famous photo.

I have ofter wondered what action Kennedy performed that was the absolute clincher in the decision to assassinate the former president. I tend to think towards the deportation of Carlos Marcello (Mafia Don), the ties with the mutual mistress that he and Santo Traficante(Mafia)shared, and the document that would when implemented would shorten the Vietnam War. Violent crimes are comitted for one of three following reasons.Drugs, sex, money. Marcello was at the heirarchy of Mob Bosses with a drug record, Jealousy and rejection of a lover who is now in love with another has been the source of thousands of confrontations, and the money budgeted for the Vietnam war was in the billions. When it was shortened, somebody didn't get paid. All three could be a portion of the source for the final go ahead, but one of three would be serious enough in the assassins perspective to justify murder.

Below are links to two videos. One showing Ruby confessing that others forced him to kill Oswald, the other showing him telling a reporter that LBJ was behind the assassination. The first one has been shown on TV and in documentaries. The one showing him pinning the assassination on LBJ I had never seen before and I doubt many have. This is not a man saying he killed Oswald to spare Jackie the trauma of a trial. This is a man saying he was set up by others and forced into eliminating Oswald. Anyone who would try to spin Ruby's words any other way just isn't listening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-L5xYwb2ls

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2eucWXqjg

I'm just amazed that there are still so many conspiracy theories surrounding this. There seems to be a lack of acceptance among many people over 40 years later. There is NO REAL evidence to the contrary of what actually DID happen. The president was shot and killed by a single gunman, who acted ALONE - a relative 'nobody' who wanted to be 'somebody'. He was a trained sharpshooter, well able to make the shots he did. Like Oswald, Ruby also acted alone - there's no real evidence to the contrary.

One more thing about the Armstrong book, it has a CD-ROM that goes with it which shows all of the orginal documents and photos that he sought out both here and abroad that are the basis of his conclusions. That serves as his source. He just did not choose to do a detailed bibliography at the end of the book. Just because a book does not have a long detailed bibliography does not mean it is not well researched. The CIA was in the business of CREATING identities, making people appear and disappear to suit whatever espionage and spy games they were into at the time. E.Howard Hunt was classic CIA. He wrote quite a number of spy thrillers that were based on actual life experience. Remember Mission Impossible?? based on the life of E. Howard Hunt named "Ethan" in the movie. On his deathbed Hunt audiorecorded a statement in the presence of his son about the Kennedy assassination. He named LBJ as the main source of the hit, and named Cord Meyer as the main CIA operative. Cord Meyer's ex wife, Mary Pinchot Meyer, had a long term affair with Kennedy from January 1962 up to the time of the assassination.

Sorry, Steve, I did not mean to skip over you, but somehow I did.

You can think whatever about Armstrong's book, but it does explain alot about why Oswald was seen in so many places at the same time. And you cannot deny that those government issued photos of him are clearly TWO DIFFERENT MEN. Yet they say all of them are Lee Harvey Oswald. How can you ignore that?

Regarding ballistics and the whole thing, my whole problem with the case is that the government did not rely on experts to solve anything. They let Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission members decide how the President died. A man who was neither an eye or ear witness and who was not in Dallas that day. He knows nothing of ballistics, yet they allowed him to "sum up" the case and decide how Kennedy and Connally were both wounded.

You can clearly see in the Z film that when the President grabs his throat, Connally is looking back with a Stetson hat in his hand, the same hand they say suffered a shattered wrist. If that bullet had made both wounds, the Gov would not still be holding that hat. They ignored the doctor's accounts, the first ones to see the President after the shooting. Virtually all of the doctors have said repeatedly that the neck would appeared to be a wound of entrance and the wound in the back of the head appeared to be an exit wound. Pretty cut and dried if you ask me.

Bob,

Of course the scenario is preposterous not only with the head wound but also with the so-called single bullet. Remember, these were NOT experts who came up with these scenarios, they were NOT forensic scientists or pathologists or ballistics experts. They were government and political appointees hand picked by LBJ for the Warren Commission whose sole purpose it was to make all evidence and facts "fit" the lone gunman theory.

Please see the following link about Tom Wilson, a photo computer analysis expert who has been used by the Justice Dept and Federal Courts. His work and interview on The Men Who Killed Kennedy explain alot. He conducted in-depth scientific computer analysis of not only the Zapruder film stills but the autopsy photos and came up with some surprising findings. Of course, these don't "fit" the Warren Commission scenario so they were never really given serious consideration. Mr. Wilson expresses his frustration in the video series. He has since passed away.

http://www.jfklancer.com/dallas00/Dallas00spea.html

Your second point is not completely accurate. The bullet didn't exactly exit in an upward angle as you stated. Once the Western Cartridge Company 6.5mm bullet struck the President's skull it broke up into several smaller pieces and each were deflected in a variety of FORWARD directions. Some were deflected downward while others were scattered to the right front. Of course how a bullet reacts once it enters something like a human skull cannot always be predicted nor duplicated perfectly. But we DO know that all metallic particles were projected to the FRONT of the President. The two large and one smaller tracable fragments found on the floor of the limousine were found to the FRONT of the President's head--NONE were found behind and to the left (which one would expect if the president had been struck by a frontal shot--which he was not.) So the fact that all metallic particles were located to the front of the rear entrance wound simply proves that the fatal shot was fired from above and behind the president.

i don't get the bullet entering in the back of jfk's head in a downward angle and exiting out the right side of his head (upward ). the brain certainly wouldn't deflect a bullet , it's way too soft of tissue ??? am i just taking this to simple ?

I am currently reading the bestseller by Gov. Jesse Ventura, "Don't Start The Revolution Without Me." Interesting read. He doesn't believe any of the "lone nut" theories either, and also is questioning the official government version of 9/11. When the truth is finally known about 9/11, it will make the 60's assassinations look like small change, and I mean no disrespect by that. One thing though, Gov. Ventura is no dummy. He knew he could not express views like that if he were either a Democrat or Republican, that is why he became an independent. You will never EVER see either a Dem or

Rep question the government's official version of anything, NEVER.

Incidentally, when Jesse went to Cuba, he discovered he was being tailed by the CIA. They paid him a visit when he got back. His mission down there was purely humanitarian. He served his country as a Navy Seal. This administration's idea of patriotism is so screwed and has done so much damage, we may never recover our Democracy.

Steve, Read David Liftons Book Best Evidence if you want to know what happened. His theory explains everything.

Linda, you and I are approaching our study of the Kennedy assassination from two different universes. I disagree with virtually every single comment you made in your post for a variety of reasons. But let's look at your comments one at a time:

1. The 983 page book "Harvey and Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald" is in front of me right now. In this book John Armstrong claims that the CIA planned to merge the identity of a Russian-speaking refugee with that of American-born Lee Harvey Oswald over a period of many years. If the merging of

identities was successful, the CIA could then place the native Russian-speaking young man, with Oswald�s American identity, in the Soviet Union as a spy. Armstrong alleges that this Russian refugee successfully �defected� to the Soviet Union in 1959 and returned to the United States with a Russian wife in 1962. A year and a half later this young man was set up as the �patsy� in an elaborate

scheme engineered by career CIA officials to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. Armstrong says that �two days after the assassination of President Kennedy the Russian-speaking refugee, Harvey Oswald, was shot and killed by Dallas nightclub owner/CIA gunrunner, Jack Ruby. American born Lee Oswald was, and may still be, very much alive.

One of the problems I have with this book is that Armstrong did not give his readers a single source for even one thing you have just read. His reason: How do you cite or source something that does not exist?

Being a historian I always have a problem with people that write history with no proof to support it.

There is another major flaw in Armstrong's work: He doesn't tell us why, if CIA conspirators got the Russian refugee to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald, why wouldn�t they give him the same, identical name, Lee Harvey

Oswald. What could they possibly hope to gain by giving him a slightly different name�Harvey Oswald? Particularly when they went through all the trouble of finding a Russian refugee who looked almost exactly like Oswald. Wouldn�t giving them slightly different names only be counter-productive?

In addition, Armstrong doesn't bother to present in his book one single piece of evidence that the CIA

had anything to do with Kennedy�s murder. Nor does he tell us why, if the CIA conspirators were willing to kill, no less, the president of the United States, they would want to let the one person who could expose this elaborate scheme, (Lee Harvey Oswald), to possibly remain �very much alive.�

Although most conspiracy theorists and millions of Americans think Ruby silenced Oswald for the mob, Armstrong suggests that Ruby was much more connected to the CIA than the mob, and it was the CIA whom Ruby killed Oswald for. But he offers no credible evidence that Ruby had anything to do with the CIA, as a gunrunner or anything else. Perhaps most important, Armstrong doesn�t choose to tell us why this incredibly elaborate and difficult scheme was necessary. I mean, if the CIA were willing to frame the Russian refugee for Kennedy�s murder by setting him up as a patsy, why not simply frame the real Lee Harvey Oswald? After all, both the real Oswald and the imposter Oswald were, according to Armstrong, recruited by the same conspirators at the CIA and both were being �handled� by them.

Although Armstrong has the Russian refugee Harvey Oswald impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald for several years, Armstrong claims that in the months leading up to the assassination the CIA had Lee Harvey Oswald impersonating Harvey Oswald. Eventually, on the day of the assassination, Armstrong

has both Lee Harvey Oswald and Harvey Oswald, two people who are spitting

images of each other, in the Texas School Book Depository Building, Harvey

Oswald because he works there and Lee Harvey Oswald because he�s one of Kennedy�s assassins�other assassins, per Armstrong, being behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll. At the moment of the assassination, Harvey Oswald was in the second-floor lunchroom having lunch and Lee Harvey Oswald was on the sixth floor firing at Kennedy. It�s Harvey Oswald who was arrested for Kennedy�s and Tippit�s murders, even though, per Armstrong, he killed neither and Lee Harvey

Oswald killed both. (Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, pp.805, 807�808, 840�844,

848�850; in separate countries: p.371)

Then the plot becomes even more ridiculous, Armstrong now claims that Lee Harvey Oswald escaped arrest, but Armstrong doesn�t tell his readers what happened to him thereafter, though, as indicated, he tells them near the beginning of the book that he may be �very much alive.� Harvey Oswald, of course, is eliminated by the CIA hit man, Jack Ruby.

Then Armstrong compares comments about Oswald made by others through the years and concludes that whenever there is a difference of opinion about Oswald it must mean there were TWO Oswalds. As can be seen, Armstrong misleads his readers to help prove his theory. But even so, what�s his point? Let�s say you go through a period of liking country-western music; well, you better keep listening to Hank and Willie and Waylon 24-7 for the rest of your life, because if another witness happens to hear you enjoying rock and roll or easy listening, someone like John Armstrong

might come into your life claiming either that you are an imposter or that someone with the same name as yours is impersonating you.

Armstrong has the duplicate Oswald living in the midwest years and years before the president's trip to Dallas was ever even planned. In fact the imposter Oswald was talking to friends in North Dakota before President Kennedy was even a candidate for president. But was Armstrong claiming that the fake Oswald was planning to murder WHOEVER was president later in life? But that theory doesn't hold water either does it? How would Armstrong know that the CIA would want to eliminate the president in the early 1960s?

2. Linda, you wrote that you do not want to become a ballistics expert, a forensic specialist, or continuously get bogged down in trivia. But this is exactly HOW one understands historical events involving crimes. If I were talking about the dangers of eating fast food all the time, I would not be very convincing if it was my goal to NOT understand calories, fats, dietary rules, or cholesterol. To speak intelligently about the Kennedy assassination you HAVE to deal with the details of the evidence in order to understand this case. You HAVE to understand ballistics to understand where the bullets came from that were recovered at the crime, for if they were all traced to one and ONLY one rifle, then all talk of multiple gunmen is moot. You have to understand forensic evidence, for if ALL fingerprints belong to one person and only one person, and if thoer fingerprints are found on the murder weapon matched to the bullets then we know who fired the weapon that resulted in the deaths of the victims. These points are not trivia, they are evidence, and that is how the police, or historians solve mysteries. There are really not too many mysteries in history. Most so-called mysteries have already been solved by careful and agressive research. Such is the case with the Kennedy assassination as well.

I have mentioned several times before the book, Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong. This man put 40 years worth of research, travelled the world seeking facts and information. Mr. Armstrong's book is not that well known because he doesn't mass market it through conventional means. If you do an internet search you should be able to find it.

Research is only as good as your sources of information and their credibility as information gatherers. Two different people can read the same set of facts, yet draw different conclusions about any criminal case.

My quest in the JFK area is not to become a ballistics expert, a forensic specialist, or continuously get bogged down in trivia. It is rather, to make the connection that throughout history governments assassinate their leaders, create wars through false means, exploit land and natural resources, and control and manipulate money and markets in order to further the private interests of a wealthy few.

And now it looks as though the mass media has come along for the ride. There are still a few holdouts, but by and large we will never get the truth from the press. They are too intimidated by the power brokers. Our court system is also slowly being stacked and inhabited by right leaning judges and justices hand picked by neocons for the sole purpose of carrying out their political agenda. This is quite evident by the recent Atty General Gonzalez scandal and forced resignation and the abuses of the so-called Patriot Act.

We are slowly losing our country and our planet as we know it because we have entrusted our most sacred commonality, our democracy, to politicians and thieves.

If we do not have a fundamental shift in power in this country soon, we will be nothing more than slaves working harder and longer hours to further enrich the 3% of the people in this country who own 97% of the wealth.

But this isn't the really case is it Linda? There is not any evidence at all that "the government" assassinated Kennedy is there? ALL, and I mean ALL, of the physical evidence points to only one person (LHO) and there is not one speck of evidence that Oswald was working for the government is there? If there is such evidence please share it with us so we can decide for ourselves. I've studied the Kennedy assassination for thirty years and I've never read one credible connection with Oswald and the government. Not one.

And besides, your point of multiple gunmen is not historically accurate anyway because of the points I raised in my first question--where is the evidence of a frontal shot? If there is no evidence of any frontal shot (which there isn't) then the argument that multipel gunmen were working for the government is a moot point isn't it? IF there was evidence of a frontal gunman then talk of a conspiracy is warrented, but without any evidence of a frontal shot, then it is an exercise in futility to even entertain the idea of multiple gunmen.

(Incidentally when I capitalize a WORD, I am not shouting, I am adding caps the same as I were underlining a word if that possible with this font.)

Steve,

You are acting on the assumption that the perpetrators of the assassination might fear getting caught,i.e., firing from different directions. The people who carried this out knew there would never really by any kind of punishment, because when something is planned at the highest level of government, who are you going to go to?

Case in point, RFK. Dr. Thomas Nogucci, L.A. county coroner, has stated numerous times RFK was killed by a bullet fired from behind the right ear at no more than ONE INCH from the skin, powder burns proved that. Now, Sirhan was in FRONT of RFK. How much more basic can one get than that? Yet who has been sitting in San Quinton now for

40 years? The government will never conduct a serious investigation into anything in which they were a party---just look at Patrick Tillman, his parents are still looking for answers 4 years after the fact. The government used his death timed very conveniently as a distraction cover story because they knew the Abu Ghraib story was about to break wide open. The top dogs don't have to answer to anyone.